Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 6 April 8 >

April 7[edit]

Category:New Zealand organisations with coats of arms[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is categorization by trivial feature. We have categories for articles about actual coats of arms, but we don't have categories for organisations that happen to use a coat of arms. This category was discussed at WP:CFDS, as duplicated below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Support As I said in the previous discussion, there isn't really any justification for having this category. Schwede66 09:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial basis on which to categorize. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is categorization by a trivial trait, that tells us nothing about the organization itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pocitos, Montevideo[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The article is at Pocitos. In my opinion, the chance that someone would expect a category named "Pocitos" to be about Salvador Mazza, Salta is about equal to the chance that there would be consensus to rename Category:New York City to Category:The Big Apple. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
  • Oppose per my objection at speedy. This is ambiguous: Pocitos is also the colloquial name for the city of Salvador Mazza, Salta Province, Argentina. Whatever anyone's personal view about the risk of confusion, keeping the title as Category:Pocitos, Montevideo guarantees zero confusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I look forward to the nomination to rename Category:London and Category:Paris. (And no, I'm not comparing Pocitos to London and Paris as places. I'm pointing out that the desire for "guaranteed zero confusion" would dictate the renaming of Category:London and Category:Paris, but I think the potential is so minimal there, as here, that disambiguation in a fashion that departs from the article name is unwarranted. I hate it that every comment on WP has to be explained like this, but I have found it necessary to produce "guaranteed zero confusion".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the term is ambiguous. Disambiguation is more important in category names than in article names, since it takes a lot of watching to catch articles that do not belong there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- It is frequently necessary for categories to have disambiguators where the articles do not. The classic case is Birmingham, where the article is there, but the categories are at Category:Birmingham, England to exclkude articles on Birmingham, Alabama. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Estuaries of Anglesey‎[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 to Estuaries of Wales, plus "Coast of Foo" if not in a more specific sub-cat of it. I do not see a reason to reverse other changes, as the editor appeared to generally add other appropriate categories rather than remove them. – Fayenatic London 16:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One of a number of unnecessary categories recently created. Anglesey only includes one article and a redirect to a beach. The remainder include only one article. These estuaries should be simply left in Category:Estuaries of Wales without the extra step. Sionk (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the concensus (likely) is 'merge', who is responsible for carrying this out? Me? or the closing admin? Sionk (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin; bots will likely be used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to estuaries of wales. Division below that was one level too much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stormers rugby union players[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 Category:Stormers (rugby union) players. There's general support for rugby union being added, but no clear directed on the parentheses. I decided to add them to match a lot (though not remotely all) of the similar categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The standard format for rugby union player categories is "TEAM players". The article for the team is Stormers. I'm not super convinced for the need for disambiguation in this case, since the only other WP article about sport teams with "Stormers" in the name is Club Stormers San Lorenzo. If disambiguation is desired here it should be (in order to be consistent with the other categories in Category:Super Rugby players) Category:Stormers (rugby union) players (if we're worried about confusion with teams from other sports) or Category:Stormers (Super Rugby) players (if we're worried about confusion with other rugby union teams). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Support: If Stormers is the article then Category:Stormers players should be the category for consistency. Mattlore (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename as proposed due to ambiguity. Categories have less 'wriggle room' for ambiguity than articles do; they should be as clear as possible. Otherwise, we'll have people who played for other "Stormers" clubs, even ones without articles, added to this category erroniously, and that is something very difficult to catch and correct. Rename instead to Category:DHL Stormers players per WP:NATURAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the sponsors name in the category is a very bad idea as the category would have to be renamed every couple of years. Mattlore (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides that, at least in NZ and Australian media (two of the three countries of Super Rugby), it's relatively rare to see or hear the team called the "DHL Stormers". I don't know if they actually call them that in South Africa, but I highly doubt it. The proposed name is not a "natural" name at all, if we're going by common usage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Brumbies rugby union players[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. There are no other teams on Wikipedia named just Brumbies, and until there are, this rename is warranted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The standard format for rugby union player categories is "TEAM players". The article for the team is Brumbies. I'm not super convinced for the need for disambiguation in this case, since the only other WP article about sport teams with "Brumbies" in the name is Hills Brumbies F.C. If disambiguation is desired here it should be (in order to be consistent with the other categories in Category:Super Rugby players) Category:Brumbies (rugby union) players (if we're worried about confusion with teams from other sports) or Category:Brumbies (Super Rugby) players (if we're worried about confusion with other rugby union teams). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Using the sponsors name in the category is a very bad idea as the category would have to be renamed every couple of years. Mattlore (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides that, only rarely is the team referred to by media or anyone else as the "University of Canberra Brumbies". That's not a "natural" name at all, if we're going by common usage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hobbies in Wales[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No articles in this category. It has been simply created to hold Category:Hobbies in Anglesey, which in turn only holds Category:Outdoor recreation in Anglesey which in turn only holds Category:Beaches of Anglesey. Category:Beaches of Anglesey is already properly included in Category:Beaches of Wales so there is no need for this new tier of categorisation. Sionk (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BHG. I am finding that a lot of the category creations by User:Skinsmoke are questionable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & BHG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In my defence, I would say that I was simply following the categorisation at Category:Beaches of the United Kingdom (so it's not as bizarre as some may think). However, I don't have any objection if this lot is deleted. A question, though, is whether Category:Beaches of Anglesey should be a subcategory of Category:Visitor attractions in Anglesey, given that Category:Beaches has been removed from Category:Visitor attractions on the grounds that it is not a defining feature, and not all beaches are visitor attractions. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Beaches (which I removed from the VA cat) contains many articles about beaches that are not normally considered visitor attractions (e.g. those in Category:Beaches of Antarctica and those that are difficult to reach) and could (in theory) contain articles about beaches on other planets (see the Mountains category) or beaches that only existed long before humans. Even if currently every WP article in a "Beaches of Foo" category is about a beach that is currently a visitor attraction (however that is defined) the whole category shouldn't be placed in the VA category as it's not a definining characteristic; someone may create an article about another beach (e.g. Arish Mell which is closed to the public) that is not (currently) a visitor attraction. If a clear definition of what a visitor attraction is and a particular beach meets (has always met?) that definition then the article about that beach could be in the VA category. However, in my opinion, any article about a geographical feature should not be categorised by how some people use it at one point in history. DexDor (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fell this misbegotten tree -- Category:Beaches of Anglesey is a proper category, but inadequately parented. I see no objection to be being within Category:Visitor attractions in Anglesey, but clearly beaches are not visitor attractions everywhere. In UK, most beaches and mountains are liekly to be I visitor attractions. Where beaches are private, it can only be becasue a private landowner controls all access to it, or becasue of some specific safety related issue. I appreciate that this will not be the case everyehere. I consider visitor attractions is a better tree than Leisure, and "hobbies" would be a wholly inappropriate grandparent for beaches. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Music published by Oops Publishing[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. From 1974 onwards, songs by George Harrison in the UK were published by Oops Publishing (a successor of sorts of Harrisongs Ltd)., while in the US they were published by Ganga Publishing, B.V. So I propose that Music published by Oops Publishing be renamed as both companies have published the same songs in their respective areas. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional oppose A combined category such as this on;y makes sense to me only if both companies published exactly the same set of songs, i.e. the same set of Harrison songs and the same set of other songs. Is that the case? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, they published the same set of songs. That's what I meant, but I didn't know how to specify that. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 14:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. If both publishers published exactly the same set of songs, then there is no point in having 2 separate categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. it's a little strange, but ok. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Yep, that makes perfect sense, imo. Oops Publishing Ltd was launched in March 1974, with Ganga being set up shortly afterwards, for Harrison's US publishing – so Oops should definitely receive first mention, as you're suggesting, yeepsi. JG66 (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Seasons in Argentine rugby union[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/delete as nominated. (I have considered this discussion in conjunction with this related discussion and the other related discussions noted below.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Propose merging:
57 categs: "YYYY" in Argentine rugby union" to "YYYY in Argentine sport"
Nominator's rationale: Most of these categories fail WP:SMALLCAT; the majority contain only 1 or 2 pages. The few moderately well-populated entries (e.g. [[:Category:2011 in Argentine rugby union) consist overwhelmingly of general articles about international competitions (i.e. the articles are not specifically about Argentina's role in those competitions).
Most of the single-article categories contains only "YYYY Campeonato Argentino de Rugby" (e.g. 1949 Campeonato Argentino de Rugby), and those articles already grouped in Category:Campeonato Argentino de Rugby. The 2- or 3-article categories mostly consist of the Campeonato plus an article on an international tour; the tour articles are already groupied in Category:Rugby union tours of Argentina.
There is no reasonable prospect that these categories will be expanded in the near future, and this huge number of categories simply impedes navigation by providing a useless extra layer.
Note also that some of the "Campeonato Argentino de Rugby" articles appear to be copyvios of the relevant page on http://www.uar.com.ar, which I will now invrestigate further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Rugby union has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Argentina has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the discussion was open by the same user. And, most important, no decision was made at this moment. For me the categories are to mantain... (p.s. the category "Pre-2000_seasons_in_in_Irish_rugby_union" is not mine ). I'll respect the decision when it'll be take (and hope that it will be take by a qualificated group not by one or two user)
In any case the decision must be take for (i.e.) "Category:1997–98 in English rugby union , because the rules must be the same for all country... also for britsh contries..... and also for fottball (Are there some differences between Category:1954 in Argentine football and Category:1954 in Argentine rugby union ? --Carcamagnu (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. When a set of categories which you have created is under discussion, it is best to respect the WP:CONSENSUS-forming process by waiting until that discussion is complete before creating more similar categories.
    You are mistaken to say that similar categories fr other countries should be deleted if these ones are deleted. Per WP:CAT#Overview, a category is a navigational device. Underpopulated categories split up sets of articles into such small groups that they impede navigation rather than helping it. So if one country has a lot of similar articles to group together, then a category may be justified ... but if another country has few articles, then a category may not be justified. In the case of Category:Seasons in English rugby union, the pre-1980 categories seem to be woefully underpopulated, and should be upmerged. I will await the outcome of the current discussions before nominating them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this needs a multiple merge or restructure. Certainly all these need merging to the equivalent sport in XXXX categories as nom, but the articles consist of 1949 Campeonato Argentino de Rugby apparetnly on a domestic competition; tours by the Argentine Rugby team; tours of Argentina by teams from elsewhere. This will make a rational tree with a more appropriate split than the present annual categories with a very few articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Venezuelan bus drivers[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) 02:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think the title of this category speaks for itself. L1A1 FAL (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The title of the category describes bus drivers from Venezuela. The nominator should explain exactly what hir objection is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The category contains a single article which is about a politician who was not notable as a bus driver. See WP:COP#N and Category:People by occupation which refers to "people by their notable occupations". Most/all of the other bus driver categories could also be deleted. DexDor (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is anyone notable for driving a bus or is that a trivial aspect of some notable's life? the latter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a standard occupation + nationality category. If we are not going to keep we should at least upmerge to Category:Bus drivers. There is no reason this can not be a categorized by occupation. There are in fact people who a significant fact about them is that they were a bus driver. They might not be notable for it, but it will be in every bio of them, no matter how short.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It would be an unusual bus driver who was notable while a bus driver. The subject of the one article probably became notable as a trades unionist and then as a politician. Surely his former occupation is NN. If we want to keep this, we should upmerge to Category:Bus drivers, which for some reason appears not to exist, probably becasue it would have a very low population. Merging all subcategories of Category:Bus drivers by nationality into it would produce a category with under 10 articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first thing mentioned in the article on Asher Weisgan is that he was a bus driver. I see no way to adequately categorize that article without mentioning his occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • His notability is as a murderer - hence the article is in a "People convicted of murder ..." category. The other 6 pages in the bus drivers category (one of which is a redirect) have less reason to be in it. Incidentally, doesn't AW's article fail WP:BLP1E ? DexDor (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could mention his occupation, but you don't have to categorize him by it. If a famous mass murderer worked at McDonalds, would you list him under Category:McDonalds employees? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No other members of this cat and this guy doesn't need to be in it - he is not notable and this is not defining of his life. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Burials at the Willesden Jewish Cemetery[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: speedy redirected. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. No need for the "the". I had already created the proposed cat before discovering the existence of the earlier one - sorry. Jsmith1000 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a situation that needs to be CFDed; we can just speedy redirect it as a duplication of an existing category. Consider it done. If anybody wants to open a new discussion on the grounds that we should move the category to the wording that includes the word "the" instead, they're certainly welcome to do so. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African-American films[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 but purge. As closer, I'm not qualified to do the purging, so someone else is going to have to pursue this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As the discussion about Category:Black television drama series made clear, we do not categorize by race. In addition to that, this category has no sustainable definition that would make this category maintainable. The same concerns I raised in regard to the television category apply here. What makes these films "African-American"? Is it simply subject matter? The question, as before, is this an encyclopedic way of organising and categorising this information? The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:Black television drama series discussion hasn't been closed yet, so you're jumping the gun in assuming there's a clear consensus about this — but it's already evident that you're drawing the wrong conclusion from it. The obvious consensus emerging there is against drawing the racial component across national boundaries, such that African-American series are being lumped with series from Japan, Nigeria, South Africa, Canada, Rwanda and other countries into a single undifferentiated catchall for all TV series in the entire world whose lead characters happen to have brown skin — it is not opposed to country-specific groupings. I'm not going to close that discussion, because I plan to comment in it, but if I were the closing admin my decision based on that discussion would be to rename it to Category:African-American drama series, narrow its scope by keeping the US ones in it while removing the others, and then keep it in that revised form. Wikipedia's proscription against categorization by race precludes drawing undifferentiated "black" categories that sweep across national borders to throw Nigerian and American and Somali and Jamaican and African-American things together into one pot based on "black" skin colour alone; it does not preclude country-specific categories which are grouping things by a single, specific, legitimately distinct and encyclopedically valid cultural context such as "African-American" anything. Since this category is named and restricted to "African-American films", and is not sweeping a contextless "Black" brush across the entire world the way Category:Black television drama series is, it is clearly of the latter type — and thus it is not precluded either by Wikipedia's rules around categorization by race or by the consensus that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_15#Category:Black_television_drama_series is actually settling on. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I am drawing no conclusions from the other discussion, and yes, I know that it has not been closed. But, I do not see the "obvious consensus" you are seeing, either. African-American is not an ethnic group, it is a racial group. Nigerian-American would an ethnic group, as would Ethiopian-American. But, we do not categorize by race --- that is stated by two or three contributors to the other discussion, and it clearly pertains to this discussion. And you have not answered the other question I raised above. What makes these films "African-American"? There is no clear definition to be drawn from the films in the category, many of which have racially-diverse casts, and were, as in the case of The Color Purple, directed by white people. So, what is an encyclopedic definition of African-American films? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"African-American" categories are, always have been, always will be, allowed on Wikipedia (trust me, there are hundreds already and you would get royally smacked down if you even tried to delete many of them), not on "ethnic" but on cultural grounds, and are not precluded by Wikipedia's proscriptions against "racial" categories.
What the racial proscriptions preclude is sweeping a broad brush across the entire world so that "African-American" topics are sitting directly alongside Nigerian and Rwandan and Jamaican and Senegalese and Trinidadian and Haitian and Ethiopian and Somali and Canadian ones in a single contextless transnational "Black" pot. They do not preclude grouping things that are based on a common cultural context, such as categories that are specifically "African-American" — Nigerian Americans and Ethiopian Americans and Senegalese Americans and Jamaican Americans and Igbo Americans do not typically have their own completely isolated cultures with no common elements whatsoever, but in fact much of their cultural output is generated within a common "African-American" culture. That is, whether you think it's a "racial" grouping or not, it is the primary cultural context in which those ethnic groups actually exist, actually operate, actually get filed under in academic study of the films, and on and so forth, and thus is allowed on the grounds of cultural context.
And furthermore, the fact that some individual series or some individual films might be subject to debate about whether they should be included in a category or not is not a valid argument against the existence of a category, if there are other articles whose inclusion would be clearcut and undebatable. A category is not disallowed just because there might be some articles that happen to fall into grey areas where their inclusion or exclusion might be debatable; you just have a talk page debate about each specific grey area article's specific inclusion or exclusion, and then include or exclude that specific article accordingly. There are far more series and far more films whose inclusion in these categories would be a straightforward no-brainer than there are series or films which would actually require debate — I just scanned the category and I don't see a single film in it that should even raise a question. The Color Purple, just to address the example you named, is a story which is primarily and thematically about the coming of age of an African American character — no matter how racially diverse the supporting cast and crew may have been, the film is fundamentally "African American" because that is what the film is fundamentally about. Yes, a film in which Denzel Washington plays a cop, alongside an otherwise almost all-white cast and in which the racial dimension is not really a plot point at all, might not belong — but films which address specifically African American themes, which have significantly or predominantly African American casts, which depict stories taken from or set within African American culture, which actually use the African-Americanness of their African-American cast members as an explicit thematic or plot element, and on and so forth, clearly and unequivocally do.
And as for the consensus in the other discussion, I just counted: there are four "rename" votes (mine and three others); one "delete" vote from a person whose arguments in the rest of the discussion make it very clear that he agrees with the view that an "African-American"-specific category can be accepted, and would thus also count toward a "rename" consensus once you actually evaluated the substance of his arguments; one "keep" vote which is based on the incorrect assumption that the category is already African-American-specific, and would thus also count toward a "rename" consensus instead; and only one clear unequivocal "delete". So yep, I'm reading the consensus completely correctly — and you're still applying your reading to a non-equivalent situation. Bearcat (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sine qua non of whether a category can and should exist is whether a lead encyclopedic article can and should be written about the subject. Thus, I submit (a) academic use of the concept (African-American cinema at the Belknap Collection UFL); UCLA "African American Film and Televison" collection; (b) professional use of the concept (numerous "African American Film" festivals; PBS "Independent Lens" website; and (c) popular acceptance of the term (IMDB list of 25 Best African-American Films; list of bests list; lots of other examples available in google). Regardless of people's personal opinion about the appropriateness of the category and the "sustainability" of policing it, it is an encyclopedic topic, and it is clear that numerous items correctly belong in the category. Rather than deleting the category we ought to be writing an article on African-American film (maybe African-American cinema; I'm not knowledgeable enough to figure out which would be the better title). KEEP. --Lquilter (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge the concept is notable - a quick review of the subcats would more than convince most, lots of articles about elements of African American films, but the placement of individual films in the main category is problematic. These should all be removed unless they can be placed into a subcategory. Otherwise, basically we have a subjective category: an African American film is one that (a) depicts (some, only, a few) African Americans, (b) is directed/produced by (some, only, a few) African Americans, and/or (c) seems "African American" to someone. That cannot stand the rigor required of categorization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos, you precisely stated my concern about subjectivity, and if that can be addressed in the manner you suggest, I am all in favor of it. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least not right now, it is in Category:Inter-racial romance films. My general guess would be these films should be a-aimed at an African-American audience or if not that b-directed by an African-American (although that alone might not be enough for all films). I think though the top qualified should be the director, even more than the cast.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge - it sounds relatively relevant to categorise films and other works which have the African-American as subject. Not every film starring an African American qualifies, of course. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case should we not rename to Category:Films about African-Americans?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but purge - per Bearcat and lQuilter arguments. I agree policing this is problematic - for example, do all Tyler Perry films belong in here? If not, why not? Certain Eddy Murphy comedies may fit also, but others maybe not. I think we'll have to limit contents to things clearly identified by at least 2 separate 3rd party sources as an "African american film".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican 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: no consensus. I will just note that nothing has been "settled" by either this discussion or the earlier 2010 discussion, since both have been closed as "no consensus". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This requires some background explanation, so please bear with me. The situation is that CFD consensus has long deprecated the idea of taking an "LGBT people from Country" category and further subdividing it by individual other country that their ancestors might have emigrated from (e.g. "LGBT American people of German descent", "LGBT Canadian people of Swedish descent", etc.) But in this one particular case, when Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent was taken to CFD in 2010 it was argued that Puerto Rico's status as a territory of the United States, rather than a fully independent country, put these people in a unique context where their birth and life and death in the mainland United States, rather than the island of Puerto Rico itself, did not preclude a person identifying as Puerto Rican in the same way that being born in the US usually precludes calling oneself a citizen of the country their parents or grandparents came from. For that reason, categories named in the format "Puerto Rican people" are normally permitted to include people who identify as Puerto Rican regardless of whether they resided on the island or in the mainland US, and the problem that necessitated an "ethnic descent" exemption here was that the "from Puerto Rico" wording restricted it to people from the island and prevented it from being used as inclusively as other "Puerto Rican people" categories are.
That said, the original CFD closed as a "no consensus" — which means that it's just lingered ever since, neither explicitly exempted from nor explicitly included in the consensus against most other categories for LGBT people by individual ethnicity. In turn, however, the current situation has created a lot of further confusion about what is or isn't appropriate when it comes to "LGBT people by ethnic descent" categorization, which is why I'm now proposing that the categories be remerged under an alternate name instead.
There may, in fact, be a valid case that we should consider moving all "LGBT people from Foo" categories to the "LGBT Fooian people" format instead, but that's a discussion for another time — in the meantime, however, this category is a subcategory of Category:LGBT people from the United States rather than a sibling subcategory of Category:LGBT people by nationality, and Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States rather than an independent country — and thus the category shouldn't necessarily be restricted to following the current naming format for by-country categorization, but should be allowed to be named differently if the new name resolves issues such as this.
If the category is named this way instead, then we don't need to hang onto this special exemption for the otherwise-deprecated "LGBT people by ethnic descent" type of categorization anymore — and the resulting remerged category would be fully consistent with the way that other "Puerto Rican people" categories are already organized (i.e. inclusive of both island and mainlander Puerto Ricans). Accordingly, I feel that they should be merged into a new Category:LGBT Puerto Rican people. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger as specified. I am neutral on whether a merger should take place, but if they are to be merged then the target should be Category:LGBT people from Puerto Rico. Creating an "LGBT Fooian people" format is a wider decision which would need a wider discussion, and this one is jumping the gun.
    I am aware that Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent should not contain anyone who is from Puerto Rico, so if we are not going to use from "Fooian" format, then any merger of Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent should be done manually to be relevant "LGBT people from Foo" category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first, prefer to rename second, but that will probably need a more expansive nomination. The first is really too far, we do not need the intersection of descent and sexual orientation to be categorized, it just leads to too many categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a couple of key points are getting missed here.
Firstly, while you're right that we don't need or want categories for the intersection of sexual orientation with ethnic descent, "Puerto Rican" is not a normal case: it is a territory of the United States, not an independent country, and therefore a person of Puerto Rican heritage born in the mainland United States is not "a non-Puerto Rican person of Puerto Rican descent" — they are fully and properly just plain Puerto Rican, and must therefore be categorized in some LGBT-meets-Puerto-Rico context. And thus if the "from Puerto Rico" category isn't renamed, then the "of Puerto Rican descent" category needs to either remain in place, or be renamed to a different form that avoids the "of X descent" form but maintains its "LGBT Puerto Ricans from the mainland US" purpose. It cannot just be deleted entirely, because it is a relevant and necessary part of the person's cultural context.
And secondly: because Puerto Rico is not a country, there's no real reason why it actually has to be named in line with the "LGBT people from Country" convention, or why it has to remain at its current name pending a comprehensive nomination of the entire tree. Because a person does not have to live on the island of Puerto Rico to be fully and legitimately described and categorized as Puerto Rican, it's properly defined and named as a cultural category rather than a geographic one. It's analogous to Category:LGBT African Americans, not to Category:LGBT people from the United States (a category to which every person in both categories could correctly, if insensitively, be upmerged), and thus should be named analogously to Category:LGBT African Americans regardless of whether we ever even discuss renaming any of the Category:LGBT people by nationality categories.
For those two reasons, we cannot just delete the of Puerto Rican descent category while leaving the from Puerto Rico category unchanged. The available choices are (1) to merge both into a single category renamed so that it doesn't impose a false and meaningless distinction between two groups of people who are both equally Puerto Rican, (2) to keep both in their present form, (3) to keep both but rename the "of Puerto Rican descent" one to a different wording, or (4) just upmerge the "descent" ones into the "from" category and don't actually concern ourselves with the semantic quibbles. But no matter which of those options is chosen, I'm making it clear right now: the only acceptable closure decisions here are ones in which every person who's currently in either of these categories continues to be categorizable in some iteration of LGBT-meets-Puerto Rico after the discussion is done. Bearcat (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't "need" to do anything, good sir. By the way, Puerto Rico is categorized as a country. It is also referred to as a country several times in the article. Nymf talk to me 18:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We most certainly do "need" to respect the Puerto Rican contingent's indication that some form of deference to the fact that a person of Puerto Rican ethnicity born and raised in the mainland United States is still fully Puerto Rican, and not just "of Puerto Rican descent", is necessary in their particular context. And Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, and accordingly the country that people who reside on the island of Puerto Rico are citizens of is the United States. If Puerto Rico is being described and categorized as an independent country, then it is being described and categorized incorrectly. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they are all the same, why not categorize them all in the LGBT category for Americans? By the way, just to clarify, when I said that it was categorized as a country, I was referring to the article Puerto Rico. Nothing else. Nymf talk to me 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For almost exactly the same reason that Category:LGBT people from the United Kingdom are allowed to be subcategorized as being from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland instead of being restricted to a common "United Kingdom" category: they are recognized as distinct ethnic and cultural and national identities within the common umbrella of Britishness, and thus the more specific identity is a complement to, not a negation of, the other — and the less specific one would actually be a culturally insensitive elision of people's right to define themselves. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, all that verbosity misses a simple point: there's a big difference between having Puerto Rican grandparents, and being Puerto Rican.
Your proposed merger would label as "Puerto Rican" someone who has lived all their life in the continental United States, and whose parents have also never left the continental United States. That's silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's silly or not, the literature on Puerto Rican culture and nationality is pretty unequivocal about the fact that it is still true. So take its silliness up with the writers of all those external sources, not with me. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first one as per JPL, neutral on the second one. Nymf talk to me 18:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be very clear about this: if the first category just gets deleted, rather than being upmerged or renamed so that it keeps the same group of people in an LGBT-meets-Puerto-Rico context, then either they will get readded directly to Category:LGBT people from Puerto Rico regardless of the semantics, or a new category which groups the same people under a different wording will be created in its place. It's fine to debate how the category should or shouldn't be structured, but the basic fact that the people in it must retain some form of "LGBT-meets-Puerto-Rico" category is not up for debate. If you'd like to propose an alternate name for the first one, that's fine; if you'd like to propose a common new category for both different from the naming format I proposed, that's fine; if you'd like to propose that we just upmerge the people in the first one directly into the second one instead, that's fine. But the people in the first one do still need to be in some form of "LGBT-meets-Puerto-Rico" category at closure and will not be simply stripped of that context. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading these comments by you, especially the must and will parts, it sounds to me like there is a policy in place for this. Can you direct me to said policy? Nymf talk to me 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IDENTITY mandates that we have to respect a culture's right to define itself and its own cultural parameters as much as feasibly possible — which is why if the Puerto Rican contingent says that a person of Puerto Rican ethnicity who is born and raised in the mainland United States is still considered to be fully Puerto Rican, and not just "an American who happens to have Puerto Rican ancestry", then we have an obligation to respect and follow their judgement on that. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The attempt to claim that people of Puerto Rican ancestry born and raised in the United States are "Puerto Rican" ignores the reality that many of these people are of mixed ancestry. It also ignores the reality of how many of these people self-identify, which is often not as Puerto Ricans. That some radical nationalists want to force these people to be Puerto Rican and not Americans cannot be the controlling way that we categorize them in a global set-up. I have even known children of Puerto Rican immigrants who mark "white" not "Hispanic" on some forms, so the attempt to peg them all as Puerto Rican is just plain going against the reality of how many self identify. In every other case involving Puerto Ricans we classify people who live in Puerto Rico as Peurto Rican, and those not in Peurto Rico as of Puerto Ricans descent, and sometimes just put them in more general Hispanic and Latino categories. There is no reason to change how we do things here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I apologize if my argument above was incorrect — but it was based on the argument that was made in the original CFD discussion. As well, our articles Nuyorican and Puerto Ricans in the United States are both really quite explicit and unmistakable in specifying that while some island Puerto Ricans may dispute the characterization, mainland Puerto Ricans are still considered fully Puerto Rican in all objective, reliable and WP:NPOV sources. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of people born in the US who are resident in Puerto Rico, or who were primarily raised in Puerto Rico, so there are lots of people not born in Puerto Rico who are clearly by any objective definition "from Puerto Rico".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me - "from Puerto Rico" remaining as a category for those born there, and those who were raised/live there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category intersects are almost never an appropriate solution to anything, as they require deep insider knowledge and complex manual coding to get generated at all, and thus aren't accessible to the casual user (or even to the vast majority of experienced users). They're useful as a tool in the pursuit of the solutions to certain tasks; they are never useful as the final solution in and of themselves. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Category intersects are useful for those who have a need to obtain specialized knowledge (e.g. show me all gay cuban physicians of armenian extraction born in 1941) - where consensus is not to build categories to answer these questions directly. You can't just say "Someone may ask this question, therefore we need a cat to answer it" - and also BTW category intersects do not require any manual coding at all - there are simple tools out there that will give you any arbitrary category intersection. Indeed I would argue that in this case, the "final" solution, based on the desire to not categorize by LGBT + by-country-ethnic descent, is to use category intersects where such questions are asked.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that reductio ad absurdum (i.e. the idea that anybody on earth will ever actually be looking for "gay cuban physicians of armenian extraction born in 1941") is a logical fallacy, right? And that as such, it's not a valid response to the point that category intersects are still a bit of highly specialized insider arcana that are completely inaccessible to the average user, and thus not a useful solution to real topics of real interest to people who actually exist in the real world? Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of your point. While my proposed cuban armenian was for dramatic effect, it's certainly quite possible someone might desire an intersection of two, three or four categories, especially for a person, so while silly, my example was not irrelevant. If you don't worry about sub-categories, you can even do so from within wikipedia itself- click this link, which will find you all of the LGBT Hispanic/Latinos that are also of Puerto Rican extraction:[1], or a more complex example, all of the LGBT cuban-americans in Miami [2]. Or you can use tools such as this one [3].
I guess I'm not sure what real world you're talking about then. Is this the world where the categorization system of wikipedia is used by serious scholars for research? And those same serious scholars are content with Category:LGBT American people of Asian descent when doing research on Chinese lesbians in New York? If I were such a researcher, I would learn how to use category intersections, pronto, and not waste my time on CfDs... We make a tradeoff in the category system, and this whole debate is about that tradeoff - there isn't a "right" answer, and the real world has very little to do with wikipedia's categorization practices.
My "absurd" search above is simply an example of a category intersection that could be found using tools widely available if someone wanted to do so. If we want to answer questions for people, we have two choices (1) design the category system so it can answer all possible questions, and thus all likely intersections or (2) provide clear and easy instructions for people on how to do category intersections.
Your claim is that Puerto Ricans, born in the US and having spent their whole lives here, cannot possibly be categorized as Category:American people of Puerto Rican descent and Category:LGBT_Hispanic_and_Latino_American_people - you are arguing there must be a category just for LGBT + Puerto Rican American (a triple intersect), because "real" people need to be able to find this list, with a single click.
My point is, this goes against the standard in the tree, and for those _few_ people who do ask this question (give me a list of people with these qualities), with a bit of research and time they can easily find it through category intersection, and as I demonstrated above, they can do so within wikipedia's own search box.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I thought we had resolved this in 2010. This debate is exhausting and demonstrates little attention to the specific particularity of Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans (their specific political situation and its differences from other groups). I commented on this in 2010.--Lawrlafo (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read through that 2010 discussion, and you are obviously an expert on this subject, having literally written the book. However, as a scholar, you certainly realize that identity and ethnicity is fluid and varied; for example a Puerto-rican gay man born in the Bronx likely has little in common with a lesbian Puerto Rican woman born to an upper middle class family in California, and yet we propose to categorize them together. The wikipedia categorization system is primarily about navigation and simplicity, to make it easy for people to find articles and make it easy for them to categorize articles - it is not about capturing accurately the labels these people have applied to themselves - to take that project on would be literally impossible. The consensus has been that in spite of overlapping identities, LGBT + ethnic descent (besides broad brush strokes like Asian/African/Hispanic/etc) is not needed - category intersection can be used to find more precise overlaps. For the issue at hand, I still haven't seen any arguments why Category:LGBT_American_people_of_Mexican_descent should not also be created - we can certainly find plenty of literature on that subject as well, eg. “Miguel: Sexual Life History of a Gay Mexican American.” - In Gay Culture in America, Ed. Gilbert Herdt. Boston: Beacon Press,1992,202–24; Chicano/Latino homoerotic identities, edited by David W. Foster, etc. but consensus has been to delete the LGBT Mexican descent and LGBT Cuban descent cats, and I don't see why the "uniqueness" of Puerto Rico needs to translate into a separate space in the category tree for LGBT. As to a point made somewhere that "Hispanic and latino" does not capture well the variance in this category, I note that Category:Hispanic and Latino American people is the top-level cat for all Americans from spanish-speaking countries, including puerto ricans, so if puerto ricans shouldn't be in this tree that's a bigger issue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not "resolved" in 2010; the prior discussion was closed as a "no consensus", not as a clean "keep", and the point remains that Wikipedia does not allow LGBT people to be categorized by ethnic descent. If you can suggest an alternative which satisfies your side of the argument while also eliminating the "ethnic descent" problem, then I'm all ears since my suggestion doesn't seem to be persuading anybody — but no matter what happens, Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent simply cannot stand in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also ignored so far is the fact that many people in the US of Puerto Rican descent are only Puerto Rican by one parent. The people who come to mind the fastest for this are Raul Labrador's children. Representative Labrador was born in Puerto Rica, but largely raised in Nevada. How could we possibly call his children Puerto Rican when their mother is not in any way Puerto Rican and they have lived their entire life in the US. Even more fun, there is Sammy Daivs, Jr. whose mother may or may not have been born in Puerto Rico. Plus, there are lots of immigrants from other places in Puerto Rico, so there are people who have Puerto Rican ancestry whose families have lived longer on the US mainland than they ever lived in Puerto Rico. We have the ancestry category in part because many people with Puerto Rican ancetry on the US mainland would never identify as being Puerto Rican.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in the category under discussion we have Carmen Carrera who is of "puerto Ricans and Pereuvian descent". It really does not make sense to call such a person Puerto Rican.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The claims that all people of Puerto Rican ancestry are described as being "Puerto Rican" does not hold up when sources are evaluated. This souce [4] on Joseph M. Acaba, who does not directly relate to this category, but is a well sources person of Puerto Rican descent, clearly mentions his parents came to the mainland US from Puerto Rico, but never described Acaba himself as being "Puerto Rican". I am perfectly OK with calling people who were raised at all in Puerto Rico, "Puerto Rican", but it does not work for people raised in the US, any more than we could classify the children of Mexican immigrants as "Mexican".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found several sources that refer to him as "Puerto Rican heritage" - e.g. [5] - thus our extant category system of Category:Americans of Puerto Rican descent would fit well here. Just we've decided to not also intersect LGBT with that particular slice.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the difference is that Mexico is a separate country — and thus there are no circumstances under which a person who was not born there and doesn't live there can ever legitimately claim to be a plain unhyphenated Mexican. Puerto Rico, however, is a territory of the United States, not an independent country, and therefore a person born in the mainland US to parents who were from Puerto Rico was not born in a different country than his parents were, but in a different subdivision of the same country. Which is why "Mexican" vs. "American person of Mexican descent" is not a valid analogue to this situation — the comparable situations here would be arguing that being born outside of Nunavut, but still in Canada, invalidates a person's right to call themselves Inuit, or that a person born in Liverpool to Scottish parents from Edinburgh cannot legitimately call himself Scottish, or that being born off-reservation to Native American parents automatically makes a person not Native American themselves. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your argument. People can claim to be whoever the heck they want to be, and sources can (and do) sometimes label them in a *different* way. I'm quite sure you could find Mexicans, born in the US, who would reject the label Mexican-American and only embrace the label Mexican - and you could find their neighbors who reject the label Mexican-American and want to call themselves just American. But wikipedia categorization is brutal and heartless, and so we'd stick both of those poor fellows into Cat:Mexican-Americans if the sources supported it.
We have many other cases of nested/layered identities, and I think frankly this whole Puerto Rico is special story is a red herring - identity is not based solely on notions of citizenship and (sub)nationality and the specific status of Puerto Rico as a territory, but on many other things besides (and, the US also has Guam, and Virgin Islands, and Marianas, and ... - shall we create Category:LGBT Americans of Guam-descent? because of the particularities of Guam's status?). In any case, as I noted above, it's literally impossible to categorize people based on what they call themselves (1) because you'd have to ask them, and even their own opinions may change and (2) what they call themselves is widely and massively varied, and would lead to horrible clutter. Take sexuality - someone may classify themselves as 50% gay and 50% bisexual (I had a friend like this) - but we'd probably just slot him in a LGBT category.
Your idea of blending all the Puerto Ricans together (no matter where born/raised/etc) into one big happy melting pot does not hold up, it just seems to be a special exception to the rule that risks confusing people more than anything else.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases what people call themselves also depends on the context they are in. They will call themselves Mexican, Mexican-American or American depending on where they are and how you ask them the question. Then there were the "Mexicans" in 1960s Chicago who called themselves such, but they were living by "Poles" and other such groups, and none of them were nationals of those countries and all of them would have admitted that they really meant "Polish-Americans", "Mexicans-Americans" etc if pressed, but since they all new they were hyphanated Americans, it was just simplier to only mention the pre-hyphen part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_7&oldid=1138397588"