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. In many other recent discussions, there has been a consensus to upmerge intersections of actors and ethnicity. In this case, there is clearly no consensus.
That may be because consensus on such categories is changing generally, or because of specific arguments in favour of retaining this particular intersection as an exception. Editors from both perspectives opposed this merger. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Wikipedia directives say we should not have a category for the overlap of ethnicity and occupation unless that overlap is significant. It seems that due to the nature of acting any overlap of ethnicity and the occupation will not be significant. Actors pretend to be people other than they are, so their real ethnic backgrounds are not relevant. While ethnic bakcground is sometimes taken into account, it is quite common to have people who are not of Chinese descent play characters who are (normally it involves other descents from Asia, but even that is not always the case). So as a group this comes to be a trivial intersection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Chinese people have a significnatly different facial appearance to those of European descent. Accordingly they will tend to get parts, where their ethnic background is relevant. This profession is a proper exception to the general rule. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an argument for categorization by race, which we do not do. Anyway, you are just plain ignoring the fact that Japanese and other people of Asian descent are often cast in roles where they are presented as Chinese.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blondes have different facial appearance than brunettes or redheads, as would fat and skinny actors, and numerous other things we notice about actors or actresses, but we'd never categorize on such bases. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once again. Trivial Triple intersection. American + Actor + Chinese. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing to get rid of a triple intersection is arguing for an upmerge and not a straight delete, no? Mayumashu (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How so? These actors are all, or should all be, listed already in subcats of Category:American actors by medium. Why redundantly double-list them? The nomination is perfectly fine. Mayumashu (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant to say that we do not want to upmerge to the American actors because all the articles should be further down the tree already, but failed to. with voice actors, film actors, television actors, radio actors, soap opera actors, musical theatre actors, stage actors and video game actors sub-cats for the American actors cat, we should not be merging anything to that cat because every actor fits in at least one of he sub-cats, if not 4 or more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by category creator. I understand the argument against categorizing by ethnicity and occupation unless its a significant venn diagram overlap. I recreated this category, because it IS a significant overlap. ethnicity in acting is often extremely significant. the ONLY film ever made that i know of which cast a person of obvious east asian features and accent as someone from an entirely different ethnicity is The Mahabharata (1989 film) by peter brook. I disagree with JPL on this point:I believe that the number of times a person of chinese extraction has been cast in a distinctly non-asian role (ie as someone with no significant asian cultural characteristics which relate to the main story) is very small (except in indie films), particularly historically. the subject of chinese/asian actors in the us i believe has been written about in film books and essays. We have Category:American actors by ethnic or national origin, which includes African-American, Finnish, Hispanic and Latino American, Indian, Japanese, Jewish American, Korean, Native American, US pornographic film actors by ethnic or national origin, American Samoan, and Vietnamese. We dont have Italian, German, or English as they are trivial intersections: almost no one notes this (maybe italian some decades ago). If chinese is trivial, all of these must be upmerged as well as being equally trivial at least. (i might argue for finnish, jewish, american samoan as being trivial or underpopulated, and worthy of upmerge). This is not US categorizing actors, this is HOLLYWOOD categorizing. perfect example is the survival of this intersection in pornography. people want a particular "look" to their porn stars, which is often a particular race. it may be racism, but its not OUR racism, so we categorize there by ethnic extraction (even though race would be more accurate for that category, i understand the blanket reasons for not categorizing by race). to play devils advocate (not that those disagreeing with me are devils:)) we have List of Chinese Americans which is divided by occupation, which could suffice, i guess.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acting is one of the professions where an individual's background is particularly important. (I would, in fact,extend this to all creative artists). To a certain extent Science is science,and businesspeople are businesspeople, with national characteristics a very subordinate factor though often not entirely irrelevant, but in the arts,an individual's background--all aspects of it--is important for understanding their work. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ethnicity is a strong defining characteristic of actors and is a real-world criteria used in casting and in trade publications seeking actors. This level of categorization serves as an effective navigation aid across the articles grouped in this manner. Alansohn (talk) 16:48, 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.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No criteria given for inclusion. It appears to be a semi-random collection of extinct mammals whose remains happen to be found in caves, rather than actual specialized cave organisms. Ucucha (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a normal way to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Vague name ("early whale" is not a technical term). We already have a category for the extinct whale suborder Archaeoceti (Category:Archaeoceti), which is the only content of this category. Ucucha (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete lacks a clear defition or clear inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Prehistoric cetaceans. People, please look up and down in order not to break the category hierarchy when you see a category that could be deleted. – FayenaticLondon 22:37, 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.
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 delete. – FayenaticLondon 22:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is being used to ask users for assistance instead of directly asking for help. -- Cheers,Riley 20:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably speediable under {{db-g2}}. And then maybe someone can help him out. :) --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:29, 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.
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, but only if the change can be incorporated into {{WPBannerMeta}}. I will leave a note at Template talk:WPBannerMeta, and leave it to the discussion there to decide whether it is appropriate to modify that template in this way. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are several issues here: excess capitalization, an unpopulated category, and project pages are not articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain at least for the present.
Capitalization follows the WikiProject name, by convention
It is populated
While arguably "pages" would be more accurate than "articles", category naming follows the convention built into {{WPBannerMeta}} - to change that please raise the issue there.
Rename per nom. Agree about excess capitals. Messy. Pages preferred to articles. --Marco (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot∇. 20:04, 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.
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 after some recategorisation. I will ask the nominator to recategorise the contents of this category, prior to deletion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Useless grouping of two related topics. It is subcategory to Category:Health, education, and welfare economics and Category:Unemployment, Category:Welfare and Category:Poverty are its subcategories, as is Category:Millennium Development Goals and a few (10) articles. All subcategories and articles should be simply added to one or two of the parent cats for this subcategory, or perhaps subcategories - it won't take long (there are only 13 entries for cleanup total), and then this dual category can go away. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an irregular joining of related topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- After checking that all articles have an appropriate alternative category. Most of the articles belong under welfare; possibly a few elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:06, 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:Places in New Zealand with dual 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Virtually every "place" in NZ has a dual name (Māori and English) that could be referred to, but I think what this category is intending to categorise is places that have been given official dual place names by the Government of NZ—either by the New Zealand Geographic Board or by an Act of Parliament pursuant to a Treaty settlement. In any case, it seems to be categorisation by "characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself". We already have a list at List of dual place names in New Zealand. (List articles seem to be the preferred route for listing things with similar naming features.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - according to WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. ... arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Mitch Ames (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but the same guideline also says, "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia. For instance, the guideline on overcategorization sets out a number of situations in which consensus has consistently determined that categories should not be used." This one such instance. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as per the category's main article, the intent is "official place names". I'm not sure that renaming the category to include the word "official" is necessary though. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category is a subcategory of Category:Places with dual names. If Cat:Places in NZ were deleted, would the articles be moved to the parent category? Or would they not be categorized as "dual named" at all? If they can be categorized by the parent, why not be more specific and have a NZ category (which has more in it that all of the dual-named places put together). If they are not categorized at all why not? Why categorize non-NZ places but not NZ places? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to nominate the parent category if this category were deleted. A user has already nominated it, though, here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from an Englishman). All categorised items seem to be features of physical geopgraphy. It is likely all have Maori names. Some will have an English one too. This sems to make this a legitimate category, but how to sort it out must primarily be a matter of NZ WPans. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for what it is worth, the general parent was deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this defining, or as pointed out above expected given the history? No need to argue listify since the list already exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:46, 5 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.
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.
Note: I didn't attempt to close this discussion. In fact, I didn't even know it existed. If you look at either my deletion log reason [1] or my edit summaries when I replaced the deleted category [2], you will see that I was acting on the basis of a speedy deletion nomination made on the basis of an earlier discussion in February 2011. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. By the time I came to close this discussion, the categ had already been deleted, so I did not see that it had not been correctly tagged for this CFd discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will note that the creator Kasper2006 (talk·contribs) did similar shinanigans with Category:American athletes(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) where a similar ENGVAR issue exists, in trying to force British English onto the American category, and getting the American track and field athletes category deleted out of process. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close -- we seem to be discussing the deletion of a redlink! I presume it has been dealt with as a "speedy". Peterkingiron (talk) 13:14, 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:American actors of Vietnamese 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:double upmerge as nominated. – FayenaticLondon 19:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment Nomination says nothing about why this should be deleted. 'Triple intersection' is not a reason to do anything but ignore it. Hmains (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:OC#EGRS is probably being referred to by implication, given the long history of these types of nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, I should be clearer to be fair. There have been a number of alike nominations in the past year or so, that have succeeded, to upmerge so that people by ancestry are not categorized then by occupation. Doing so by ethnicity (Basque, Jewish, Kurish, Tatar, etc.) is one thing, but here we are discussing primarily ancestry. Such "triple intersections" tend to be too trivial. The WP policy refered to by Good Olfactory, as he suggests, is what is in support of this. Mayumashu (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is a trivial intersection with no independent notability. Between the medium cats and the actresses/male actors cats, all should be in one if not multiple subcats so it is not advised to merge to the actors parent cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following this at all. Articles categorized as "people of Vietnamese descent" are not necessarily about citizens of Vietnam. In fact, they will usually not be Vietnamese citizens—they will often be descended from someone who was, though. I can't see how this would differ for actors of Vietnamese descent. Category:American actors of Vietnamese descent (if it is to exist) seems to me to be a perfect subcategory of Category:Actors of Vietnamese descent, and so it also makes perfect sense to me to merge it to that category if it is to be deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was claimed that the not nation specific actors by descent categories do not work. I actually recently created Category:Actors of Samoan descent becuase most of the people in Category:Samoan actors were actually people who had never lived in Samoa, but instead were from the US (mainly Hawaii) or New Zealand, generally raised by Samoans immigrants in those places (although at least in Hawaii, it was not always that even the person's parents were botrn in Samoa). I am actually thinking I should move more people out because a-The category probably should refer to the nation of Samoa and exclude American Samoan people, since Amiervcan Samoa is not the nation of Samoa. B-It is unclear we should categorize someone as a "Samoan actor" if they emigrated from Samoa at age 5 and began acting at age 25. I am wondering what people thin. If someone was born in Vietnam, immigrated to the US at age 5 and began acting at age 22, do they belong in Category:Vietnamese actors or Category:Actors of Vietnamese descent?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the latter, if the latter category properly exists. However, I'm not sure that that is the case. I'm not sure we should have categories for Actors of FOOian descent at all. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen too many people put in actor categories that they only fit in by ancestry to think it is logical to get rid of actor descent categories. People at some level want to call people of Samoan descent who are actors "Samoan actors" but that does not work when we are using the term to identify people by nationality, so having the descent category seems a workable compromise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Good Ol'factory's opinion above, Category:Actors of Samoan descent is now bigger than Category:Samoan actors. There are other people who probably should go in it, who were the people I removed from Category:Samoan actors before I created the new category after realizing that there were lots of people in the Samoan actors category who did not belong at all. These were mainly born in New Zealand to Samoan parents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be careful doing such things. Because of the special relationship and resultant immigration agreements between Samoa and NZ (the former is a former colony or trusteeship of the latter) born to Samoan parents in New Zealand are more often than not Samoan nationals. And now, with the 2006 changes in immigration and citizenship laws in NZ, there is also a chance that people born in NZ are not New Zealand nationals at all. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense to say people are nationals of a country they have never lived in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does—in fact I know people who are in exactly this circumstance. How well do you know immigration and citizenship laws? You can be a citizen (legally, a citizen is one type of national) of a country but be born in and live in a different country. It happens all the time: for instance, babies that are born in New Zealand are not nationals of NZ unless one parent is a national of NZ. (There is no "birthright citizenship" as in the USA.) Babies are often born in NZ to parents who are on guest workers visas (ie, non-nationals). Let's say the parents are Samoan nationals. Then, after the baby is born, the Samoan family applies for and gets permanent residency in NZ. That baby grows up and may never take out NZ citizenship. The child remains a national of Samoa for their entire life, even though they may never set foot in Samoa. It is not at all uncommon. NZ now has a very liberal immigration law with respect to Samoan nationals which makes it relatively easy for Samoan nationals to get work visas, so it's becoming more and more common. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge per nom. Frietjes (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There is an ongoing discussion for similar categories of actors of Indian, Japanese and Korean descent. I think that the two discussions ought to be considered together rather than separately. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:11, 19 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.
