Category:California people in food and agriculture occupations[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. All are now in California categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The current title sounds wrong (Californian people). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not part of a regular system. There is no clear reason to mix wine makers and restaurant owners. The fact that there is not Category:American people in food and agriculture occupations tells me that this is an irregular formation with no real justification. Also, with three entries there is no reason to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPL, after ensuring that each person is in at least one California-specific category, even if it is just Category:People from California. The closest national-level categories we have are Category:American food industry businesspeople and Category:American health care businesspeople, but it would be better to split those further by occupation rather than state. In addition, the stated scope of these categories is too broad to be useful as anything other than a container category. Food and agriculture occupations can include farmers, waiters, grocers, cooks, pizza delivery drivers, truck drivers, agricultural engineers, and genetic engineers. Likewise, health professions includes doctors, nurses, pharmacists, home care workers, paramedics, researchers, gym trainers, nutritionists, and many others. From the food/agriculture category: I added Del Dotto to Category:American winemakers and Gomez and Mardikian to Category:American restaurateurs, which has 200 articles and, so, could be split by state in the not-too-distant future. From the health category: I added Blumlein to Category:Physicians from California; Cogswell and Sears are in Category:American dentists and Category:American pediatricians, respectively, neither of which is large enough (yet) to require splitting by state; and Allen was a psychiatric nurse, but it's not clear whether that categorization would be defining for him. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/DeleteWP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. Both categories add an unnecessary amount of depth with arbitrary intersections of profession and location. Brad7777 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 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: The current name is exceedingly awkward, and implies "dance occupations from California", not "people form California whose occupations are sorted under Category:Dance occupations. The proposed name is an admittedly somewhat broader brush but avoids the ambiguity and awkwardness, while following the "Foo from Bar" standard used for this sort of category. The BushrangerOne ping only 22:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, maybe merge all to Category:American dancers. I am not sure we subdivide that category by state, so we should n0ot assume this category's existence means we should do so. As it is, this category name suggests it is dance occupations done only or primarily in California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:American dancers, per JPL. (All five articles currently are in Category:American dancers but the membership may change between now and whenever the discussion is closed.) We do not currently subdivide Category:American dancers by state and, in my opinion, should not do so. After all, there is no connection between being a dancer and being 'from California'. We should, at least, first arrive at a clear understanding of what it means to be a dancer from California: should Category:Dancers from California contain dancers who were born in California, lived in California, or danced in California? Should we categorize someone like Heather Morris, who was born in Arizona, grew up in Arizona, learned to dance in Arizona, and then moved to California at age 19, as a dancer from Arizona, California, or both? (I've started a wider discussion about this issue at Category talk:American people by occupation by state.) -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:12, 25 July 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.
I noticed this one last week while attempting to do some cleanup on a whole convoluted mess of Ponce-related categorization; in actual fact, there seems to be a comprehensive (and massively overdone) set of "Occupation from Ponce" categories — including artists (and a separate sub for painters), attorneys, businesspeople, civil servants, clergy, educators, historians, industrialists, journalists, military personnel, musicians (and a separate sub for singers), nationalists, philanthropists, politicians, sportspeople and writers (and a separate sub for poets). It all seems awfully WP:OCATty to me, and Ponce is the only city in Puerto Rico whose "people from" category is broken down so exhaustively. (It's one of the few cities in the entire world, for that matter, whose category is so granulated; even New York City, which is about 100 times larger than Ponce, has fewer occupational subcategories than that.) Quite frankly, I think some or most of them should probably get canned right alongside this one. Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There was nothing convoluted in the work you were doing, but simply, like someone who brings a particular type of expertise, you were able to recognize that poets go under writers, painters under artists, and singers under musicians and accommodated them accordingly; before your work, those 6 Cats were listed at the same hierarchical level. So, you did your work and moved on to improve the encyclopedia elsewhere. But using words like "massively overdone" is just POV and reflective of a failure to understand the information involved: Ponce is a County that consists of 31 barrios (villages), much like "Burt County, Nebraska" in the "Category:People from [village of] Decatur, Nebraska" that follows this nomination, and as a County, Ponce has a large number of people that have been notable in their field. The POV word "awfully WP:OCAT" would make sense of, like Decatur, the Cat from Ponce consisted of a listing at a barrio/village level, but this is a Cat a the Ponce County level and considering that the "People from Ponce, Puerto Rico" category consisted of some 300 people prior to when these cats were created, it is justified for this Category to prevail. It is also justified in that Ponce is a large city, the second largest in PR to be exact. But, again, being the only city in PR so exhaustively categorized means nothing more than the fact that a Wikipedian knowledgeable about, say, San Juan, PR, (the only city in Puerto Rico larger than Ponce) hasn't come along to work on its subcategorizations. In summary, despite your attempts to linking the category "Architects from Ponce" to the WP:OCAT guideline the arguments you made were all strictly subjective. BTW, New York is only 49 times larger than Ponce, not 100 as you claimed, so please, let's deal with facts only and not exaggerate for effect. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
I totally agree. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Keep. - #1 - The charge of WP:SMALLCAT is no longer valid: while there were only 2 entries in the Cat when the nomination was made, the Cat has now grown to 8, so the "no potential for growth", which is the basis of the SMALLCAT guideline, no longer applies here: there has been a 4-fold increase in its members. (Unfortunately, we don't have the equivalent of a "stub" tag in the Cat namespace for Cats that are still in the process on being populated.) And #2, As for the ambiguity claim, the category is not ambiguous at all, and the entries at the header of each of those 2 categories have always explained how the 2 Cats differed: (1) "Architects of Ponce" => those that created the Ponce Creole architectural style & (2) "Architects from Ponce" => those that (as everywhere else in the encyclopedia) were born in Ponce. And #3, yes, it is true as the nominator claims that the "Articles are already in Category:People from Ponce, Puerto Rico", but that is because the nominator place them there himself ([1] & [2]) in the process of creating his nomination, apparently in an effort to provide "ammunition" for his nomination,,, pretty sneaky seems to me. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Nothing sneaky about it, and no "providing ammuniton" intended. Just that otherwise it would be needed to propose a double upmerge, and so I went ahead and added the category so that that would not be necessary if this passed. I find your lack of good faith disturbing. That said, though, now that the category is sufficently populated, nomination withdrawn. - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Merge there is no precedent for subdividing archeticts within a non-indepdendent territory of the type that Puerto Rico is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh? Since when does the WP:CAT guideline say that we are to use political debates of a country in the categorization process? Let's not get into a political discussion here; this is a discussion on the merits of the proposal made by the nominator above - not politics. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Actually the category Category:American architects does indeed have 43 subcats by states, one of them being Pennsylvania. And the Category:Architects from Pennsylvania does categorize architects by the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburg. So, the "no precedence" argument you are presenting is incorrect.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Comment I admited there is a subdivision of the United States, but that is not the same as subdividing a possesion of the United States. The Pittsburgh/Philadelphia cats do not prove that this is an established pattern. I really see no reason to do architect/city overlap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find your statements interesting: No one is saying you did not admit there was a subcategory in the US for architects, namely at the state level. What I stated was that your original argument of "there is no precedent for categorizing architects by city/municipality" was incorrect. And you were shown that a precedent had indeed been set previously. Now that you were shown you were incorrect (not that it had any bearance on this topic because precedence is not a requirement for adding new categories anyway), you are now arguing to imply that even if there is a precedent set, what is required is an established pattern. OK, actually, we don't need precedents or established patterns to get things done (like a precedent wasn't needed to send a man to the moon, or to start the Wikipedia article protection policy, etc.): you are arguing something that has no basis in Wikipedia policy - even Wikipedia guidelines. Also, you are alluding to issues of political nature ("non-independent territory", "possession of", etc). Excuse me, but this is not a political forum, or a place for arguing that states can be subcategorized by city but territorial possessions cannot. Now let's get on to what this discussion is actually about...The reasons why the Category:Architects of Ponce, Puerto Rico should prevail, and they are [And note that, in any event, the nomination to merge Category:Architects from Ponce to Category:Puerto Rican architects was withdrawn above by the nominator]: (1) Its Innovation: The city/municipality on question produced, or was host to, a breed of architects credited with creating an entirely new architectural style, the Ponce Creole style; (2)Its Relevance: The city/municipality in question, though it has only 5% of the country's population, produced, or was host to, half the architects in Puerto Rico (see Category:Puerto Rican architects); (3)Its Uniqueness: The city in question has the only Museum of Architecture in Puerto Rico; (4)Its Notability: The architecture museum in the city in question is only one of three architecture museums - in the world - that are Listed in the National Register of Historic Places. No other place (whether China, Hong Kong, or the states in the U.S.) can claim these 4 reasons simultaneously to justify categorizing at a level lower than the state level. So, yes, the category is valid and should be kept - merging with anything that has been stated so far would result in a void. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Comment. First of all, you probably meant merge Category:Architects from Ponce with Category:Architects of Ponce, Puerto Rico, since a category cannot be merged into itself. With that said, the defining characteristic of the Category:Architects of Ponce, Puerto Rico is architects who actually participated in the creation of the Ponce Creole architecture, as such your suggested merging would not be correct since only 2 of the 6 architects in Category:Architects from Ponce (Francisco Porrata-Doria and Alfredo Wiechers Pieretti) actually participated in that movement. But, equally important, your basis that "the distinction between the two categories is too narrow" is incorrect: the two categories are entirely different. The category Architects of Ponce contains 10 architects traditionally associated with the creation of the Ponce Creole architectural style, and most of them -- 8 of the 10 -- were not from Ponce at all. On the other hand, the category Architects from Ponce, contains 6 architects, and only 2 of them participated in the creation of the Ponce Creole style. Due to such overlaps, at one extreme, and incongruences at the other extreme, would not make feasible merging the two without the lost of information. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
New Vote merge both of the Ponce categories. On further thought I have decided that architects is a broad enough occupation category to justify having the by city level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of course architects is broad enough to categorize them by city. However, you are now proposing that Architects from Ponce and Architects of Ponce be merged. But that is like proposing that Category:Architects from Washington, D.C. and Category:Architects of the Capitol be merged. It doesn't work that way: whereas one cat addresses a characteristic of the specialty of the profession (architectural style), the other cat addresses a characteristic of the architect (birth place). As such the two cats are legitimate. And even more so, now that Category:Architects of Ponce, Puerto Rico is under nomination by another nominator to be re-categorized as a subcategory of Category:Architects by style (go HERE and enter your opinion). In the meanwhile, I suggest you make you "New Vote" clear, for what you are now saying is that you, too, oppose the nomination to upmerge Category:Architects from Ponce to Category:Puerto Rican architects.
My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. These categories have a very low population, as do the cities they represent, and are best merged into the applicable county category. The BushrangerOne ping only 21:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William 00:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The agreement is that with few people from specific places they should be categorized by county.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 21 July 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:Rename. Only parent is Category:Germanic neopaganism. The term heathen is ambiguous, cf. Norwegian Heathen Society which is an anti-religious group. Alternatively, the spelling could be organisations. __meco (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tweaking the nomination according to this suggestion. __meco (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per revised nom. The original title is too potentially large but at the same time meant to be more focused.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 21 July 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:upmerge to Category:People from Zaporizhia Oblast. If there are more articles found or created which could justify this category, it can be recreated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 Entries Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the creator of Category must say that there will be no other people in it. Most of them in ruwiki and ukwiki are not so important for enwiki. So there is no reasons to leave the category.--Divega (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contrary to what Divega says, if someone is notable enough to be in the Russian or Ukraininan wikipedia they should be notable enought to be in the English wikipedia. Notability is not subject to having been noticed in any way in publications within a specific language. Wikipeida is supposed to be a world-wide work, and in theory the contents should be the same from language to language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ugh? The issue here is not whether the 2 articles in question should be or should not be in the English encyclopedia, but whether -- considering the WP:SMALLCAT guideline -- there is a reasonable expectation that the category Category:People from Huliaipole will grow any larger, and the creator has already stated above that <<No, "there will be no other people in it.">> My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Actually, JPL's comment is very relevant in that there is a reasonable expectation for more people to be in it. The question is whether or not more articles are likely to be added to it beyond the two already in it - which there is. Being notable in one language is being notable in all. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Cat creator above, which supports nominators position. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Keep - per JPL and that the logical upmerge target is likely too broad a scope. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I'd like to explain my previous statement. Now there are only two people in this category. And if more people will appear the category can be returned, but at he moment it is redundant information.--Divega (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that I understand your comment, Divega. Are you saying that you support the category be a "Delete" because it currently has only two entries but that, in the future, the Category should be recreated if additional articles about notable People from Huliaipole are created? Is that correct? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
That is right. I mean that in a distant future somebody from Huliaipole could be famous and category could be created again. At the moment I agree with Sfan00 IMG that two people don't need a special category for them. Anyway, they are mentioned at Huliaipole page.--Divega (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People from Zaporizhia Oblast, or just delete since both category members already are there. Regardless of whether the category is likely to contain more articles in the future, the fact is that currently it contains just two (three, if we add Simon Karetnik) and does not fill any hole in an established category scheme. (The fact that other Wikipedia editions have articles does not necessarily mean that they are notable; yes, notability is not restricted by the language of the sources, but the existence of a Wikipedia article is not an indication of notability.) The category can be recreated if there are additional articles with which it can be populated. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to ruwiki he was born in a small village Shagrovo from Huliaipole district but not Huliaipole exactly.--Divega (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where a person was born is not the issue in deciding where they are from. On the other hand, actually the issue is how large the category is likely to become, not how large it is now. If we used the later than categories would just be deleted when they were first formed if the potential articles had not all been created yet. The over categorization rules do clearly state that the issue is "unlikely to grow" not being small in and of itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but nothing prevents us from upmerging categories that were created prematurely and recreating them when the time is right. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually once a category is mered there is a percieved consensus against it existing, that may be hard to overcome.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 9 August 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.
Comment the meaning of the two categories is different though. "Selective-fire" is a subcategorization of "machine shotgun". Selective fire meaning you can choose manual, semi-auto, burst, auto (or some subset thereof) of firing mode. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on nominating the article for renaming following the merger. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should go ahead and nominate the article for renaming, so we can consider the best location for it as well, and so perhaps determine the result for these three categories here -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having two different nominations at once can be confusing. Best to let this one close, then C2D the result. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what you want to call the article, it may not be a C2D matter. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to do it before even opening the categories to discussion. But since it is open, then opening a discussion on the article naming would be needed. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 07:44, 20 July 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:Procedural close, category does not exist. The BushrangerOne ping only 23:51, 16 July 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: more descriptive and grammatically correct Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 07:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator....William 15:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the proposed target is that it could be misinterpreted to be about use/management of the devices. e.g. Regulation of an anaesthetic machine would be about regulating the appropriate mixture of medical gases. A possible alternative is Category:Medical device law. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I created this category. I am Ok/indifferent with Eastlav's proposal; Beeswaxcandle, I work in this field and can assure you that the term "regulations" is preferred, in this context, over the word "law". --MarmotteiNoZ 01:07, 19 July 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 26#Category:Machine shotguns. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)