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) 17:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. My understanding is that stars are awarded to restaurants, not to individual chefs. If a chef leaves a starred restaurant the star does not follow the chef to his next job. If I am mistaken about this then I will withdraw the nomination but if not then people shouldn't be categorized by awards that aren't actually theirs. Buck Winston (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michelin stars are indeed given to the restaurant, but based on the work of the head chef. It is the quality of the food (= the quality of the chef) that is awarded. When a head chef leaves, the restaurant will (in 98% of all cases) loose its star(s). See for example Parkheuvel, that lost two of its three stars when the head chef left. As a recurring theme, I have summerize some comments here: User:The Banner/Michelin restaurants. On the other hand: a chef formerly awarded and now working in another restaurant, is far likely to get his star back quickly. Example: Hof van Sonoy >> Sonoy or Le Mérinos d'Or >> Herberg Onder de Linden. Michelin knows the quality of the chef, so they follow him/her. Another clear example: Henk SavelbergThe Bannertalk 23:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I am correct that the star does not follow the chef to the next restaurant, yes? The two stars that Parkheuvel lost were not re-assigned to the head chef's next job? Buck Winston (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, because the head chef retired. And the new head chef, although formerly cooking at 2-star level, had to proof himself again so got just 1 star (and 2 years later his second, just as before) The Bannertalk 23:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see in the article about Henk Savelberg: restaurant Vreugd en Rust lost its star after head chef Savelberg left. But it got is star back after Savelberg had proven still to cook at 1-ster level when he returned. Restaurant Seinpost lost its star in 1989, when Savelberg left. It took the restaurant to 2006 to get the star back... So: no chef, no star. In effect, it is the chef who gets the star.The Bannertalk 23:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this looks at best like an award category, and we do not do award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the earning a Michelin star is a notable event in the history of a chef and a restaurant, but the way things work, this is better as a list, considering it is the combination of a chef and a restaurant that holds the stars. -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal Rename to "Head chefs working in Michelin starred restaurants" (or something like that). It is only the head chef/executive chef that matters to Michelin for a Michelin star. And although it is commonly taken as a reward to the chef, it is indeed given to the restaurant. The Bannertalk 13:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the category is based on an arbitrary opinion of one publication. The stars do not connote any standardized metric that can be quantified, as such. The category should be moved to a list, if that. --Jeremy(blah blah • I did it!) 20:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we know that you don't like Michelin stars and everything connected to it. But a metric solution does not always work. Otherwise, Template:Highest gallantry awards can be a nice handle for a series of deletions as there is no standardized metric that can be quantified for bravery and self-sacrifice. The Bannertalk 23:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) it is far too common: in France a vast number of restaurtants will have a star rating (2) it is restaurants that have stars not chefs, though this will clearly be due to the quality of the chef's cooking. (3) In France Michelin is the leading guide, so that its view is probably the leading one. Elsewhere, it is merely one of a number of guides, and we should not single it out. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please check out how many restaurants exist in France and how many of them have one or more stars? The Bannertalk 23:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We have made exceptions for certain awards - various British knighthood-type stuff, medals of honor or bravery, VCs, and the like from various nations, Nobel prizes, grammys, emmys, oscards, etc. Most of these chefs, like members of the other exceptional categories I outlined, are most notable for their Michelin stars (or VCs, etc.). If you take away the category as a non-notable achievement, one wonders how long the chefs' articles retain a claim to notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we look at one example Restaurant Gordon Ramsay at Royal Hospital Road: to whom do the three stars belong? The article on Gordon Ramsay claims them for him, but he doesn't cook there any more. The article on Clare Smyth claims the same three stars for her. Or do they really belong to Mark Agnew, the executive chef? To me this suggests that this category is a "current award holder" type of category, which we usually dispose of. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:49, 14 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.
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) 17:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for this category, which includes only a single meetup page. The meetup page is already categorized by year and geographic location. What purpose does this category serve? Another Believer(Talk) 22:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This appears to be about a WP meetup, so that it should not be in ordinary category space. It contains one article and has no scope for expansion. It is a thgroroughly pointless category. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a smallcat that has no apparent ability to expand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 12 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.
Various American musicians of x descent cats[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale according to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality we are told "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." In all these cases the intersection of ancestry and being a muscian is merely trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- In most cases, the ethnic background of the musician will be of minimal significance. In a few cases, they may be mainly playing folk music of their ancestral lands or in its musical style, but in that case they should be categorised according to the style or genre. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per my rationale in this CfD for the Swedish category. Our definition of "Fooian descent" is much too loose so there's no significance in the above intersections. Pichpich (talk) 15:36, 16 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:Amerian musicians of European 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:Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale the instructions on categorizing people by ethnicity make it clear we categorize by ethnicity, not race. In the US "European ancestry" is a racial term, ethnic terms are Irish, English, French, Russian, Kalmyk, Romani, Bulgrarian, Albanian, Greek, Italian, Polish etc. The other problem with this category is that it is not clear that there is any significant coverage of this intersection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- assuming the CFD (above) on specific ethnicities is upmerged, this one (which ought to be a container category for those) should be left with no content. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:39, 12 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:People from Subiaco, Western Australia[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over categorisation. Subiaco is an inner city suburb that just happens to have Perth's two biggest maternity hospitals in it, so lots of people are born in Subiaco and then have nothing else to do with the suburb in their entire life other than watching football there. Upmerge to Category:People from Perth, Western AustraliaThe-Pope (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Despite being the editor who asked the nom to bring it to CFD (instead of blanking it and then going to speedy deletion), and despite having reverted him a few times, I have no strong opinions on the category itself. Only I am not sure the rationale makes sense: if lots of maternity hospitals are in there and lots of people are born there, then by definition a lot of people happen to be from there. That it's just due to the concentration of hospitals, or whatever, changes nothing for us -the only unambiguous definition of "being from X" is "I am born in X". --Cyclopiatalk 17:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Way back when, the people born in categories we killed for pretty much this reason. You may not be born in the place where you reside and you may only be in that place for a very short period of time. So how is that defining? Your question is another take on this. Right now there is no criteria to say when a person should be listed in a people from category. It is normal for someone to grow up in one place, but be born in another simply because the hospital is closer. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It is normal for someone to grow up in one place, but be born in another simply because the hospital is closer. " - Sure it is, but I feel this is irrelevant -you can be born elsewhere for any possible reason, still this doesn't change the facts you are still born there. My girlfriend is born in Manhattan, but she lived in New Jersey. She still is from Manhattan, however -she's born there. What are the criteria for the "People from X" category? --Cyclopiatalk 19:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the criteria? Right now I'd say it is rather subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was born in Waratah, New South Wales and spent 6 years in that suburb being educated at Newcastle Boys' High School but I don't consider myself "from" there for any reason. For the first 18 years of my life I lived in New Lambton South (7 years attending New Lambton South Public School) and while I am "originally from" there, I consider myself to be "from" Raymond Terrace, New South Wales because that's where I've lived for the past 20.6 years. In the days when people were born, grew up and lived their lives within miles of their birthplace (and often were born at home), claiming to be from somewhere because you were born there may have had some meaning. Today though, some babies spend as little as a day in the local public hospital before going home so the suburb of birth means nothing and simply being born in a suburb doesn't make you from that suburb. Cyclopia's comments about his girlfriend demonstrate a fundamental difference in the way that being "from" is applied. Manhattan is a borough covering an area of 59.5 km2 (23 sq mi) with a population of almost 1.6 million. It's not at all similar to Subiaco, Western Australia, which is a tiny Australian suburb covering only 3.2 km2 (1 sq mi) with a population of just over 8,000. To claim "my girlfriend is born in Manhattan, but she lived in New Jersey" is more like claiming "My girlfriend is born in Perth, but she lived in South Australia" than "my girlfriend is born in Subiaco". --AussieLegend (✉) 05:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subiaco may be called a "suburb" but it is the disntinct area of the City of Subiaco. On the issue of fromness I was born in Warren, Michigan and my family lived there for the next 11 months, but I was raised in Sterling Heights, Michigan and so am clearly from Sterling Heights. My little brother who was born in Detroit is clearly not from Detroit, he is from Sterling Heights as well. He just happened to have been born at a hospital in Detroit. Fromness is something you know when you see it, but it is hard to define.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the City of Subiaco may be called a "city", but is really just a local government area the manages a few suburbs within Perth's metropolitan region - City of Subiaco's 2010 population was approx 20,000 over an area of 7.0 km² (2.7 sq mi); compared to Perth: 2011 population 1.74 million over an area of 5386 km² (2,079.5 sq mi), both figures inclusive of the City of Subiaco. (naming standards dictate that WA LGAs are named "City of", "Town of", or "Shire of"). Anyway, the category is people from Subiaco, Western Australia, not the City of Subiaco. - Evad37 (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per The-Pope, over categorisation. Just like people born in ...Hospital, or Ward..., or with Doctor... would be over categorisation. No need to go any deeper than Category:People from Perth, Western Australia - Evad37 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per The-Pope, Subiaco is just a suburb of Perth its has no independent historical significance or defining charastic such as the Manhattan example suggested above as its more readily akin to the Manhattan#Neighborhoods. It'd be more significant to define people as being from South of the River, North of the River, Western burbs and Fremantle. Gnangarra 01:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I created this category – suburbs of Perth as they current lystand have no real defining features that necessitate individual categories. Would a person "from" Subiaco introduce themselves as such to someone from outside of WA, or even within Perth? Unlikely. I would suggest also upmerging Category:People from Armadale, Western Australia, Category:People from Joondalup, and Category:People from Midland, Western Australia (or letting them empty and be deleted). IgnorantArmies – 02:46, Saturday November 10, 2012 (UTC)
Upmerge per WP:OVERCAT. If you told Ross Bolleter (who I know slightly) he'd been categorised as being from Subiaco he'd laugh at you. WP:COP#By place: "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." Moondyne (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on upmerge. Agree with the Australian editors above. Jenks24 (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I see an analogy here with Newcastle. Until the 1990s, Newcastle had three main hospitals, two general and one maternity. The maternity hospital and one of the others were both in Waratah so much of the population of the entire city was born in one tiny suburb only 1.9 km2 (0.7 sq mi) inarea and with a population of around 4,000. Only a very small percentage of the people born in Waratah would identify themselves as being from there. They would identify themselves as being from (or at least "originally" from) Newcastle and the same seems to be the case with Subiaco. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge having been born in Subiaco, I would never consider myself from there in any way... I was a Swanbourne person - that is where I spent my early years... however being a totally non notable person I am happy I will never have an article about self... SatuSuro 08:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per all fellow Aussie editors above. Graham87 09:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment people from cats are not "people born in x" cats. They are for people raised in a place, or for people who spent significant portions of their life in a place. Mere being born there is not enough to establish a connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it seems this is the consensus interpretation here and it's fine by me. That said, what are the objective criteria for "people born in x"? I am sorry if I was confused about this, but I don't know what is the guideline about that. Thank you! --Cyclopiatalk 20:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- "People from" categories get a wide interpretation. Nevertheless, we should expect some substantial connection with the place. Spending the first few days of life in a maternity hospital there ought not to count; being educated at a school in that suburb, while living in another should also not count. If the school is a High School the educational status would (or could) be reflected by an alumni category. On the other hand, we do have categories for suburbs of large cities (e.g. Category:People from Moseley), so that this is not an illegitimate category, provided the suburb's extent is clear. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:49, 12 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.
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename Inserting the article title as "X" in "Category:X alumni" should always be the standard naming format for such categories. Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 13 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.
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) 16:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale These people are not "of Albanian descent" in the sense that they or their ancestors once lived in Albania and then moved to Montenegro. They are ethnic Albanians who are citizens of Montenegro as a result of the arbitrary drawing of the international boundary in 1912. This would follow the pattern of such categorize as Category:Bosniaks of Montenegro.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- This category is (or should be) about an ethnic minority, who (or whose ancestors) never were part of any Albanian state. This is a common situation in the Balkans. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nominator is making things over-complex. Albanians of Montenegro are also "Montenegrin people of Albanian descent". The former can be a subcategory of the latter, since the latter is far more broad. But I think one category suffices for both situations. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not of "Albanian descent" this implies that at one point there ancestors left Albania for Montenegro. This never happened. The boundary was articficially imposed upon them and they were placed in Montenegro, it is their ancestral home.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They can be Montenegrin people nationally (ie, by law) and ethnic Albanians. Ethnic Albanians are indeed Albanians "by descent", just as an Albanian national is of Albanian descent. You are reading way too much into the words. They need not imply leaving country A for country B. The fact that the change was imposed on them can be irrelevant, category-wise. Keep it simple; it's crazy to try to craft a special category name for every quirk of history. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:51, 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.
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale these are duplicate categories and the target is the preferred name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should likely be a speedy rename. Mayumashu (talk) 01:26, 14 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.
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. Emigrant categories are indeed by country, not nationality.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale we categorize emigrants by country of origin. Chechnyia did try to become an independent county, but it was never recognized as anything other than being part of Russia, so it makes sense to move this to the Russian emigrants category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The Chechens are a people, with their own language, culture and (Muslim) religion. Russia had (probably has) internal nationalities (Chechen, Tatar, Ossetian, etc.) all with an ethnic basis. As long as their of robust evidence of their ethnic background, we should not impose on them an ethnicity that was not their own, that resulted from the 19th century conquest of their homeland by (in this case) Russian imperialists. This is a case of WP trying to tidy up things where reality is very untidy. It does not work, and it liable to do substantial injustice. The nom may result in a person who went into exile when his homeland had been conquered, precisely becasue he was unwilling to become a Russian or because he was liable to be executed for treason as a rebel. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we do not categorize emigrants by ethnicity, we categorize them by nationality. Anyway, the one content of the category was not alive in the 19th century, but in the 20th and 21st centuries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep nominator's arguments are simply wrong. WP categories people ry ethic or national descent. Read the categories. And century is totally not relevant to anything here. Hmains (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it is true that there are categories by ethnicity, this is not the case for emigration categories. Emigration categories are related to people moving from one country to another, so they are by nationality. The time frame is relevant, because these categories are by country. If they left Chechnya in 1950 they would belong in Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States, if they left in 1880 they would belong in Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to the United States. It is they thinking of the comment above the lead to putting people who moved to Haifa in 1906 in Category:Russian emigrants to Israel when Israel would not exist for another 42 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge we don't categorize immigrants by race/ethnicity, but by which country (or former country) they left. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Stumbled across this albums-by-band category while doing some work in Category:Pyramids, where it had been placed by mistake. Would WP:SMALLCAT not apply? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm very aware of the exception for established categories in SMALLCAT and so my question about it "applying" was just ridiculously vague. Agree with renaming and withdraw suggestion that it be deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 9 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:Anime films by date of first release[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 with "debuts" in final six categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the naming schemes of Category:Films by date, Category:Japanese films by date, and every other Category:Works by date subcategory. While these categories were originally conceive to include only the years of the first release of the works, editors got carried away and added started adding the subcategories for every spin-off, sequel, re-make, etc. That is because anime and manga articles will cover multiple media with each media release being categorized. For example, Mardock Scramble is a manga series with three film adaptations that were released over a period of three years. A similar example is Shugo Chara! which has three anime adaptations, and three different magna series. All of which are included in one more more subcategories of the above categories. Thus "of first release" is now misleading. —Farix (t | c) 22:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the by decade categories. Navigation by year is ample. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 16 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 19:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale To begin with, I am not sure this makes sense at all. I am not really convinced there is a clear Asian-American ethnic group in the way there is an African-Amderican ethnic gorup. It seems there are Chinese American people, Korean American people, Indian American people, Hmong American people, Filipino American people and so forth. There may however be some people who identify as part of an undifferentiated Asian ethnicity in America, so such a category might be workable. The actual plus of this is that it might allow for easier by occupation categories so we do not go with the current system that seems to suggest that Didi Benami by virtue of being of Israeli should be in Category:American musicians of Asian descent. The other option is to rework this to be a contained category, and remove its direct connection with a racial group that somewhat functions as an ethnic group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to determine the scope of this category. Currently the head of the category says "This category page lists notablecitizens of the United States of Asianethnic origin or descent, whether partial or full. Individiuals should only be sub-categorized unless that is impossible." thus linking its contents to the article Asian people. That article in turn has a sub-section on the United States which has the must read map "Asian ancestries as defined by the 2000 U.S. census". There is also the description The 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census Bureau definition of the Asian "race" includes those who originate from the original peoples of the "Far East", "Southeast Asia" and the "Indian subcontinent". This creates some true oddities. People who originate in the Indonesian half of New Guinea are apparently Asian, but those from the other half of the same island are not. Also Pakistanis are Asian, but Iranians and Afghans are not. Of course the fact that both the Baluch people and the Pashto people live on both sides of this border makes this an odd way to draw to line. What this means from a practical standpoint is that Category:American people of Southwest Asian descent and Category:American people of Turkic descent probably should not be subcats of this category. Maybe I should remove them. However at some point someone got the idea we could group all the contents of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin into neat by continent holding categories (while still leaving them in that category as well). At some level this looks a lot like trying to group everyone by race, just avoiding the general race categories. In this case we have created a mess because we we have two non-compatible uses of the term "Asian". I am not sure if removing the Iranian, Armenian and other South-west Asian categories is the solution. My prefered solution would be to end using this as a holding category for descent categories and to stop trying to arrange most of the contents of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin in any sort of overarching way. At a mimimum I think we should make is so Category:American people of Southwest Asian descent is a direct child of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. However I am not even convinced that category makes any sense, but I am hesitant to nominate it for anything until I see what results I get from this discussion, because I am afraid nominating that category will that me down the same path as the article on Hummus, that is to being classified as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Every other dual ethnicity is in the form "boo people of fooian descent". This rationalisation has not been undertaken from Americans, probably because the editor who did the rest found the prospect too onerous. Unless someone can provide a rational reason as to why America should be different, I would suggest that we should keep things as they are. The problem is that an American in Asia (perhaps of European descent) might be an American Asian or an Asian American. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are exceptions, but that is only because they have not been sorted to the "Booian of Fooian descent" format. In a few cases, such as the "Kurdish people of Turkey" (which would probably be better than Category:Turkish Kurdish people), that standard needs to be adjusted. The Kurds are an ethnicity split between at least three nation-states. The fact that exceptions exist is no reason to perpetuate them. WE had a long series of noms 2 or 3 years ago, which converted most of these dual natioanlity categories to the "Booian of Fooian descent" format. We should stick to that. Category:French Armenians ought to be renamed to Category:French people of Armenian descent. On my talk page you raise Israeli and Iraqi categories. They are clearly on the continent of Asia, but might be better in a category from the Midlde East. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you will see in some cases we have both. People have thought over the terms and realized the the x people of y descent does not always work. The French Armenians and French people of Armenian descent categories give explanations of why we have both. We also have Category:British Asian people as a sub-cat of Category:British people of Asian descent. That is a bigger mess because the British census uses Asian and Chinese as two different terms. There are other categories like Category:American Romani people. That should clearly not be renamed because it is for ethnic Romani in the US, not just people who have some Romani ancestry. The argument here is that there is a distinction in kind between being of a given descent and being of a given ethnic group. This is why we have Category:Pennsylvania Dutch people and Category:American people of Pennsylvania Dutch descent. Also with the Metis people and Metis descent categories. In general we do not split people so finely, but some ethnic groups so clearly exist in some countries that such distinction is workable. See also Category:Russian people by ethnic or national origin to get a fuller sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename The current name is consistent with the subcat names in the relevant parent category: Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. No valid reason is offerred as to why this subcat name should be any different than the rest. The category did have some non-bio subcats and articles in it. I just fixed that by moving them to other locations within the parent category Category:Asian American where they actually belonged. Anyone working on categories should first understand the structure and then try to improve the contents of the existing categories before undertaking changes to them. Also, there is no incompatibity here in the use of 'Asian'. It refers to the Asian geographic region which runs from Turkey to Japan, Indonesia and so on, as Asia states. There is no reason to create a problem here where none exists. Hmains (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However there is a problem. It would help if people actually paid attention to the links used. This cateogory does not say it is for people from Asia, it says it is for Asian people. That article exists and makes it clear that US definitions of the term exclude Southwestern Asia. Beyond this in the US when people use the descriptor "Asian" for a person they almost never mean the person is from Iraq or Israel. I am not creating a problem, the problem exists in the descriptors used in the category heading. Just because some editors want to pretend they are not there does not make them go away. There is a problem there, and it has to be reconciled in some way, just claiming it does not exist does nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Easily fixed and done fixing by making the article purpose match the article contents. Hmains (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like the European descent above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename. I think nominator should stop proposing renames for single categories when renaming them would make them different than all other similar categories. I sense an attempt to make category names scientifically precise; that is not the point of categories. The point is to have a consistent naming system that does a decent job of helping users navigate and find articles that have some relation. The current system does that well. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw No one seems to even want to pay any attention to the potential probelm of this being a racial cat, or to the problem that grouping people by continental orign is not grouping them by ethnicity. It is very frustrating to spend time trying to express ideas and then having the attempt to understand things totally ignored.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 28 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.
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This category is a violation of the rule at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality which states "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not." Well in the head of this category we have the line "This category lists actors, including actresses, who are nationals of the United States and of Asian origin or descent, either fully or in part." As you can see Asian links to the article Asian people which specifically says it is about a racial group. Now someone is going to point out we do have an article on Asian-American Thetre. This is true, but we end up with a mess. That article makes it clear that originally the groups founded in the 1960s we almost completly made up of East Asians (people of Chinese, Korean and Japanese descent, maybe in theory also Mongolians, although that is never clear and probably not generally relevant) while they now have many South-East Asian and South Asian actors. The problem here is we find that Category:American people of Asian descent has among its sub-cats Category:American people of Southwest Asian descent which has as subcats such things as Category:American people of Israeli descent and Category:American people of Iraqi descent. These last two are not within the US census definition of Asian people. What we have going on is an attempt to use Category:American people of Asian descent as a holder category for all descents from Asia (including Category:American people of Armenian descent, and until I set it off as just a direct child of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin, Category:American people of Russian descent). This is a mess, and the best way to deal with it is to face up to the fact that in most cases the ethnicity involved is Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Hmong, Vietnamese, Karen, Bengali, Bangladeshi, Tamil or Tibetan and not some amorphous Asianess. We should use Category:American people of Asian descent as a holder category, and not have categories that are a combination of race and occupation, as this one is. So we should just move its contents to the American actors cat. These is no need to move the contents to an ethnic cat because virtually all the contents are in specific ethnic categories, including until I removed him on the grounds that the US census does not count such as Asian, one person who is in Category:American people of Afghan descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. His logic is powerful. There is a potential need to have an ethnic category to identifiy those with the phyiscal features suitable for playing a character of East Asian ethnicity (whehter Chinese, Japanese, etc), but any continental category is meaningless. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However since we have a very clear statement that we do not categorize by race, we should not categorize by people with a set of physical features.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This category has nothing to do with race. It has to do with ethnic background (from the Asian continent). Look at the parent categories before making unwarranted assertions.
I was not saying this category as it currently exists is about race, but a category limited to people who have certain physical features would be about race. That is what I am saying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is 'race' even being discussed here, since it has nothing to do with this category and is only in your imagination. Hmains (talk) 20:18, 11 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.
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. (But renaming to Category:Asian-American movement activists just to clean up the capitalization and hyphenation issues. If anyone wants to scream at me over this, scream away and I will revert it.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale. To begin with the rules for categorization tell us "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not." A look at the article Asian people makes it 100% clear that this is a racial classification, not an ethnic one. There still might be some sort of salvagable Asian-American people as an ethnic group though. However there are two other proglems. We do not have an article called Asian American Movement to explain what these activists belong to. Worse still the headnote says "This is a list of activists who have been involved in the Asian American Movement, with "American" defined for the purposes of the page as including North and South America." In wikipedia we use American to refer to United States nationals, not to refer to people from anywhere in the American continent. This is just a total mess, and the best option is to delete this, and try to start with something workable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. There is a lot of good sense in the nominator's rationale, but I think the situation is a little more complex than it first appears. We did very briefly have a head article Asian American Movement; it was an unreferenced essay created on 30 November 2009, WP:PRODded 2 minutes after creation, and deleted on 7 December 2009. I think that PROD was a little hasty, as well as being horribly WP:BITEy of the new editor who created it; the head article was indeed very poor, but the topic seems potentially notable: 38,000 ghits. The article also refers to the "Asian-American Political Alliance", which gets 99,00 Ghits and 1500 hits on News. So it seems that somewhere in here is the germ of a notable topic. I don't know how much (if any) of the category should survive, but the first thing is to do more research on the topic. Sadly, we are unlikely to have the assistance of the original editor, who understandably gave up after hir only edit was insta-PRODded. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we at least as a minimum limit this category to United States of America nationals, so that its use will be in line with all other American categories?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'American Nationals' has nothing to do with anything as I pointed out to you on your talk page. The only American Nationals who are not US citizens are those few people who come from American Samoa. Hmains (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete The purpose of this category is to navigate to 'Asian American movement activists'. The trouble is 'Asian American movement' is not defined, referenced and has no WP article so this whole category is just a dead end with no reason to exist. Bio articles in this category also make no mention of such a 'movement' Hmains (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this page stands now it is open to Mexican, Brazilian, Peruvian, Chilean, Cuban and Panamanian nationals who were never in any way connected with the United States of America. That is one of my main problems with it. It is a trans-national page that is named in a way that makes it seem like it falls in nationality space. This seems like a mess to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 12 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.
