Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 24 November 26 >

November 25[edit]

Books by country[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: keep most, but rename "author" to "writer." There is no agreement to make the nominator's change, but several editors suggest that "author" should be changed to "writer" throughout. I will also process some other "(nationality) books by author" categories--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Group 1 - nationalities that are also language names

And possibly:

Group 2 - nationalities that aren't also language names
  • Rename group 1 - these nationality adjictives are also names of languages; in the case of books, it looks like these may be intended as such. No opinion about group 2, but I listed them due to a recent nomination, where some users indicated that such categories should be renamed along with the others. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Resolve ambiguity between language used, topic and place of production. So question: Why "from"? Why not "about"? What defines the from-object? Printing? Place where written? ChemTerm (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm all for clearing up ambiguity, particularly where that monstrous phrase "English literature" is concerned (which seems to encompass Scots, Welsh and Irish)... but can I suggest that the preposition here is the main issue... i.e. "Books from England", rather than "Books in English".
Regarding group two, some of these are ambiguous, e.g. Scottish could be confused with Lowland Scots or Scottish Gaelic, and Egyptian could certainly be construed as a language (albeit ancient, or perhaps Coptic). Haitian could also be confused with the local Creole. Slovenian, however, is arguably a language in its own right. Also, minor point, "British" does not mean "UK", there are works from the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, which some would argue are "British", however, none of these form part of the UK.--MacRùsgail (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. The current names are all too ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - oh what a tangled web we weave. Dearie, dearie me, this is turning a fankle into a shambles. The proposition is effectively trying to turn a nationality-based system into a country-based one, which is highly inappropriate for most culture-based topics. Robert Louis Stevenson wrote The Master of Ballantrae in French Polynesia, while Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four on the Scottish island of Jura. Now, the former is undoubtedly a "Scottish book", but is it a "Book from Scotland"? The latter would, under the proposed new system, be categorised as a "Book from Scotland", and while few scholars doubt the importance of Jura to Orwell's creative juices, I don't think that Orwell himself would ever have considered himself a Scottish author, and he is definitely not considered to be one by either Scots or the world of literature. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Books by Armenian authors, Category:Books by American authors, etc. The books themselves neither have nationality nor are they really from anywhere. It is the authors who have nationality, and so we should make it obvious that that is what is being designated by the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nationality is too vague. I saw Welsh and Dalmatian in nationality categories. Use "Books by citizens of FooCountry". Citizenship is much better defined than nationality. Not? ChemTerm (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. Unless we are speaking only of post-World War II, post-colonial nation states, the concept of citizenship is complicated, and subject to the vagaries of politics. The Bondwoman's Narrative was written by a slave, who would not have been recognized as a citizen of the United States. Nevertheless, its author could be described as none other than American, like the story itself. - choster (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would make James Joyce among others British, not to mention any American authors pre-1766. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think that "Armenian authors" has the same nationality/language problem as "Armenian books"; I think that if we go this way, it would need to be "Books by authors from Armenia", and so on with group 1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per good rationale given by Mais oui!. Current name is not perfect but is certainly better than the proposed one. - Darwinek (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Books by American writers, Category:Books by French writers etc. It just crossed my mind that we use the term writer in wikipedia. As long as we have Category:American writers and Category:French writers we can do the books by x authors cat. We should also agree to in most cases limit books to only one nationality category per writer. If a book was written by an American wirter with a French co-writer than it could be in more than one category. However books by John A. Widstoe (I am not sure if we have an article on Word of Wisdom (book) for example, but we probably could) should be under Category:Books by American writers since although he was born in Norway he was clearly an American writer. There might be a few books where limiting the writer to one nationality is not really possible, but in general we should try to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another reason for this proposal is that a large number of books are categorized by who the author is, so to some extent these categories are grouping together various authors more than books specifically.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with JPL. Books don't have a nationality as such. We might think of Don Quixote as a "Spanish book" but it holds no passport and has no self-conception. Don't categorize the books by country or place or nationality or any other variation. (This is likely true of films and music as well). Instead categorize them by the nationality (i.e. citizenship [but perhaps also cultural indentity]) of its primary creator(s). --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both per several above. "Books by Fooish authors" might be acceptable.
  • Oppose -- This is a misconceived nom. We need to work out how we are categorising the nationality of a book, then split them according to whether the nationality applies to the subject matter, the author, or the language in which it is written. Having done so, we could consider renaming some. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:English books has a heading that says "This category is for books written by English authors. Books written in the English language by authors from other countries should not be categorized here, but instead in the corresponding country category." It seems from that that we have already worked out what this category is for, which is apparently Category:Books by English writers more or less. I don't think we need to put "written" between book and by since we are defining the people involved as writers. The one complicating issue is books not written, and aritcles that are more on a specific edition of a book (I noticed several of those in Category:Armenian books, which also is differently defined as "Armenia related books".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this is a large change which appears to raise questions about definition. This change was discussed before here. As no-one has notified editors of specific pages I am notifying WP:BOOKS. The proposer should also consider raising this with the country pages and notifying the half-dozen participants of the earlier discussion. Ephebi (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons given by Mais oui. Dimadick (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think there is a compelling case to disturb the current categorisation.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose also per Mais oui. Many of the Irish books were never published in the Republic of Ireland having been written pre-1922, so where would one now categorise them? Silliness abounds. ww2censor (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what do you think of my proposal based on the fact that books in and of themselves lack nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 11 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.

Category:Caste system by country[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: keep. (WP:NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Society categories are split "by nationality" rather than "by country". The Nepal category is the only sub-cat not currently using an adjective; its parent is Category:Nepalese society. – Fayenatic London 18:28, 25 November 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:French people of Armenian 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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. What is targeted is citizenship - SAY SO. What is targeted is partial Armenian descent - SAY SO. ChemTerm (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The category conforms to the usual “French people of XXX descent” format and similar categories for other countries (and are understood as not necessarily being of 100% XXX descent). Hugo999 (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the others are misnomers too, then they shall be changed as well. ASAP. "(and are understood as not necessarily being of 100% XXX descent)" You see, you misunderstand it yourself. The category description is "This page lists French citizens of partial Armenian ancestry or national origin. For those of half or more descent see Category:French Armenians." - It excludes the 100%. Something that I didn't expect when reading the title. If the category only includes non-100% SAY SO in the title. ChemTerm (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name works. The new name is needlessly long and convoluted. I would oppose any rename, but if there were a desire to have a rename, it should be done to other French people of x descent like Category:French people of Italian descent categories. The current name works, the proposed name is just too long and difficult to use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • False - it doesn't work. It does not fit with the content. ChemTerm (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:French Armenians does not conform to the existing schema (there is no Category:Hungarian Armenians or Category:Italian Armenians, nor should there be as those category names are confusing: are French Armenians French citizens with Armenian forebears? or are they Armenian citizens with French forebears?). Category:French Armenians should be merged into Category:French people of Armenian descent. Wikipedia should not be categorizing people along purebreed lines ("fullblood" vs "halfbreed"). What purpose would be served by making that distinction in the categorization tree? And "half or less" is an arbitrary distinction. Dezastru (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Categories cannot work with scientific precision, especially when it comes to ethnicity. Trying to make it so will result in a mess even worse than what we currently have in the "descent" categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP's assertion of descent with the One Drop Rule. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - we should not try to establish a blood qurom. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Another nomination that does not improve the category system or its purpose of providing navigation to articles. The current names/siblings, etc are serving this purpose. Hmains (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as now -- This is part of a well established category system. It can be applied to descendants whehter they are 100% Amenian descent or 25% or less. A person of mixed race can have several such categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we do also have Category:French Armenians. Whether or not we should also have that category is an open question. The problem is that Armenianess is almost as much an ethno-religious designation as Jewishness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 29 November 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:Mayors of Victoria, Texas[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, but without prejudice to re-creation if can be populated with more than one article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category has only one entry. ...William 15:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge but also to Category:Mayors of places in Texas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, although I'm not personally familiar with it Victoria seems to be a rather sizable city, large enough that its mayors should, in principle, qualify for articles on here under WP:POLITICIAN. I can't be entirely certain whether we really only have one article about a mayor of the city, or whether there are others lurking on here who just haven't been properly categorized yet — I do know that there are about 25 or 30 articles that both link to Victoria, Texas and are filed in one or more subcategories of Category:Texas politicians, though I haven't yet checked each one to see whether some of those people were mayors or not. But even if we don't have other articles about mayors of Victoria, we can and probably will in the future. Accordingly, if additional mayors can be found who just haven't been categorized here yet then keep; if not, then upmerge per nom but do so without prejudice against recreation if we get more articles about mayors of Victoria in the future. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge without prejudice to recreation, or Keep if the cat starts to grow while this is still open. This search seems to provide a reliable source for a handful more, but we don't seem to have articles for any of them. --Qetuth (talk) 03:39, 29 November 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:Pennsylvania crime history[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:Crime in Pennsylvania. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a recently created sub-cat of Crime in Pennsylvania and History of Pennsylvania and I'm struggling to see the need. I can't forsee a case where something in the sub-cat shouldn't directly be in Crime in Pennsylvania NtheP (talk) 15:26, 25 November 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:User:Greatuser[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category to list user's subpages.. uncommon practice. Tito Dutta (talk) 11:49, 25 November 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:Personae non gratae[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. I have done this, but quite a bit more work needs to be done to integrate this list into the running article text.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Personae non gratae to article List of people declared persona non grata
Nominator's rationale: Convert. Most of the individuals currently included in this category are miscategorized, as they do not fit the narrow definition of being diplomats formally declared personae non gratae. Further, many of the articles do not indicate which if any sources verify the persona non grata categorization. In the cases of the several individuals in the category who are still living, this poses a likely WP:BLPCAT violation. The persona non grata status also is not a defining characteristic for most of the individuals currently in the category. The List of people declared persona non grata, by contrast, does not require that members of the list be or have been diplomats, and inclusion in that existing list would allow for better/more explicit sourcing as well as annotation for explanations of circumstances related to the declarations; inclusion in the list also does not require that the status be a defining characteristic of the listed member. Dezastru (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert/merge as proposed. It's impossible to make sense of the declarations without knowing what they are, which that category cannot provide. I laso see that the category is, as usual, populated by some people who are so categorized without justification, which the list article (at least as it is now written) renders impossible. Mangoe (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per Mangoe. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the current category as not acceptably maintained and not fitting normal categorization schema. The list exists, but since there are major problems with many of the current categorizations, I see no reason to convert the existing material to the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert as nominated. I've long wondered about this category for the reasons discussed; I'm glad someone finally had the sense to know what to do with it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert The list may need some work, but I don't think a category is the right way to collect these articles - context and references are needed. --Qetuth (talk) 03:19, 29 November 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:Hindi films of 2011[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:Hindi-language films and Category:Indian films of 2011. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no other categories for any other year of Hindi-language films (Category:Hindi-language films), and Category:English-language films has no similar method of sorting. Odie5533 (talk) 09:10, 25 November 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:English as a foreign or second language[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. The article remained at English as a second or foreign language after a discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME. Google Books returns 237,000 hits for "English as a second or foreign language", but only 20,100 hits for "English as a foreign or second language". — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why second, why not third. Looks arbitrary. Rename to Category:English as a non-native language. ChemTerm (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Second language actually means any language learned after the first language, and "non-native language" isn't used very much in the literature. Google Books gets 134,000 hits for "non-native language", 374,000 hits for "second or foreign language" and 3,070,000 hits for "second language". — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 21:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "English as a Second Language" is the historical terminology for the subject, and the term still most widely used in the U.S., Canada, and Australia among others. It refers to the teaching of English to immigrants and refugees as a second "native" tongue as opposed to "English as a Foreign Language," referring to English instruction in regions where English is not the mother tongue of the local population. In any case, if English as a foreign or second language#Terminology and types is reliable, there is no universally accepted umbrella term for the teaching of English in all such contexts: ESOL, EFL, EAL, ELT, EIL, ELF, et al. "English as a non-native language" appears to have no academic currency at all.- choster (talk)
    Yes, the terminology is thoroughly confusing, and I kind of wish that people could just go back to the drawing board and start again. In terms of numbers on Google Books, "English as a second language" is the most popular, with 916,000 hits, followed by "English as a foreign language" at 406,000 hits; "English as a second or foreign language" lags behind with 239,000 (I get a different result than the 237,000 I got earlier on another computer, go figure). I prefer "English as a second or foreign language" to the first two, however, as it removes the ambiguity between "second" and "foreign" languages. The only other term used in the English as a second or foreign language article for this kind of English is "English for speakers of other languages", which gets 14,600 hits. I'm not aware of any other terms that are in wide use (unless we get onto the subject of actually teaching English, which opens up a whole new can of worms). For full disclosure: yesterday I moved the English as a foreign or second language article to the current name English as a second or foreign language, so the name of the article at the moment probably shouldn't have too great a bearing on this discussion. Also, in case anyone was wondering, this is Mr. Stradivarius, and Mr. Stradivarius on tour is my alternative account. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there is currently a requested move discussion open about the corresponding article, English as a second or foreign language. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with ESL and EFL forms since these are the ones people actually use. I am neutral on the order, but think that the current name or reversed order of second and foriegn is clearly the way to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's a choice between "English as a foreign or second language" and "English as a second or foreign language", then I think the latter is the way to go. It is used much more widely in the literature - see my original rationale for the rename. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 17:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom.. As a fairly long-term ESL/EFL instructor myself, I can attest that the proposed order is the more common one as used by those in this field. Mayumashu (talk) 21:00, 29 November 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:English as a Second Language teachers[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 for now, but feel free to appropriately purge the teachers category and/or nominate it for deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fix capitals per MOS:CAPS and reorder to avoid the need for lots of hyphens. (I don't like the prospect of having a category named "English-as-a-second-language teachers".) Also, I propose adding "or foreign" per standard naming practice in this area. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have added Category:English as a Second Language television series to this nomination due to the naming similarities with Category:English as a Second Language teachers. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why second, why not third. Looks arbitrary. Rename to Category:Teachers of English as a non-native language. ChemTerm (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment above at #Category:English as a foreign or second language. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 21:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete What does a mixture of writers, politicians and child molesters have in common? I see maybe one person here whose notability/notoriety has anything to do with having taught English abroad. There are also a bunch of articles on ESOL which aren't about teachers. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added Scott Thornbury, and there are probably more articles out there. I'll have a look later on today. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 21:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now cleaned up Category:English as a Second Language teachers and added three more teachers: Li Yang (Crazy English), Rod Ellis and Harold E. Palmer. Does that go any way towards addressing your concerns? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, consider Will Ferguson, who is a writer who happened to support himself by teaching English in Japan for a few years. And we still have the child molester. Is it going to be possible to confine this to people for whom this teaching isn't incidental to their fame/infamy? Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably right, teaching English isn't really a defining characteristic of those people. I've removed Will Ferguson, William Stuart Brown and James Joyce. There are still some borderline cases in there - feel free to remove them from the category if you think they don't meet WP:DEFINING. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 08:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really think we need to consider downsizing Category:Educators by discipline category. A big problem right now is it has not been formulated in a way that we avoid what amounts to pointless overlap with the Academics categories. For example a large amount of historians are professors of history at some institution and teach classes, but most people are not in both Category:Historians or its various sub-cats are not also in Category:History teachers. There is not however any guideline that makes it clear why this is. I see no point in overlapping the two categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None listed pass WP:Notability because of their ESL teaching; most do for their work in applied linguistics, why a few others for becoming media personalities, performers, etc. Why should Will Ferguson be removed and Patrick Harlan be kept? The latter became famous for performing on TV, not for TESL. I created this category for the novelty where a variety of different famous person at one time taught ESL, as it were incidentally, but feel now that occupation categories should only list those who pass WP notabilty for that occupation. Mayumashu (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I left Patrick Harlan in because he is one of the hosts of Eigo de Shabera Night. So he is actually notable for his language teaching, even though he may be more notable for being in Pakkun Makkun. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 01:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean out and possibly Delete teachers cat per Mayumashu and JPL, depending on eventual size. Only one or two members are notable for ESL teaching, and another couple notable as linguists which is a separate category. People should not be categorised by every job they've ever held, only the notable and relevant ones. Rename TV series one as suggested or to match the eventual name of the parent being discussed above. --Qetuth (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough - I take your point. Seeing as it is very likely the category will be deleted now, I think the best course of action would be to upmerge the entries into Category:Language teachers, which doesn't have that many entries anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 01:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think we can long-term sustain limiting a category to people who are "notable" for having been employed doing something. We can limit it to those for whom there is sourced mention of them doing it in the article, and we can probably exclude people who only did the thing on a volunteer basis, but I do not think trying to tease out if the people are "notable" for having taught English as a second language is wise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - it doesn't make sense to remove someone who has taught English for twenty years just because they were notable for something else. I think we should follow the advice at WP:DEFINING that "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining", with the caveat that some of these articles have very bad lead sections. Based on this criterion I was wondering whether we should put William Stuart Brown back in the category, but on reflection I have nominated the article for deletion for failing WP:CRIME instead. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 01:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No disagreement: that definition you quote for defining is about what I was trying to say when I said 'notable and relevant'. --Qetuth (talk) 13:35, 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.

Category:Billboard Country Airplay number-one singles[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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a bit too WP:OC as Category:Billboard Hot Country Songs number-one singles already categorizes the #1 country songs in the US that we don't need a subchart of a genre doing the same thing just because of a change in methodology by Billboard. Or else, I guess we can start categorizing number ones by every subchart within Billboard, such as Hot 100 Airplay, Hot Digital Songs, Rock Airplay, Country Digital Songs, etc. This just leads to overcategorization and, at some point, these are no longer defining characteristics of the song. Categorization of number ones should at least limit itself to the primary genre chart for each country. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to the consensus here, Country Airplay is not a component chart and is to be treated as a separate chart. The charts don't do the same thing; Country Airplay tracks the most played songs on country radio while Country Songs includes airplay from all genres. If anything, the Country Airplay category is more important because over the last seven weeks, four different songs have reached number one based on their success at country radio while Country Songs has been dominated by "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" based solely on its success at pop radio. Country Airplay is also getting equal treatment from news sources which are reporting Airplay #1s as Billboard #1s such as here and here. As long as we're including Country Airplay peaks in song articles, we should have a category for the number ones, the same as we do with other charts. It won't lead to categories for Hot 100 Airplay, Hot Digital Songs, etc. because we don't include those charts. Eric444 (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Eric & consensus that the Country Airplay chart is alright to be used in discographies and song articles. NYSMtalk page 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eric444's analysis. Cavarrone (talk) 17:37, 29 November 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.

X language schools[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 to hyphenated version.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Names in following the pattern "X language schools" are ambiguous. For example, in Category:German language schools, "German" is referring to the language taught. However, it could be taken to mean any language school in Germany. "German-language schools" would also not work, as that could mean schools which teach all subjects through the medium of the German language, rather than schools which teach the German language. After a short discussion at WikiProject Linguistics I have come to think that these categories should generally be named "Schools of X as a second or foreign language". This is the shortest format that I could come up with while still keeping the category names precise. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why second, why not third. Looks arbitrary. Rename to Category:Schools of German as a non-native language. ChemTerm (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment above at #Category:English as a foreign or second language. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 21:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current name. These categories seem to be for schools outside of Germany and Japan that teach this language. This is the general way we use these language categories. There is no reason to limit these to schools that teach the language as a second language. We can reasonably include schools that give schooling in the language as a primary language but are not in an area where that language is generally used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While I see what you are getting at here, I disagree; language is a funny thing, and teaching a language can be a very different process from teaching in a language. I think it would be a mistake to list, for example, Eton College alongside NOVA (eikaiwa). That's a serious mismatch, in my mind. Also, if we do end up putting first- and second-language schools together, they will need a hyphen in the name. German-language schools are schools that use the German language, but German language schools are language schools which are located in Germany. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 05:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, my proposal would not link those two things. Since one teaches English in a country where English is the official language, and the other teaches it where it is not. Those are different. However what I am getting at is schools established in the US that teach in Japanese to people whose native language is Japanese.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. The current names are too ambiguous. At first glance I guessed these were languages schools located in Germany and Japan respectively. Moreover, 'as a second or foreign language' is standard parlance for this field. I would be equally fine too with Category:German-language schools and Category:Japanese-language schools, because as I understand English 'German-langauge school' would only refer to a school that taught German, not one that taught whatever in German. Mayumashu (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but hyphenate. Per Grammar 101. These categories describe schools that teach in that language, which is not what an un-hyphenated category describes. This change makes them consistent with their parent categories e.g. Category:German-language education. Ephebi (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or are these langauge schools focused on German, in which case we should not hyphenate the title at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 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.

Category:Plays by author templates[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the common name for those who write plays. In Category:Author templates there exists Category:Philosopher templates (not Category:Works by philosopher templates) and in Category:Theatre templates there exists Category:Theatre composer templates (not Category:Music theatre by composer templates) to give two similar examples of what is already in place. This also fits with Category:Dramatists and playwrights and goes with Category:Dramatist and playwright stubs, etc. 86.40.98.24 (talk) 02:38, 25 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_25&oldid=1138397156"