Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 28 January 30 >

January 29[edit]

Category:Foods named after people[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. Nearly all of the foods already appear in the list and mainly the drinks are missing. The category's contents already have been listified to the article's talk page, and discussion can continue there to incorporate the missing items. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another in a long line of eponym categories afoul of WP:OCAT. See here for a long list of precedents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 29 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:Serbian-Croatian people[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. There is a clear consensus that this category is inappropriate, but no consensus on what (if anything) to merge it to. So I will close the discussion as "delete", but will post a list of the category's current contents on the talk page of this discussion page, so that interested editors can review the categorisation of individual articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list is at: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 29#Category:Serbian-Croatian_people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless made up category. Either Serbia or Croatian, while we already have Serbian people of Croatian origin and vice versa. WhiteWriterspeaks 15:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Few people today would accept that Serbian and Croatian are the same language. The notion that they were was tied up with the project of Yugoslavia. Language border are inherently politcial notions, and in the end decided as political questions. Modern Croatians at least would deny they speak the same language as the Serbs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The spoken language is largely the same, the two languages just use different scripts: Serbian uses Cyrillic and Croatian uses Latin. There are differences but a speaker of Croatian would have no trouble at all understanding a speaker of Serbian and vice versa. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a politically popular view in Croatia anymore, and there is a clear view there that they have a different language. Language lines are inherently political.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "Serbian-Croatian people" is meaningless, it's too ambiguous to be useful. The intent of the creator seems to be to produce a category for people who are of both ethnic Serbian and ethnic Croatian descent, regardless of their location. This is possibly legitimate, but I've no idea how to name it in a concise manner. "Yugoslav people" is not a name for that. E.g. Andrej Pejić is not a "Yugoslav person". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that some of the additions to the category are just plain bonkers. Gavrilo Rodić and Svetozar Boroević are not children of mixed marriage - all the available information says they're ethnically Serbian. Similarly, for Stjepan Jovanović we don't have information on ethnicity, but an OR inference of a mixed marriage gets us absolutely nowhere. (Also, none of those people can be described as "Yugoslav people".) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such a plain is a bad idea. We have some such categories such as Category:Anglo-Indian people (although that one needs serious monitoring because there is another totally different meaning of Anglo-Indian, as in English people in India especially during the British Raj). However we are not in this case "categorizing people of mixed marriages" but categorizing people who are part of a recognized ethnic group that assumes dual ancestry. The same could probably be said for the Colored of South Africa and the Metis of Canada and the US mid-west. Until we have an article Serbo-Croatian people I do not think we should even try to have a category. For it to warrant a category it needs to be a recognized ethnic group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category constitutes original research, the group simply does not exist in reliable sources in the real world and the combination seems entirely arbitrary. Also, even if the creator's idea was to create a category for people with mixed descent it is misnamed, adjectives "Serbian" and "Croatian" relate to countries as opposed to "Serb" and "Croat" which relate to ethnicities. In addition, these are not equivalent to "Yugoslav people". Timbouctou (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a nitpick: the longer form adjectives are ambiguous, they may be both demonyms and ethnonyms. Either way, they're unsuitable for use in the name of a category. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after looking at the contents and realizing for example one of the people died in 1903, it is clear that this category cannot be merged into Yugoslav people, and in fact it is not clear that really any of it should be so merged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think I removed all the half-random additions to the category, now it actually has only people who are progenies of mixed marriages. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:20, 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: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: merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 10 February 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]
It's not the physical location of the issuing record label that matters, but the nationality of the artists who are compiled on the album — which is why each and every article in this category must be somehow accessible from the Category:Albums by Canadian artists tree: not because the record label was Canadian, but because the artists were. But simply upmerging the albums directly into Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists inappropriately conflates two separate things — real multi-artist compilation albums and single-artist "greatest hits" albums — that do not belong in the same immediate category as each other, and which must be somehow kept separated from each other while still both being placed in the Canadian albums tree. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Compilations What constitutes a compilation album of Canadian artists? Must they all be from Canada? Is this regional music (such as the folk music of First Nations peoples) or a compilation which so happens to have only Canadian performers on it? Why can't these just be in Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists, which already exists? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained, the problem is that Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists, as currently constituted, includes single-artist greatest hits albums — and accordingly, because single-artist best-ofs and multi-artist compilations are two different types of albums which do not belong in the same category as each other, they need to be kept separate via the use of subcategories to distinguish them. So why are you asking a question I've already answered twice, as a followup question to that very answer? Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD January 14 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. No need to diffuse by country with minimal articles within the parent. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge not large enough to justify by-country division.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 30 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:People from Leggett, North Carolina[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category has only 1 entry ...William 02:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:People from Edgecombe County, North Carolina and re-create as a {{Category redirect}}. I have checked the incoming links and also searched for the town's name, and can find no articles to add to the category other than the existing lone page Lawrence H. Fountain. This is a small town (pop 69 in 2008, 77 in 2000), so there is little prospect of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but no need for a redirect - we don't redirect deleted people-from-x smallcats. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In previous cases, I have redirected dozens of them at a time. There appear to be about 500 ppl-from-foo redirects, tho I haven't checked which ones are for small places. I agree that this particular place is unusually microscopic, so a redirect may not be needed here, but in general I think that a redirect of Category:People from Smalltown, Statename to Category:People from SomeCounty, Statename is great way of helping editors to categorise biogs by the subject's place-of-origin. This is particularly important in the USA, where it is much more common in reliable sources to refer to "Smalltown, Statename" than to "Smalltown, SomeCounty, Statename". This means that an editor who sees that someone is from Smalltown probably won't have the county name to hand, and the redirect saves 2 steps of checking: 1) is there ppl-from categ for this town? 2) If not, what county is it in? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect. The problem is that most articles only state the place people are from, not what county it is in. If we make a redirect, if I understand correctly, when people try to put in this category with hotcat it immediately puts it to where it has been redirected, which will aqvoid miscategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 2 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_January_29&oldid=1138398047"