Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 13 January 15 >

January 14[edit]

Category:Streets in Hudson County[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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Streets in Hudson County should be moved to Streets in Hudson County, New Jersey to be consistent with other categories (Category:Streets in Passaic County, New Jersey, etc.) and to include the state name. Tinton5 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 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:Akanland stubs[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) 14:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lots of articles and categories about a non-existent "Akanland" were created by this now-banned user - this should be cleaned up Little Professor (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created as part of a major pov-push/hoax. Not a useful category. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole Akan mess should go, the Akan-pusher deleted country-tags/categories/wikiprojects and replaced it with the Akan-stub/categories/project tags. This has been going on since atleast September. Probably longer, considering that the Commons ban was enacted on 1 September. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Akanland is a redirect to an article on the Akan people. This is an attempt to re-imagine the geopgraphy of West Africa. Until The Akanland movement succeeds in unifying/destroying Ivory Coast and Ghana, we should not have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had forgotten about this mess. Should the Category: Akanland geography stubs‎ subcat be deleted/upmerged along with it? (currently hold 2 articles). --Qetuth (talk) 07:54, 16 January 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:Algonquian personal 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: listify and delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Each page should already be in a more specific "people" category e.g. Category:Ojibwe people. – Fayenatic London 08:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For the record, although some people stated below that certain categories do not exist, there are categories with slightly different names and purposes: Category:Algonquian peoples, Category:Semitic peoples and Category:Surnames of German origin. It is always helpful to look for such categories before stating that they don't exist, as we then find out what is already working well (or not so well) in nearby parts of related hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 14:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Algonquian personal names
  • Nominator's rationale This is a case of miscategorization. The article Pocahontas is not on that name, it is on the person who was so named. It should keep the same categorization if we had it under her later name Rebecca Rolfe. These articles are on people, not on their names, and they should be so categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname -- such a category should be about names, not people with names from a particular language. My guess is that there are few people with Algonquian language names, who are not of Algonquian ehtnicity. Accordingly merge with Category:Algonquian people, but since we do not seem to ahve that, we need to retain the existing category and rename it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename wouldn't work, because 1. there are Algonquian people who do not have Algonquian names. 2. Algonquin (at least as used in that catyegory) is a language family not an ethnicity, so there are no people who selfidentify as "Algonquin".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, + supercat for Algonquian proper names including the place names Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think people are getting why this is a problematic category. It is categorization by shared name trait, with no reference to the person. I am not sure the Pochahontas/Rebecca Rolfe problem illustrated why this is a bad category. Someone like Blue Jacket would also not show up in this category, not because he became less Native American than fellow Shawnee like Tecumseh (which from a cultural standpoint could be said of Rebecca Rolfe, which is why it is a bad example) but because the name his article is under is the Anglicization of his name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone else sees it that way. Look at the over 100 articles in the category. We need to keep the category, and what is wrong with the category name for bio articles? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its like having a category of "Smith" or "Italian surnames" or "names ending with B". At the very least the category should be renamed to "People with names from Algonquian languages".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with "People with Algonquian names". Then we could keep the category population as is and combine it with Algonquian place names into a supercat for Algonquian proper names (with two divisions, places and people.) This is an important subset of Algonquian languages. Ethnicity is another topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing it is part of Category:North American given names. Everything else in that category is articles on specific names, not on the people who held this. In some ways this dehumanizes the Native American people here, by reducing in some sense the articles on them to being just about their names. The articles are not on the names. Actually other people have argumed this is an odd grouping. We do not categorize people by their names, what next Category:American people with German surnames. We categorize people by nationality and ethnicity, not by the origin of their name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Category:Algonquian people. The category is obviously well-populated and should not be deleted; however, focusing on the people, rather than the names, is in keeping with how most other cultural groups/tribes are sub-categorized. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
The problem with that is not ethnically these people should not be identified as "Algonquian". They belong in Category:Wampanoag people, and Category:Shawnee people and Category:Potawatami people and lots more. This is an unneeded category. Renaming would improperly group these people. There needs to be attention given to making sure all these people are in such categories, but this would not work as a category even if renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment renaming to Category:Algonquian people would be a lot like creating Category:Semitic people and putting all speakers of Hebreew, Aramaic, Amheric and Arabic into one category. It would be classifying people by language group of their ethnicity, not by actual ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: it appears that the point of the category might be a linquistic issue, as there are multiple Algonquian languages. I'd propose something like Category:Algonquian language names or whatever is suitable. But worth keeping, I think. Barring that, a move to Algonquian people is a little problematic, as the same folks could be from many different tribal nations within the broad Algonquian linguistic/cultural group, yet someone could go around and remove categories based on a categorization "parent/child category" guideline. The only real reason we don't have a "German surnames" cat is because it probably would number in the tens of thousands of articles. Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we categorize articles, not titles. As far as I can tell, these are biographical articles. We don't classify biographies by the etymologies of the person's name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we have done and should do for Algonquian names, which should be an exception, because this is an important component of the study of Algonquian linguistics, which is concerned with preserving whatever information hasn't already been eradicated. This should be a linguistic category of personal names for biographies, not ethnic. I again implore editors to consider the Systemic WP:BIAS here and consider a category with the current population as a useful category, even if it it were retitled to "People with Algonquian names". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like what you should do is create a list. As Carlos Suarez stated we categoriez articles, not titles. This categorizes titles, and is just a bad plan. A list would allow lots of other possibilities for providing more information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it is a "bad plan", since it hasn't caused any problems for anyone whatsoever until only now you started complaining about having a category for "Algonquian names". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Among other things it mixed together articles on real people and articles on mythical beings. I removed all the articles on mythical beings, since it does not make sense to put them in a category full of articles on real people. However, the category is still classifying the articles on people as if they were articles on names, which they are not. They are on the people, not the names. Reidrects from other names of Blue Jacket should not be in any categories, because categories are about things, not names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed categories for names, and it seems this is one of them. It's a case of names being rather important to the linguistic study, although not as extreme as in say, Hurrian (where names are a vast proportion of what is known); it seems to me we could have eventually a category for people with Hurrian names for the same reason. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify as per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. This is categorisation "by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." Andrewaskew (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete if there is nothing left when non-linguistic articles are discounted. A category about Algonquian names would not be a bad thing, but this isn't one. --Qetuth (talk) 23:51, 17 January 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:British and Canadian citizen of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian 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: rename. delldot ∇. 21:30, 22 January 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:Images of Alanis Morissette[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That's what it is--free media will be on Commons —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not album covers, though the first one is eligible to be transferred to Commons (the other three are not). If merged, move these 4 files to Category:Alanis Morissette. I don't see the problem with having both once the album covers are moved, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not all are album covers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 22 January 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 of Scottish soccer[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Seasons of Scottish football into Category:Seasons in Scottish football

Nominator's rationale: The seasons by year for Scottish association football (soccer) follow the usual naming pattern (using in), eg Category:1953–54 in Scottish football, yet that category and others are a subcategory of Category:Seasons of Scottish football, which is a subcategory of Category:Seasons in Scottish football; while Category:1954–55 in Scottish football is a direct subcategory of Category:Seasons of Scottish football. Overall the years 1870-71 to 1904-04 are subcategories of Category:Seasons in Scottish football (created 2005) while the years 1905-06 to 2013-14 (with 5 exceptions) are subcategories of Category:Seasons of Scottish football (created 2009) which seems an unnecessary intermediate category. Upmerging would result in a simplified structure, like that of Category:Seasons in English football. Hugo999 (talk) 11:56, 14 January 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:Works of unknown authorship[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The convention of Category:Works by writer is to use writer. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We use the term "writer" not "author".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this begs the question: "unknown" by whom? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the suggested name is not WP:PRECISE enough. While I support the preference for "writer," the phrase "unknown writer" is commonly used outside of Wikipedia to connote new or obscure writers (relatively unknown). This ambiguity is avoided if we maintain the name as is. Andrewaskew (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Andrewaskew. I find the existing name far clearer in meaning. "Writership" is not a word I don't think, so this may be an exception to preferring "writer" over "author" since "authorship" is a great word to use in context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose The proposed name is a bit contrived, and as others have said, isn't utterly unambiguous. The present name is quite clear and shouldn't be overthrown in the name of relentless consistency. Mangoe (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - Using writers instead of authors is not equivalent to getting rid of 'authorship' which is the correct word and has no commonly used writer-derived equivalent. --Qetuth (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination Armbrust The Homunculus 07:05, 19 January 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:Canadian record label compilation albums[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 January 29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to diffuse category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Record label compilation albums may or may not need the diffusion, but Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists does. Is there any real reason why this needs to be deleted besides "I don't like it"? Keep. But even if it does get deleted, articles within it must be upmerged to Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists as well as Category:Record label compilation albums; although some of the albums have been double-filed in both categories simultaneously, most haven't been and Justin is the person who incorrectly duplicate-categorized each and every last one of the ones that are. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response Why does Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists need more diffusion? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because by itself, it fails to properly distinguish greatest hits albums by single artists, and compilation albums which are actually compilation albums in the traditional definition of the word compilation (i.e. albums on which each track is by a different artist entirely.) That is, without the diffusion it mixes up two completely different things that don't belong in the same category as each other. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response But this is even more confusing. Now you're proposing a categorization scheme based on the location of the record label which issued it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:35, 24 January 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:Track and field athletes from Georgia (country)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Because in Georgia (European country) is "athletes" not "track and field athletes". --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the votes of the IP should not count. It is easy to log out and vote as many times as you want with a dynamic IP. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, and very handy for you, since it's a lodged opinion against your proposal. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not WP:CIVIL. If you have a problem, lodge an WP:SPI -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Athletes (track and field) from Georgia (country), per User:John Pack Lambert. Mayumashu (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing or, if you must do something, merge per nom. Track and field is a subset of the sport of athletics. The nominated category is already correctly a subcategory of Category:Athletes from Georgia (country). One of the members, Maciej Rosiewicz, should be in the parent category as he is not a track and field athlete. I see repeated claims that a category name which fails to correctly describe its contents by en.wp's own naming standards and article descriptions is 'more neutral' or 'less ambiguous' without any attempt to address the issues with their own proposed name which is worse. As far as any evidence for what engvar should be preferred here, Georgia competes in many international competitions which call the sport Athletics, and is a member of the European Athletic Association. --Qetuth (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand the point of the question. If you have Category:Track and field athletes from Georgia (country) you need Category:Track and field athletes from Germany, Category:Track and field athletes from France, Category:Track and field athletes from Spain, Category:Track and field athletes from Finland, Category:Track and field athletes from Great Britain, Category:Track and field athletes from Sweden and all the rest of the old Continent. --Kasper2006 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not delete categories just because potential sister categories have not yet been formed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it's a perfectly valid subcategory which does NOT have equivalent scope as so many editors keep arguing. Whether the parent benefits from such a split is another issue, which I am somewhat neutral on. Looking closer, most of the larger members of Category:Athletes by nationality have been made parent only categories with a by event split (eg see Category:French athletes). That approach would for Georgia involve replacing the nominated category with 4 or 5 single person categories, to go with the existing 3 single person subcategories, so is probably premature. --Qetuth (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. We sub-categorise track and field athletes only within countries where usage of that term is established among native English speakers. See the rationale explained at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 26.
    • That category is an ENGVAR violation. It was created by Kasper2006 in contravention of a previous CFD result. There should not no subcategory "track and field athletes", it should be the main category, as "athletes" should never exist on its own in places where "track and field" is the term of use. It should only exist alone in countries where "athlete" is the English term of use. Kaspar2006 has been trying to enforce British English on Wikipedia. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canada, Quebec, Trois-Rivières your first edit was on 4 January 2013. I do not understand how you can say these things. I rather suspect that you are a "duplicate" of another user who already commented on these pages. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even understand Canadian English? You will note I am in Canada, and as such can be assumed to understand Canadian English. Yet you think British English should rule the world? You force British English onto Canadian categories and think that such a position will be accepted by Canadians??
You were warned by Nyttend to stop gaming the system and fooling around with the categories, as you were going to get blocked (User_talk:Kasper2006#Category:Canadian_track_and_field_athletes) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if that was a warning or not, he just explained me that I could not put in a category directly in SD (things that happened about two months ago), and I do not think since then has never worked in that field. The fact remains that I have a name and and you an IP. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where it is, but somewhere in the wikipedia guidelines there is something that states "IPs are people to". If you want to get all huffy about "using your name", I could point out that my account is under my leagl full name, which is more than you can say for your, unless your last name is a year. The fact of the matter is that you cannot treat IPs as non-persons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 18 January 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:Education in the Republic of China[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see anything here that isn't in the current boundaries of Taiwan, and so I'm not sure why it's an RoC category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we use Taiwan to refer to the current country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We decided a year or more ago that WP would call this polity "Taiwan". This may be being successfully resisted for categories relating to a out-islands, but in principle all categories relating wholly or aminly to the main island should be so renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Taiwan is the most common used name here on EN WP. - Darwinek (talk) 21:15, 16 January 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:Universities and colleges in the Republic of China[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These all appear to be in Taiwan proper. Two of them, National Central University and National Chiao Tung University, started on the Chinese mainland, but have moved to what is now Taiwan.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we use Taiwan to refer to the current country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We decided a year or more ago that WP would call this polity "Taiwan". This may be being successfully resisted for categories relating to a out-islands, but in principle all categories relating wholly or aminly to the main island should be so renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Taiwan is the most common used name here on EN WP. - Darwinek (talk) 21:16, 16 January 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:Military academies of the Republic of China[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of these are in Taiwan proper.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we use Taiwan to refer to the current country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose some of the entries show history prior to the evacuation to Taiwan, this would rescope the categories. Further some of them weren't based in what is now the Taiwan Area either, they were on the Mainland. Subcatgorization to "Taiwan" would be fine. Those that existed prior to the evacuation would remain in the current categorization, and anything in Mainland China that existed prior to the Communist victory would get an additional category "XYZ in the Republic of China (1911-1950)" which would also be a subcategory -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We decided a year or more ago that WP would call this polity "Taiwan". This may be being successfully resisted for categories relating to a out-islands, but in principle all categories relating wholly or aminly to the main island should be so renamed. Any for the pre-1950 mainland republic should be in a separate category for that. A lot of effort has been put into splitting pre-1949 mainland and post-1945 Taiwan categories. Difffuse categories covering both (save at a high "container" level should not be allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all above - Why have these persisted so long? Nothing new here to discuss. Rename all Taiwan-related pages on this discussion page. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Taiwan is the most common used name here on EN WP. - Darwinek (talk) 21:16, 16 January 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:EC 3.5.1[edit]

Discussion has been relisted, please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_24#Category:EC_3.5.1. delldot ∇. 19:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government Actuaries (United Kingdom)[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Nominator's rationale: This seems like over-categorization. Illia Connell (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn per comments below. Illia Connell (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is part of a categorisation scheme for British civil servants. The Government Actuary is a specific post (hence the capitalisation) - the chief actuary of the British Government with a rank equivalent to Permanent Secretary; this does not just refer to actuaries who work for the British Government. We have a long tradition of categorising the holders of senior posts and have thousands of such categories. Since the post was created in 1917, the category could certainly contain quite a number of articles. The fact it doesn't as yet is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Populate "Government Actuary" is an office holder, we frequeently have successive holders of an office in a category. It is properly a subcat of the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:52, 15 January 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 people of Asian descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. In terms of a headcount, the debate was finely-balanced between those who support keeping the category and those who want to upmerge it. But WP:NOTAVOTE, and both sides made some good arguments which in the end were inconclusive. There was no agreement on whether this category should be seen a container category, nor on whether "Asian American" is an ethnic or racial concept, or indeed on where to draw a line between ethnicity and race. On those grounds, the closure would have been "no consensus", but there was one crucial point which makes this a "keep": that this is one of ten similar sub-categories of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin (others include Category:American people of African descent‎, Category:American people of Oceanic descent‎, etc). Since all the arguments which would support deletion of this Asian grouping can also be applied to the 9 other similar categories, there is therefore no valid reason to delete only the Asian category.
So the result is "keep, but without prejudice to a group nomination of this and other similar categories". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, we don't categorize by race, so this category has morphed into one for any and all peoples whose ancestry is from a locale in the continent of Asia, itself a political (not geographic) division of the Eurasian continent. Thus, this includes Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews. I know im probably stirring up a huge discussion, but I just dont think that categorizing people by gigantic land masses with no ethnic cohesion makes good sense. its like saying "people from the northern hemisphere", or "people from islands". I also recognize that my rationale would change a whole lot of categories. I will politely bow to consensus if its a snow keep, and i wont belabor the point endlessly. anyone else agree with me? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Isn't the proposed target a category for subcategories and not for articles? It appears that it would be a misclassification to add these articles directly to that category. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. We will have to remove or reclassify the articles elsewhere, but we need to stop this classification by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This has nothing do with with 'race' as is shown by any reading of the category content. This is about American people from Asian countries/ethnic groups. Stop the race fixiation? Stopping these nominations will solve that. By the way, there is not now and has never been an 'Asian race' Hmains (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Given the geographical extent of this category, I'm not sure how it's useful. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- but primarily as a container category. Articles should as far as possible be categorised into more specific categories. I have to say that I am not happy with Jewish categories in this one. While they are ultimately of west Asian origin, most have in fact lived as a diaspora in Europe and north Africa for neartly 2000 years. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't categorize by continent, really. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're not categorizing by continent, we're categorizing by ethnicity. Above and beyond the fact that we have an article for Asian Americans as a prent article, the United States Census Bureau tracks Americans by their Asian ethnicity and provides an excellent summary here, which includes the definition of how "Asian" includes people "having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam." This definition demonstrates that there is a logical parent that should be subcategorized wherever possible, and does support the argument that Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews should be excluded. Whether you call it race or ethnicity, the real world -- as best exemplified by the U.S. Census Bureau -- does categorize people in this manner and that is what is relevant here, and this trumps all of the talk regarding what we should or shouldn't do or of what does or doesn't exist. Alansohn (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a categorization by continental ancestry which in the US happens to be called race or by a recent euphemism "ethnicity". What matters is that this group has nothing in common except that the US census bureau gave them a series of options on their form and they happened to choose the same one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • However Asian Americans is clearly about a race, not an ethnicity, and we do not categorize by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It depends on what you mean by "race". If you mean "race" in the way the US Census Bureau uses the term—which is really more akin to ethnicity—then yes, we do categorize by race. If by "race" you mean general skin colour and physical appearance, then that is another story. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, primarily because it serves as a container category, but also per Alansohn. This is an ethnic group tracked by the US Census Bureau. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The US Census tracks race, not ethnic groups, and we do not classify by race. Beyond that, if you look at the contents you will see it is not being used as the US census does. The US census does not classify people from Afghanistan, Iran or anywhere further west as Asian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the Census Bureau calls what they track "racial" groups or "race", but what they are tracking is more akin to ethnicity. They are not tracking people by skin colour or vague conceptions of how flat their noses are or how broad their hips are. They are tracking people by where their ancestors originated—that is ethnicity. There is no reason the category could not be changed to reflect a better way of categorizing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is nonsense, there is nothing that would make "Asian Americans" an ethnic group or more "akin to ethnicity". Ethnicity is not where one's ancestors originated it is about which cultural groups you identify as belonging to. And no the census bureau does not track people's genealogies they ask people to identify with one of a predetermined set of races one of which is Asian.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense—it just so happens that almost all people's identification with a particular culture and their ancestral genealogy line up. Find me a person who calls themself an Asian American but who does not have an ancestor from an Asian country. The "race" we don't categorize by is skin colour, flatness of nose—that type of thing. Phenotype, in other words. We don't categorize by phenotype, but we have a vast system of categorization by ethnicity, which this is a part of. And yes, part of that is classification by where one's ancestors are from. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly not ethnicity. If someone was adopted at birth but born to Korean parents but raised in a Euro-American household and Euro-American culture, they would still be encoraged to mark themselves as Asian on the census. In 1970 they would have been marked as Asian, no ability otherwise, since people were not even allowed to self-identify their race until 1980. Even now, the census guidleines would clearly encorage marking as Asian, when in fact they are clearly from an ethnic stand-point Euro-American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you recognise that some people equate biological ancestry and ethnicity—in which case, it very much could be ethnicity. All of your comments appear to be made with the assumption that there are agreed-upon definitions of the terms "race" and "ethnicity", which there are not. That's the central problem with stating "we don't categorize by race"—all it does is lead to the question—"what is race"—and there is no agreement on the latter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment Hmains makes some very good points, and shows (below) how the category tree is currently using continents. I am not withdrawing my nominations, though. Even if kept, this may spur some type of commentary at the various categories to make sure its understood as geographical not racial. Hmains, you are right that "asian" is not a race (the racial label which closely corresponds is "mongoloid" of course), but asian is often perceived as a racial type, so i want to be sure we are sensitive to that aspect of the word. and i wont nominate any more, these two nominations are enough to establish whether we keep or modify the whole tree.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for reading the comments here, something that is mostly lacking in various other comments made. Also lacking is looking at the parent category Category:American people by ethnic or national origin where one can easily see that categorization is routinely done by grouping countries together by continent, which is what this Asian category is about. Why would anyone want to target Asian origin people for special treatment, i.e., deletion? Hmains (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: we don't categorize by race. We also don't categorize by continent. And we also don't categorize by membership in categories that the US census bureau consider to be relevant. We have categories of "Americans of X-country/ethnicity descent" and that is fine as long as it is sourced in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It would be very helpful to have comments here that pertain to the cateogry in question: Category:American people of Asian descent Step 1: read the cateogry and its subcategories and its parent categories. Hmains (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think users have been addressing issues involving the current definition. But just because that is the assigned definition does not mean that it cannot be changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 20 January 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 pornographic film actors of Asian 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. The discussion seems to hinge whether this a category by race, by ethnicity, or a grouping by continent. There is no agreement about what the category is, or what to do about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to Category:American pornographic film actors by ethnic or national origin. i believe policy is we can categorize people by ethnicity or national origin, but NOT by race, which is what "asian" is. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom/move the direct articles to Category:American pornographic film actors or actually its two by gender subdivisions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This has nothing do with with 'race' as is shown by any reading of the category content. This is about American people from Asian countries/ethnic groups. Stop the race fixiation? Stopping these nominations will solve that. By the way, there is not now and has never been an 'Asian race' Hmains (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There sure are quite a few of these trivial triple intersections. By all means have Asian actors, but that is not what this category is about. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete triple intersection and classification by continent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment for anyone who would care to read facts about our category structure instead of just imagining things here for CfD purposes, Category:Continents and Category:Categories by continent will show you the entire and extensive categorizing by continent we collectively have done here at WP. Hmains (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment Hmains makes some very good points, and shows how the category tree is currently using continents. I am not withdrawing my nominations, though. Even if kept, this may spur some type of commentary at the various categories to make sure its understood as geographical not racial. Hmains, you are right that "asian" is not a race (the racial label which closely corresponds is "mongoloid" of course), but asian is often perceived as a racial type, so i want to be sure we are sensitive to that aspect of the word.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My understanding (ahem, such as it is) is that ethnic classifications of the actors are particularly significant in the porn industry and their clientele, and this is essentially an ethnicity category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If something is significatn, it is not the ethnicity, but the race of the people involved. Thus we are classifying by race, which we explicitly ban.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you assume that everyone agrees on a definition of "race". They don't. Saying "we don't categorize by race" is close to meaningless unless you define what "race" means, which there is no agreement upon. That's why I think it's a poor argument to make. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 20 January 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:Works titled –ana or –iana[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 & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES; the parent category Category:Musical tributes and homages seems sufficient. Trivialist (talk) 03:17, 14 January 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:World Champions of Professional Football[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. We don't have by-player categories for American football champions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The proper noun 'World Champion(s) of Professional Football' doesn't exist (at least notably). What is intended here is a category listing winning players of the AFL-NFL World Championship Game, the name of the precursor of today's Super Bowl. (I think that acronyms should be left where they form just part of the name, but technically to abide by WP category naming practice it should be Category:American Football League – National Football League World Championship Game winners, I suppose.) Mayumashu (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to form where full name is written out. We should avoid acronyms like the plague they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Superbowl champions. These games are much more commonly referred to as Superbowls I to IV. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname or merge -- This ought to mean winners of the Soccer World Cup, except in a USA context. I have no view on the precise target, but the present name will not do. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no Category:Super Bowl winners. We don't categorize American football players for having won the championship, so there is no need to do so for Super Bowls I–IV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per GOF. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is essentially an awards category, which we avoid. We do not need to categorize players for having been part of a competition winning team. This is just not a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on as a courtesy, because the creator of this category appears not to have been notified until now. I have just left a note on the user talk page and sent an email. (WP:NEWCOMER) – Fayenatic London 22:35, 1 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:Structures with naming rights[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) 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems to me to be categorizing things by a feature of their names rather than by something inherently defining in the thing itself. See WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. This is also a characteristic that can and does change reasonably frequently, which probably makes it a type of "current" category, which we try to avoid. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete In principle, can't any structure's naming rights be sold? Mangoe (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I suppose that at all times, someone holds the naming rights to every building and structure, regardless of whether those rights have been sold or not. So all structures "have" naming rights. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is characterization by shared name, something we avoid. Beyond this there are lots of university buildings that may or may not qualify for this. The Marriott Center at Brigham Young University is what comes to mind the fastest, and the Marriott Library at the University of Utah, and the Bruce Halle Library at Eastern Michigan University. However normally acknowledging donors in libary names is meant to not be a direct purchase of naming rights, so such categorization would probably be controversial at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- While I am not convinced that we need this category at all, somethign like Category:Sporting facilities named for a sponsor might be appropriate. This is probably more specific and might involve purging out non-sporting facilities. Names for buildings tend to be more of a memorial, possibly resulting from a large single donation. This is slightly different from sporting facilities, whose naming is a branch of advertising. If the facility changes its name through acquiring a new sponsor, the article will probably get renamed, but there is no reason why the resulting redirect should not continue to be categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial; everything has a sponsor nowadays from buildings to sporting events to the actual leagues themselves in some places. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial overcategorization per Carlossuarez46.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 19 January 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_January_14&oldid=1090391032"