Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 5 February 7 >

February 6[edit]

Category:Native American words and phrases[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: relisted at CFD 2013 March 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Native American words and phrases
  • Nominator's rationale This is a category about things. Cougar is an article on an animal. Cashew is an article on a nut. All the articles in this category can be categorized better as cultural concepts, animals, nuts or something else. None are about words. Secondly, cashew is not actually a native-American word, and shows how misused such a category is. "Native American" is not a language, so the whole concept behind the category is flawed at some level. However cashew comes to English from Portuguese. True, it originates at some level from an indigenous language of Brazil, which might be "Native American" by some definitions, but the word was not "cashew", but has changed over time and is not the same word. I might try pruning this category, but after looking over its contetns, I am unconvinced any of the articles are on words rather than something else, and I have seen too many people dedicated to overcategorizaing even when this means putting an article like Cougar in a category for words to have much hope that pruning the category would work in the long-run. Some words and phrases categories may work, this one clearly does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Part of a family of such categories, childen of Category:Words and phrases by language, which are not being deleted and should not be as they are navigational aids to their articles. Nomination gives no reason why this category should be deleted, but instead just picks out a few items in it to (wrongly) criticize. Hmains (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Included in this category are words from 4 different languages, while another that says "Native American word," another says Taíno people which isn't a language and a "possible something." Hardly defining. As a category it really doesn't work, nor would a companion category, Category:Native European words and phrases be much use. FWIW and IMO this category may be a great idea and we are commenting on the execution of the idea. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I tried to say above, we are supposed to categorize articles by what they are about, not what they are named. Cougar and Cashew are not articles about "Native American words", they are respitively an article on an animal and an article on a nut. Thye are clearly miscategorized here. Beyond this, the name is just false. There is no Native American language. The similar Native European language category would group words from Hungarian, German, French, Finnish and Russian, and might not even be then grouping words from as dissimilar languages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 16 February 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:New Zealand youth orchestras[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to all parents (i.e. Category:New Zealand orchestras, Category:Youth organisations based in New Zealand and Category:Youth orchestras). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a significant enough distinction to justify the split for one page (called Gisborne Youth Concert Band, so I think readers will figure out the "youth" part on their own pretty quickly). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—If upmerge is the result this will need to be upmerged to all three parent categories. However, it is a part of a pattern within Category:Youth orchestras and could be retained under that criterion. IIRC there are ca. 8 regional youth orchestras + the National in NZ. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to all parents, with no prejudice against re-creation if additional articles are created. In the four years since the category was created none have surfaced, but surely Gisborne, pop. 34,400, cannot have the only noteworthy youth orchestra in New Zealand? - choster (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to parents. Not worth having this as a one article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- I doubt there are enough to make a satisfactory category by themsleves. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 10 February 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:American given names[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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Given names in the US are in the thousands as there is no prohibition on naming your kid anything that pops into your head Moon Unit, Dweezil and basically every thing under Category:Given names can be thrown in - not defining that someone in the US decided to name their kid XXXXX. Few, if any (reliable sources, folks) are uniquely American, like "Samantha", where many of the bearers of the name at Samantha are not Americans - and Abe (seriously? the disambiguation page says it's English, not American - but America takes in all languages I suppose, proving the less than usefulness of these categories. Anyone can download 7mb of names with 5 occurrences each at [[1]] and categorize away, or we can just nip this in the bud. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The inclusions criteria are horribel. This especially applies to the unisex category. Somehow Gracie (name) was put there, even though the article on it explicitly says it is a feminine name, and does not even call it "American". As I said on a related discussion with reference to these categories "the nightmare is here".John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and per JPL. As an immigrant country, the USA has names from all over the globe ... and unlike some countries which imposes restrictions on the names under which a child may be registered, American kids can be called whatever the parents choose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given how diverse and multicultural and immigrant-heavy the United States is, there's barely a given name on Wikipedia (or on the planet) that couldn't be added to these categories — and, at any rate, the other sibling categories are in Category:Given names are defined by the ethnicities that are associated with them, not by countries. I will acknowledge, for the record, that the "masculine" and "feminine" categories are populated mostly (but not exclusively) by names that have a specifically stereotyped correlation to American regional or cultural groupings such as Southern "hillbillies" (Lurleen) or African-Americans (Latoya, Antwan, Tupac, etc.) — but every last entry in the unisex one (and some entries even in the gendered ones) is a name that's just as equally Canadian, British, Australian, New Zealander and South African too, and categorizing names by every country where they could reasonably be found at all is taking things way too far to be useful. Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as textbook cases of 'indiscriminate'. Mangoe (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The issue is that none of the names in any of these categories is characteristically American. Any given name used in the United States could be used in dozens -- if not hundreds -- of other nations around the world, and any name used anywhere in the world is bound to be used in the U.S. sooner or later. As such this is not a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is also odd that extremely common names in the US like Elizabeth (given name) are not in this category. I picked that one specifically because it is exactly the same name in German, and so just as common in Germany. Why it is in the English and Swiss categories and no others I have no idea. Then there is David (given name) which is the same in Spanish, and thus as likely in Mexico, Argentina etc. However with the proliferation of "American" names in Latin America, like Stephanie and many others, over the last few decades, it has become even harder to claim any names have specific limits. Is Juan in this category, if not it should be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of examples of people from the US names Juan. Many are Latino or Hispanic. Another large number are African-American (who I think often pronounce it differently), and then there is Juan Trippe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 9 February 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:American actors of Finnish 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:American actors of Finnish descent to Category:American people of Finnish descent
  • Nominator's rationale The rules on categorization by intersection between occupation and ethnicity make it clear that we should only categorize by the intersection when the intersection itself is notable. I do not think this is any more notable than Category:American actors of German descent which we recently upmerged with a whole slew of others. We should not upmerge to the actors cats because all these people should already by in one or more by medium subcats of Category:American actors (most likely lots, but that is another story).John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator as an irrelevant intersection. I have just checked that all the articles currently in the category are indeed in at least one subcat of Category:American actors, so there is no need for a dual upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One's individual ethnicity does not, as a rule, have any discernible impact on an acting career. Broader classifications such as Category:Actors of Asian descent or Category:African-American actors certainly do, so by all means those should be kept, but within those groupings one's career as an actor is not further defined or circumscribed or influenced by whether their ethnicity is specifically Chinese vs. Japanese vs. Korean, or Ugandan vs. Nigerian vs. Zulu, or Hungarian vs. Finnish vs. German — at least in Western countries, actors are not typically restricted to playing characters whose specific ethnic background precisely matches their own, but are quite regularly cast in any role for which their broader racial background (Asian, African, Caucasian, etc.) doesn't preclude them. Lucy Liu, for instance, will never get to play Mary Todd Lincoln, but she did play a Japanese samurai boss in Kill Bill even though her own ethnic background is Chinese rather than Japanese — meaning that being of Asian descent does have an impact on her career, while the fact that her specific ethnicity is Chinese, rather than Japanese or Korean or Thai, does not. (One's career might, admittedly, be influenced by their specific ethnicity if they were a first generation immigrant who still had a mother country accent — but that's a question of immigration status, not of ethnicity itself.) That said, I wish to note, for the record, that there are numerous other subcategories of Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent which are equally dubious — accordingly, almost everything in Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent needs to be trashcanned along with this, although they should be handled individually since the upmerges aren't always going to be the same in every case. Upmerge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think comparing the issues of African-Americans and Asian-Americans ignores reality. African-Americans are not seperately categorized by place of origin in Africa because by and large African-American is used to refer to an ethnic group that was formed about 2 centuries ago, and most of the people so identified do not know where in Africa their ancestors came from. In fact, msot have European and Native American ancestry as well, and my guess is most "African-Americans" are more likely to be able to identify what country in Europe their ancestors came from than a country in Africa (and even if they could identify a country in Africa it would in many cases be an act in anachronism since the country did not exist when their ancestors left Africa). There is a very large number of people like President Obama who are children of immigrants from Africa, some of whom as he has have identified with Afircan-American culture, but many of the immigrants themselves and at least some of their children and other descendants see themselves as part of distinct ethnic groups. At some level African-American can be used to identify an ethnic group that is distinct from Ethiopian-Americans, Nigerian-Americans and even Haitian-Americans. On the other hand, in general people of Asian descent know where their ancestors come from, and identify as Chinese-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans, Filipinos-Americans and so forth. In fact the Asian term is so tricky that in common speach it is often used in a way that would be better rendered as East-Asian Americans, since people from India are often seen as a different group, and people from Iraq, who clearly come from Asia, are not even classed as Asian by the census.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 9 February 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:Hotels in England by name[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are overcategorization by shared name. The hotels categorized in this way share nothing but a name. The categories are essentially duplicating the disambiguation pages George Hotel and Grand Hotel (but limiting those included to ones in England). (Some hotels from Wales have also been included.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we categorize things by shared characteristic, not by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tim! (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and John Pack Lampard, two of the "Grand" hotels Scarborough & Torquay were part of a "Grand" chain along with the Grand Burstin (folkstone), Grand Metropole (Blackpool) , and Grand Ocean Hotel (Saltdean) but that's probably not even enough to categorise by chain. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- These are not hotel chains (where a category might be appropriate). The appropriate mechanism for linking them is a dab page - a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 10 February 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:United Kingdom mass media lists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. BrownHairedGirl continues to object in the same vein as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_7#Category:Years_in_British_politics and should accept consensus to use "British" in category names. Tim! (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the parent is Category:British media not Category:United Kingdom mass media. Tim! (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV is a core policy, and is non-negotiable. I do not accept the disregard for it shown by the use of partisan terminology, when the current title demonstrates that a neutral alternative is readily available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS is also a core policy and it is only your contention that use of the word British violates NPOVand is partisan. I also note you created Category:Lists of Irish media rather than Category:Republic of Ireland mass media lists? Tim! (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS is indeed a core policy. That's why we are discussing this and seeking a consensus.
Category:Lists of Irish media is correctly named because its scope is all-Ireland, rather than just the Republic. It fits the (unwise, IMO) "fooish media" convention of its parents Category:Lists of media by country and Category:Irish media, and AFAICS raises no neutrality issues. If you see a neutrality issue there, please spell it out.
If at some stage Category:Lists of Irish media is split, then the subcats would be Category:Republic of Ireland mass media lists and Category:Northern Ireland mass media lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, as long as we continue to use "British" as the adjective for things from the UK. The parent is Category:British media so I don't see a good reason for one of the subcategories to diverge from this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as British is not synonymous with UK. United Kingdom merely relates to the state; British is a non-neutral term as it excludes media in the UK that are not British, e.g. The Irish News in Belfast. Brocach (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral -- except (possibly) to Northern Irish Republicans, British is the adjective for UK, not merely the island of Great Britain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not just Republicans, Peter. Seamus Heaney is no Republican, but when he was included in an anthology of British poets he wrote: “My passport’s green/No glass of ours was ever raised/to toast the Queen.” --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We are of course talking here about media rather than people, but as the principal difference between "UK" and "British" relates to Northern Ireland it could be pointed out that the 2011 Census shows that only 40% of people in Northern Ireland described their identity as exclusively British; by no means all of the other 60% can be described as "Northern Irish Republicans" (a very rare breed, I suspect, in comparison to those who regard themselves as "Irish Republicans"). In any case, it is odd to claim that a term should be regarded as "neutral" because it is objectionable only to people of a particular political persuasion. Brocach (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • An interesting thing about the census was that more people identified as Northern Irish than as Irish [2] and yet we have the situation where wikipedia's categories take the form Category:Irish media and Category:Media in Northern Ireland. Tim! (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Category:Media in Northern Ireland and Category:Media in the Republic of Ireland and both neutrally-named subsets of the neutrally-named geographic category Category:Media in Ireland. While some of those in Category:Media in Northern Ireland might be content to be called "Northern Irish", some might not, so the category is geographic rather than political. Conversely, the proposal here is to apply a political meaning of the word "British" rather than its geographical sense of "in/of Britain". The term "United Kingdom" reflects the present constitutional facts - "British" is a contested non-neutral term.Brocach (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The proposal is to match the parent Category:British media and not to apply a political meaning as you assert. See the category naming convention Wikipedia:Category names#Socio-cultural topics which states "Subcategories of these categories are named "nationality ..."." Tim! (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Tim, whatever the intention is, the effect is to add a political label. Great Britain is only par of the United Kingdom, and applying the term "British" to the whole of the UK is a political usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • BHG, you can repeat you assertions as many times as you like (as you have done at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 13), they do become any more the case. The use of the word British is no more political than use of the word Irish. By creating Category:Lists of Irish media and Category:United Kingdom mass media lists you have applied different standards, not to mention "abominable use of nouns as adjectives", and taken sides on an issue. Tim! (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Tim, I am sorry that you find it so difficult to understand this problem, so let me spell it out again. Irish is the adjectival form of Ireland, so it is an uncontentious adjective for things relating to Ireland.
                  However, British is the adjectival form of Great Britain, a geographical area which does not include Northern Ireland ... and it is applied to Northern Ireland only a contested political usage. These categories have a geographical scope rather than a political one, so we should not use a contested political term.
                  I do indeed deplore the use of adjectives for such categories, but since there is no neutral adjective fot the UK, I used "United Kingdom" as an adjective in the same way as we use the noun "New Zealand" as an adjective. I will support any proposal to rename all these categories from the adjectival form "Fooish Bar" to the neutral "Bar of Foo". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no difficulty in understanding, don't be so condescending. Tim! (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New Zealand" is a noun and a legitimate adjective, according to most dictionaries. Also, my dictionary says that another meaning of "British" is "things from or of the British Empire (hist.), British Commonwealth, or United Kingdom". So I don't think there is a huge problem in using it to mean "from or of the UK". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is the problem with using "United Kingdom" adjectivally, to mean "from or of the UK"? It's good enough for the United Kingdom government (see para 1)... and the Scottish government... and the Welsh Government... and the Northern Ireland Executive?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocach (talk • contribs)
Perhaps nothing, in the abstract, but this is not the abstract. We are discussing things in the context of WP's existing categories. And the vast majority—hundreds, if not thousands—of categories use "British" as the adjective to mean "of or from the UK". Why editors have decided that this one category should be different, I don't know. If users want to change the standard, they should make efforts to do that in a broader discussion, and not try to single out a single category for special treatment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from WP:CANVASSING [3] Tim! (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah now Tim, Its merely an "Appropriate notification" per WP:CANVASSING, wheres the problem? Finnegas (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't see a distinct POV in the header to the notification? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. On the one hand, you argue above that the category "British media" encapsulates the Irish media in northern Ireland; on the other, you are saying that a neutrally-worded notification ("Interesting discussion going on here") counts as canvassing because the header, "Irish as a subcategory of British", expresses a POV. It doesn't; it identified the topic being discussed here, without indicating any view as to whether Irish is or isn't a subcategory of British. But if you feel that even mentioning the very notion of "Irish as a subcategory of British" without expressing a view one way or the other amounts to not just expressing, but canvassing for, a POV, then you must appreciate the political sensitivities that are engaged, and be anxious to neutralise entirely the terminology used around UK categories that contain include Irish elements. I take it that you will now withdraw your support for this move to use the word "British" as a category that includes "Irish", go with the neutral and officially used adjectival form of "United Kingdom media", and campaign vigorously against other existing or proposed categories that subsume "Irish" into "British". Brocach (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may not believe that "Irish as a subcategory of British" expresses a POV and you may not have intended it to, but it certainly can be read to do so, as you've acknowledged. (The case for it being POV is strengthened if the editor you messaged is familiar with your general opinion on such matters.) But no, I'm not terribly interested in getting heavily involved in the squabbles over the use of terminology in the UK and Ireland. I'm more interested in seeing naming consistency in the category tree, whether it be one way or the other. And right now, this is category is an odd-man out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brocach, can you explain in what way you consider British to be "POV" but Irish not? "British media" – the media of the UK – is no different to "Irish media" – the media of the Republic of Ireland. If you want to keep this category at "United Kingdom mass media lists", its Irish counterpart should be "Ireland mass media lists". — Jon C.ॐ 09:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Irish" does not just mean "Republic of Ireland". "Irish" is also the adjectival form of the island of Ireland, and it is used in the inclusive sense by people from both sides of the political divide. For example, see the Irish Rugby Football Union (a 32-county sporting body, who strong presence in Northern Ireland is overwhelmingly unionist) or the Commissioners of Irish Lights.
"British" is not POV when applied to Great Britain. When applied to the United Kingdom as a whole, it includes Northern Ireland, where the question of Britishness is the central issue of political division. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What she said. Brocach (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Wikipedia:Category_names#Socio-cultural_topics in which it is stated "Subcategories of these categories are named "nationality ..."." implies Irish is used as a nationality in the category name. If acceptable as applied to Northern Ireland then British as used as a nationality is also acceptable. Reread the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement [4] line 1 :

1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:...

and esp

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves

and be accepted as Irish or British', or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of

Northern Ireland.

(Emphasis added) Note also the names of British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference, British–Irish Council and British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly. Tim! (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - After considering all the arguments here, particulary Tim!'s, over the period of this CfD, I belive "British" to be the appropriate term here. Wikipedia does not exist to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, it is WP:NOTCENSORED to avoid politically offending groups, and it should follow the WP:COMMONNAME. Whether it is right or wrong, the WP:COMMONNAME for "from the United Kingdom" is "British". If this is inappropriate or offensive to some groups within the United Kingdom, then it is the responsibility of those in the United Kingdom to start identifying themselves differently to the point that a new demonym, whatever it may be, becomes the WP:COMMONAME. Then, and only then, should Wikipedia refrain from using "British" to mean "from the United Kingdom"; we follow, we do not lead. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per The Bushranger. "From the United Kingdom" in word is "British". Armbrust The Homunculus 08:13, 13 March 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:Long Island deaths[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete We typically don't categorize people according to the place in which they died since it's not usually a defining characteristic. We do make a bizarre exception for people who died in a specific way (e.g. Category:Deaths by firearm in New York) but even in that case, we do not have city-specific categories or, for Long Island, island/county/borough-specific categories. Pichpich (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Long Island is an oddball for geographic reasons. There are four counties on the island, but two -- Queens / Queens County and Brooklyn / Kings County -- are boroughs in New York City, while Nassau County and Suffolk County are independent of the city. People use the term "Long Island" to mean either the whole island or the parts (Nassau and Suffolk) that aren't part of New York City, leading to such oddities as people in Brooklyn or Queens who will describe someone from Nassau as "living on Long Island", even though they too live on Long Island. The category itself reflects this split personality, including Category:People by city district or neighborhood, Category:People from New York City and Category:Long Island as parents. It's not a neighborhood category and it's not about New York City. I might well support a structure of deaths by location as a parent for categories like Category:Deaths by firearm in New York, but this category is not the first one that should be a model. Alansohn (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the place of death is generally not a notable characteristic for a person. This is categorization by trivial fact, which we should avoid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hope it will be remained.

I agree that Queens and Brooklyn would be fair to exclude from this category, they belong to the NY City But Nassau and Suffolk it is possible and necessary to keep. Oyster Bay (even being close to the city NY), in the years of the death of Theodore Roosevelt (1919) and his widow (1948) - was a quiet and separate place. It's not even that the manner of death (often talking about the artists) characterizes this island. And we are not talking about a curious fact (such as "killed by lightning"), but the kind of cultural identity that speaks of belonging to a particular strata.

Look for a specific feature of the island - its extraordinary length. The simultaneous proximity to New York and cut off from it, the feature so treasured by artists. Look at first on the "settlers" who worked in the Impressionist vein like William Merrit Chase or his pupil Irving R. Wiles (applicable to them French painterly parallels as Pontoise and Barbizon) - plein air summer school, in honor impressionism style. Look at the generation of abstract expressionists, many of them settled in the East of the Long Island in the years of the beginning of the movement (from the first leader of Russian futurists David Burliuk and his group - the Hamptons Bays Art Group - John Graham, Arshile Gorky, Nicolai Cikovsky, Moses Soyer , Raphael Soyer, George Constant, Milton Avery, to such an enchanting popular pairs like Pollock-Krasner and Elaine de Kooning (1918-1989) & Willem de Kooning (1904-1997). Not to mention just a detective story with the courts for the exhumation of Mark Rothko's grave, who was buried in the North Fork in the cemetery area belonged to his friend and another abstract expressionist, Theodoros Stamos.

Yuracei (talk) 11:49, 8 February 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:Songs by songwriter[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: status quo. The Bushranger One ping only 04:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rather than delete, this is a "category for discussion" thread to add a diffusing message to Category:Songs by songwriter. For songs, there are (1) song writing credits, (2) song performing credits for those who provided voice or instrument on a song (see Category:Songs by artist), and (3) other song credits such as producer or engineer, or publisher (see Category:Songs by producer or Category:Music by publisher). Category:Songs by songwriter was created in 2007 at 2007 May 7#Category:Songs by composer under the reasoning that a composer writes music, a lyricist writes lyrics, and a songwriter writes either or both. As a result, there are three categories: Songs by songwriter and its two subcategories Songs by composer and Songs by lyricist. The trouble comes in what is being added to Category:Songs by songwriter, which is mostly composted of the subcategories "Songs written by foo.‎" While this appears reasonable on the surface, Songs written by foo is vague and when you look at the articles added to categories "Category:Songs written by foo" you will find articles that do not list foo as having writing credits and other articles that evidence editors are not clear on what to add to "Category:Songs written by foo" categories. Because of music royalties, song writing credits almost always are clearly delineated between lyrics credit and composer credit. Allowing "Songs written by foo" in Category:Songs by songwriter encourages a vagueness in categorizing song writing credits that can and should be addressed by using one or both of Category:Songs by lyricist or Category:Songs by composer. I proposing adding a diffusing template to Category:Songs by songwriter along the lines of:
-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose lots of songs have music and lyrics by the same person. It is not worth creating two categories that will have the same contents or lots of overlap in many cases. I think we should leave things as they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an even worse idea. Many songs do not specify. Also as I explain below, some people do both but only on some songs. That would actually head us towards have 3 cats for my hypothetical song-writer. That would make a total mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. per JPL. Duplicate 3300+ categories with exactly the same entries, why? Although the PROs do differentiate between lyricist and composer this information is not generally available to the public, so WP can't refer to the information. I also note the nominator has not placed a Cfd notice on the category. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some articles that list who did lyrics and who did music, and those can be used to create such categories. However there are far too many songs that just list one or more writers without specificying who did music and who did lyrics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to pick a random song that illustrates why this is a bad idea we have "Shoot High, Aim Low", where they two people listed as writers are also among the listed composers. The composer and lyricist cats work for people who were only one of the other, but it would create duplicate cats if we had someone who composed 15 songs, wrote lyrics for 12, and 10 of those were overlaps where he did both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 9 February 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:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, or rather "don't undelete", since the category has already been deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted after a CfD in late December but was bought to DRV as the creator has not been notified. As there have been a number of different viewpoints expressed in the DRV I am relisting the CfD to allow them to be examined properly. As the DRV closer this is a procedural nomination and I am neutral with regard to the outcome of this discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 12:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am uncertain what the correct procedure is now. "Keep" sounds weird since there is nothing to keep. In any case, this is a very important category with respect to Native American languages as it shows their continued use. It is therefore a valid category for both linguistic as well as cultural purposes. The main point during the poorly attended discussion that lead to the deletion was that actors should not be categorized by language. Even if that was a valid point, this one is an exception: We expect that French actors perform in French; we expect that English actors perform in English. Therefore it of course isn't a surprising or noteworthy fact. However, for Native Americans, most people will find it (sadly) unique to see them perform in an indigenous language.
    Secondly, concerns were raised about actors possibly appearing in multiple categories. This seems odd as people can hold multiple citizenships (which, btw, is quite an irrelevant category for most people, but that's a different discussion), have multiple ancestries, be notable for more than one occupation, and so forth. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning endorse deletion I really don't think this is quite defining. I don't know how many of these actors actually could speak some Native American language to begin with, but it seems to me that their performance was directed (as it were) by the movie that they were in. I mean, it's hardly expected that Randolph Mantooth would have ever spoken in Seminole on Emergency!, assuming he could speak it. Conversely one might expect that performers in the 1940s always spoke English or a pidgin version thereof because that's what the writers and directors told them to do, even if more of them in those days could have spoken in Native American tongues. So I can imagine a category of films/shows better than I can a category of actors. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is exceptionally defining as it is part of a person's identity, more so than the meaningless paper/passport by which we currently categorize people. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being able to speak in a language is defining, but being asked to do so is not. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • One cannot perform in a language one is unable to speak. And could you respond to what I said: being handed a stupid paper that says "you are Canadian now" is not defining at all. Yet we categorize people by it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I used to do it every week. And besides, this isn't a category of people who could speak in a given language, but of those who did so speak. Presumably a lot of those who could speak were never called upon to do so. Really this seems more the subject of an article about use of American Indian languages in performances rather than a list of people. Is there such an article? If there isn't, you could do us all a great service by writing it rather than editorializing irrelevantly about how nationality is unimportant. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Language is a suitable way to characterize actors. Surely the language they perform in is much more closely related to their notability than their nationality. It is also something that can easily and unambiguously be determined --keeping in mind that they might perform in several. Perhaps we don't make those categories because it is 95% of the time the same as their nationality, but that is not always the case. I assume most Native American actors perform in English (or Spanish or French or Portuguese, depending on what is the dominant language in their area); the ones who perform in their own language (or conceivable even other Native American languages) would be a small minority (actually two minorities, those who perform only in their own language, and those who perform in both.) It is reasonable that people should have a way of finding the bios. This would certainly apply to the Jewish example--it matters whether someone of this group performs in English or French or Russian or German; it also matters whether they perform in Yiddish or Ladino (most but not all who have performed in those languages will also have performed in a majority language-- and there's the added possibility of Hebrew, which depending on places and time is a minority or majority language) This is always very prominently mentioned in published work about them when its other than the expected language of the country they live in.

Whether we go further into the individual Native American language would depend on the number of people. That's not a valid objection. (And I note the same argument will apply to writers; singers often perform in multiple languages, including often some they do not actually know, so that's a somewhat different problem.) What can be more basic to any creative professional than the medium they use to practice their profession? DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We do not categorize actors by the language they performed in. Since actors repeat dialogue, they do not need to be very proficient in a language to perform in it. The number of actors who have appeared in Egnlish, Spanish and Italian-language films, and several other combination of multiple languages shows this is a bad idea. The language people performed in is not notable in acting, and we do not want to start categorizing it. Beyond this, this is not a standard linguistic grouping, and I do not see any justifiable reason to group people by performing in non-mutually inteligable languages. This whole category is a bad idea, that creates bad precdents, and should be deleted before we create another whole slew of categories we do not need. Categorization of these people by ethnicity is sufficient.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JPL. If editors want to create a list of such actors then that might be OK. DexDor (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listify with sources; no different than Category:Sopranos who sang soprano in films, Category:Jews who played Jews in films, Category:Jews who spoke Yiddish in films, Category:Saxophonists who played Saxophone in films, and numerous other concoctions one could come up with. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A list would be perfectly fine, and would be much more helpful since it couls say what languages the people performed in. As it is we would put an Iroqouis who performed in the Dine-language in this category, which really does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list would probably be appropriate, but per the WP:OC#PERF guideline, people aren't supposed to be categorized by performance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and broaden Category:Actors who performed in a Native American language -- At DRV, I argued for keep, but I think the characteristic is probably actors who actually spoke a Native American language on film, as opposed to a series of grunts or gibberish. I assume that Native American language theatre or film is such a small field that it hardly exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a concern with this option. People do learn how to speak words in a different language for movies. This scope would seem to allow the inclusion of these actors. If that is the case then I would oppose since it opens this type of categorization up for every language and is not the intended purpose of the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is also problematic because as far as I can tell, the only place where we categorize actors by language is with categories with most of the films made in India. There were seem to have a standard focused on the language of the production. Thus the best name here would be Category:Actors who appeared in Native American language productions. I think we should avoid including in the category actors who rendered a few lines in Sioux in a film that was primarily in English. Well, actually I think we should delete the whole thing, because this borders on a performance by performer category unless we limit it to actors who mainly performed in a native American language, and even at that we are grouping unlike things. Dineh has closer linguistic relatives in Asia than it is related to the Puebloan-languages, but they will be grouped together if we keep this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually there are many cases where people perform in languages they do not understand. Helen of Troy (film) had the person playing the titutlar role be a person who did not understand English and in her article on wikipedia it says "Podestà's most memorable role was as Helen in Helen of Troy, produced by Robert Wise in 1956. She could not speak English so she learned her lines by rote with a voice coach." So people do actually perform in languages they do not understand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How many lines of (scripted, after all) language would be the criterion? A single word - no. But then how many words or lines?? Category:Native American actors suffices. Mayumashu (talk) 01:22, 18 February 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:Anime and manga by demographic[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: relisted at CFD March 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to this CFD demographic is only defining for mangas, and not animes. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment where's the equivalent anime category tree? Since not all anime are manga, there seems to be a missing category tree. There are demographic groupings for anime as well, as the anime market in Japan is also divided by demographic (as would be expected, since pre-school targeted anime would not be appealing to older children, and late-night experimental anime is not suitable for young children) As well, adaptations of manga do not necessarily target the same audience as several manga aimed at adults have been reimagined for a younger audience (such as removing the sex scenes) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment usually, when a manga and anime share a name, they also share an article on wikipedia. This has resulted in a few oddities in the category structure at times, including this categorys name. Having anime by demographic as well would be sensible, as it is how is often categorised in reliable sources, but for the most part it would be duplicating this tree - titles where the manga is clearly in one demographic and the anime in another are not common, no more so than titles where different series/remakes/versions of the anime are in different demographics, and far less common than titles that as a whole are considered part of 2 or 3 demographics. --Qetuth (talk) 22:31, 10 February 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:Non-traditional Buddhism[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:Buddhist new religious movements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clearly defining criteria for inclusion, leading to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second proposal to rename as Category: Buddhist new religious movements. This was what I had in mind when creating the category, and as has been mentioned the Christian version sets a precedent. There are clear criteria for the new Buddhist religious movements so should solve any OR or SYNTH problems. --Dakinijones (talk) 22:08, 6 February 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:Democratic People's Republic of Korea government images[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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have deleted this template here and at the Commons; at the Commons, there is a copyright law that doesn't put government works in the public domain like we previously had. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-DPRKGov see this for details. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:59, 6 February 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:Drama Desk Award winners[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: relisted at CFD 2013 February 13. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Drama Desk Award winners
  • Nominator's rationale The opening setance in this category describes them as "one of the major" award. By this very sentance they are only one among many, not the preeminent award. We have way too many theatre award categories, considering some people are in this category and two other ones. This is not considered the preeminent award in American theatre, let alone on a grand international scale. We heavily discoarage award categories, and I see no reason we should have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then delete -- as we usually do, according to WP:OC#AWARD. Lists do the job much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 10 February 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:Exosquad[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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL. All content was deleted or redirected, leaving only the main page, episode list, and a single video game (plus a fourth article currently at AFD). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:26, 6 February 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:Obie Award recipients[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Obie Award recipients
  • Nominator's rationale Award categories are generally discoraged. As it is we have way too many acting award categories. We should limit the award categories to the very top awards in the filed. Since the Obies do not even cover the top stage acting in the United States, it really does not seem worth having this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Obie Awards are to Off-Broadway theatre as the Tony Awards are to Broadway; the highest and most recognized level of recognition, with the only difference being the number of seats in the theatre, not the quality of stage acting, as 499 seats and below is Off-Broadway, while Broadway is 500 and above. As such it is an appropriate defining characteristic that should be used to group articles in this manner. Alansohn (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But off braodway is inherently less notable than broadway. We do not need award categories for all theatre, esecially when lots of people who won these awards also won tonys. Awards categories are discoraged and I see no reason to have multiple types of awards for American theatre. I really see no point in awards categories at all, we categorize people as actors, and that should be enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no explicit hierarchy that Broadway is less notable then Off-Broadway; They're simply different, and some directors prefer to stage plays in smaller theaters. The Little Shubert Theatre is located within the bounds of the Broadway Theatre district, but its 499 seats puts it into the Off-Broadway categorization and makes any production there ineligible for a Tony Award (see this source for some of the exegesis on the distinction). It's hard to argue that there is a qualitative difference between a production in a 499-seat theatre that's Off-Broadway and one with 500 that is considered Broadway. The Obie Award is the most prestigious and best-known award for the category and is a defining characteristic of its winners. I know you'd prefer to see no awards and others prefer to include all, but my preference is to include those that are top-level in their field and this is one of them. Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 6 February 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.

Reality cooking competition winners[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The general practice with award categories is to nominate them cat by cat because there are clearly some that are exceptions and there is no clear standard of where the exception lies, so like the US Supreme Court deciding what was unallowed smut in the 1960s and 1970s, we have to do these nominations on a case by case basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that these individuals won cooking competitions is the primary defining characteristic for virtually every article I've reviewed in this category; This is not an award category. We need to stop the simpleminded misapplication of rules of thumb and focus on how we can use categories as a tool for readers to navigate across articles with a common characteristic. This is an example of a situation where without the category there is no other practical means to use categories to group individuals with a rather clear common defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not really the kind of award WP:OC#AWARD appears to be talking about. I think the more important link would be WP:DEFINING from the same page. For most of the articles in the category, not only is the award mentioned in their lead, but that mention is almost the entirety of the lead. --Qetuth (talk) 04:00, 22 February 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_February_6&oldid=1138397907"