Category:Coal-fired power stations in Massachusetts[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 the nominated category; delete the target (the target has remained empty). Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Power plants is the the more common term used in the US. Noticed the target flagged for deletion as empty which probably means that someone merged this. This nomination is more for a discussion on what to do with this series of categories. Whichever way this discussion goes. There probably needs to be a follow on nomination to cleanup all of this type of category to one convention. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete target as C1 - the tree, and all other by-state categories here, are at "power stations". While "power plants" is indeed likely the WP:ENGVAR here, what's needed is a nomination for the whole tree at once, not attempting to rename one to a name that doesn't conform to the entire rest of the tree. - The BushrangerOne ping only 16:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, as per the majority of the membership. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete target as C1. The current name is consistent with the entire national and international category hierarchy for this topic. --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REverse merge (and rename US sibling catgories, though not parent). As UK person, I talk of power stations, but there is no need for my British usage to be imposed on a US cateogry. On the other hand, the parent should not be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse or Merge? I'm asking since you seem to be supporting the US usage (power plant) but the reverse merge is the opposite. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a U.S. person, I'm not convinced that the "power station" terminology is inappropriate for the U.S. categories. The most common person-on-the-street name for these things is "power plant", but it's typical for the U.S. electricity industry to call them "generating stations". --Orlady (talk) 19:31, 20 May 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:Washignton Metro succession templates[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 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 scientists of Ukrainian 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.
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection. Merge up to parent Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. There are notable ukranian-american scientists, but they are generally not notable due to that intersection. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 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 journalists of Chinese 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. Those opposed seem most troubled by the merge target rather than the threat of the categories being deleted. In a new discussion, perhaps if the proposal were to simply merge them all to Category:American journalists and the appropriate Category:American people of FOOian descent, there might be more support for deletion.Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Why is this a notable intersection? I'm not convinced. merge up. Can a head article really be written about any of these intersections of national descent + journalist job? Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge Ya, 3 entries (pakistan) doesn't need to be a separate category. Hell, I might even say that the larger category isn't a notable intersection. Are there any sources discussing that intersection? The members are asian, they are journalists. Are they notable as asian journalists? Even exceptionally notable asian journalists (Ann Curry?) I would say are not notable as an intersection of asian journalists, but as journalists that happen to be asian. It seems like a ghettoization category. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge: I created at least one of these cats, but I'm fine with merging them. I think, however, the journalist category is useful for distinguishing the various subgroups in the "writers of X descent" category, e.g., separating novelists from poets from journalists from playwrights, etc. Aristophanes68(talk) 20:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that there is very different notability for those groups. plays, poets, novelists etc are often studied/anthologiezed/etc by ethnicity (Particularly African American, but some other Ethnicities as well). Journalists are not. I don't think that policy requires parallel sub-categories just because one sub-group is notable for breaking out. (See the recent discussion on Female authors etc as a separate category, but not Male authors) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am unsure if we need these categories, but really do not think we should be upmerging them to an undifferentiated "Asian" category. That just feels too much like a racial cateogry to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Asian" is not a useful definition at this level, it should be subcategorized, if upmerged, it should be Central Asia/South Asian/East Asian/North Asian/Southeast Asian/Southwest Asian. Especially when you consider that "Asian" in American English in this context means East Asia and Southeast Asia, not the rest of Asia. (as opposed to British English, where it means South Asian) Further Asia is not a useful subunit of Eurasia, as ethnic groups and countries cross the divide all along its length. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support just eliminating this categorization entirely? is there anything notable about this intersection, of either asian, sub-regional-asian, or asian-country + journalist? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Asian" is far too broad. Dividing by nation is better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky issue - as our guidelines state that ethnic+job intersections should not be created unless the intersection itself is notable. Do you think Pakistani-American + journalist is a notable intersection? If you want we could delete the whole tree for example. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncommitted on whether Pakistani-American + journalist is a notable(?!) intersection. I oppose using "Asian" as it is a too-broad grouping. It is not an ethnic grouping. Lumping Turkey with Indonesia with Japan is not good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- We have tended to steer away from continental categories. Arabs are not necessarily Asians. If we are to upmerge at all I would support JPL, but we should also upmerge to American people of fooian descent (which may still be fooian Americans. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:32, 19 May 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.
Delete/Merge. Articles should not be in adjacent levels of categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:20, 15 May 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:Delete. Why Texas? We have a huge category of Category:Irish Americans, not divided by state, but for some reason Texas needs its own category. I think not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete/merge per nom, unless someone has a book entitled "Irish Texans" published or something.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Texas was a separate republic once, so conceivably, this could have valid contents -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In practice though the people in this category virtually all came to Texas after that. Also Texas was only independent for 9 years, so even if anyone in this category was there then they are almost always going to have lived their after US anexation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support JPL. This is the standard format for descent categoiries. Except during the nine-years of the Lone Star Republic, how do we define Texan nationality? Peterkingiron (talk) 09:35, 19 May 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:merge and rename as nominated. Most of the commenters believe, as I do, that this is WP:JARGON. The distinction in the real world between open source and FOSS is so niche that things are frequently referred to one when the other is meant.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has been moved from its current location to the target (both in unhyphenated forms) once before, and the same arguments apply now as then for this recreated version: That a video game is free seems unworthy of categorization; we don't categorize that things are not free, or by how not-free they are....rename this to be more inclusive of open source games that are not free, and not worry about free games that are not open source.[1]The BushrangerOne ping only 10:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom "Open source" is the proper term. Dimadick (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
procedural comment there are many other instances of the usage of 'free, open source X' in this tree - I suggest we do a complete nom of all of the game cats. In this case, 'free' refers to 'free software' as defined by the Free Software Movement, not 'free' as in zero cost. (eg. free as in speech, not free as in beer). Open source software is regularly called FOSS (Free and open source software). So it's really just a sort of ideological divide and word war from the open source world that is now reproducing itself in wikipedia, and the result is a bit of chaos in the category names - some are 'open source' while some are Category:Free software. I'm not proposing to sort this all now - but at least make the games sub-tree consistent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There is no reason to specify beyond "open-source". Wikipedia is not a consumer category and does not list prices, let alone categorize by them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the above for consistency as recommended by Obi-Wan Kenobi and to draw more attention to the discussion. – FayenaticLondon 18:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Free (software) does not mean Open-source software, and neither is the one proper/correct term -- these are two different things. However, we can merge applicable articles into open-source category (as they seem to be that). However, I'm sure some games are Free and not Open-source, making free categories a valid split. I would argue since free software is a special case of software licensing, it is just as valid a category as any other license. By default all video games are copyrighted, and being released as free is a separate case. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word "free" here means licensed under a license approved as "free" by the Free Software Foundation - this has nothing to do with whether the software is given away for zero license fee or not (free as in speech, not free as in beer). However, there is a huge overlap between software licenses approved as "free" by FSF and software licenses approved as "open source" by the Open source institute. Thus in general these cats in the tree have been merged, as we don't need to distinguish between these fine shades that are really only important to lawyers and people like Richard Stallman (no disrespect intended)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The use of the word "free" here means licensed under a license approved as "free" by the Free Software Foundation" What did you think I meant by "free software"? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, I know free (as in software, not free as in lunch) does not mean the same as open source, but these categories are stupidly named. If the numbers justify it, no prejudice against creating a category tree for "Free (as in software) video games" to parallel "Open-source video games". Axem Titanium (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. No. I would oppose vigorously such a parallel cat. What is DEFINING about the software it that it is FOSS - free and/or open source. We don't need to divide our whole software tree by FREE or Open source, especially since many things will be in both. Better to go with an ugly name - FOSS, Free and open source, or just Open source (with the understanding that "free" software as defined by FSF is also classified underneath.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said I, personally, have no prejudice against a parallel category tree if other people deem it necessary. If not, no sweat off my back. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why do away with something useful that may gain Wikipedia new readers (and editors)? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:40, 19 May 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: There is no town city by the name. It is name of district only. Shyamsunder (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. - Thaejas (talk) 22:24, 13 May 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: The correct name. Shyamsunder (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. - Thaejas (talk) 22:25, 13 May 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: Duplication. There is no town by name of Krishna . Shyamsunder (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. - Thaejas (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom and also to remove ambiguity since Krishna may refer to lots of other articles. --Lenticel(talk) 07:34, 14 May 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 rationaile: Per the discussion and closing statement at this CfD, nominating the rest of the contents of Category:Television programming by language for renaming from "series"/"shows" to "programming". As mentioned there, this is a neutral term that avoids ambiguity and confusion both on content grounds and on WP:ENGVAR, provides uniformity throughout the tree, and also matches the scheme of the category tree, Category:Television programming>Category:Television programming by language. (Note that regardless of the result of this discussion, following its close I will likely propose some sort of splitting for the truly massive English-language category.) - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Looking at the linked CFD Feb 24 discussion, I'd forgotten that I had suggested "programming". Since it seems to have some support, and appears to resolve both the ENGVAR and content type issues, I'm happy to roll it out further. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am generally in favour of this move per the WP:ENGVAR and content reasons cited. However, for the education categories, it looks like it should be "French-language-education television programming" (programming about learning the French language), not "French-language education television programming" (programming about education made in the French language). I don't really like joining the three words with a hyphen, though, so it might be best to think of other names just for the language-education categories. I thought of "Category:Television programming for French as a second or foreign language" but it's a bit long. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 12:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The head category Category:Television programming is fine because it covers more than series/shows, e.g. genres, seasons, episodes, opening sequences and screenplays. I do not think it is suitable to be used as if it was a synonym of television programs. It's a different part of speech, and its scope is not the same. I now think that "television shows" would be best, as it covers one-offs as well as series, and avoids spelling variations. It would also work better for related categories e.g. Category:Works based on television series could become "works based on television shows" but please not "works based on television programming". – FayenaticLondon 16:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid the conflicing uses of show/series/program/programme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: shouldn't it be "television programs" instead of "television programming"? --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that has ENGVAR issues, programs/programmes - that's exactly what this proposal aims to avoid. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DO you mean that in some regions 60 Minutes would be called a "television programming"? That's odd, and confusing. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be called that, but that is, in fact, what it is. It's a series that is aired as programming. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But then, if the category is meant to contain programs, then it should be called programs, not programming. It's like calling category "electronics industry" when it's supposed to contain companies. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Series is perfectly satsifactory in British English. We do not have TV prgramming (or it might mean scheduling). The appropriate spelling - for UK, Europe and most of Commonwealth would be "programmes", but "programs" in the Americas. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the shows/series issues. Everyone who has TV has TV programming, that is what occurs on TV. There is no Engvar issue with that term, in fact the person who came up with it is not America, so to claim it is American will not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no compelling case of disturbing current names. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The current mishmash of "shows", "series", "programs" and "programmes" looks to me like a very compelling case for change. This sort of inconsistency makes it difficult for editors to categorise articles, and it confuses readers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I closed the Spanish-language discussion, and so I'm not going to close this one. But I will reiterate that I think "programming" solves all the problems of ENGVAR and frequency, and thus endorse it here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all TV shos are series, sometimes they are essentially one-shot episodes. So it is not clear that series really can cover everything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. Series just doesn't work, and programming is the best idea I've seen.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination. Series is obviously inapplicable to one-offs; episodes; and possibly even mini-series. "Programming" is much better. --Lquilter (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still think "shows" would resolve all the problems of WP:ENGVAR and one-off/series, without the awkward results of using "programming". What will become of Category:Works based on television series? What is the case against using the word "shows"? – FayenaticLondon 11:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, "shows" seems like it is used by different people in different ways. Maybe I'm wrong, but some people seem to use it more formally to mean one-offs, while other people use it to mean "series" ("I'm going to watch my shows now"); but I don't get the sense that it's universally used as a universal noun. "Programming" just seems better to me because it feels a little bit more formal & generic. --Lquilter (talk) 14:44, 9 May 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, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Programming" is properly used in this context, and "shows" has problems that are part of why we're trying to get away from that term. - The BushrangerOne ping only 16:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somehow -- We have an Engvar issue here. Webster is a source on US-English. "Show" is primarily US English (though there are British cases). "Program" is exclusively US. WE are not going to get a satisfactory mid-Atlantic solution. Any single solution will either jar in US or UK. I would favour a solution where the North American cases tended to move to programs and shows, and Europe, Austalia, NZ, India, etc to programmes and series. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:58, 22 May 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: Category TCK has been created for "people or school's who's students are defined as TCKs". Who defines who is a "Third Culture Kid"? There is no authoritative and reliable source for defining TCKs, and the majority or all of the current entries for this category are not self-identified as Third Culture Kids, so the inclusion in the category seems to be decided on the whim of the editor who created this category. This is an unencyclopedic category and should be deleted. BabelStone (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, per nom. Also, the name of the category doesn't fit the definition: the people or schools aren't any kind of kids. Meanwhile, I've fixed the gr + spelling. Bishonen | talk 09:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep (see above). That's been fixed I changed it to only indicate People and yes Barack Obama is a TCK he lived his teenage years in Indonesia How2what4 (talk)
Please read WP:OCAT#Defining and tell me if Barack Obama will reasonably be identified as a TCK in introductory material. It's fine to cite him as a TCK in a list or article about TCK, but to be a category, the members of the category need to be "defined" as such. WP:OCAT states: "[A] defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject." and "[I]f the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining." Nowhere in the Barack Obama article is he described as a TCK, and, to be frank, I have never heard him or anyone described that way. It might be a very useful concept in various ways, but it's not something that people define other people as. --Lquilter (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No correlation between articles in the category other than editors whims. Plus it's a very badly named category anyway. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 10:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this POV-only category. De728631 (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not defining, because it's temporal & demographic, and not a permanent or defining feature of the schools. Contrast Category:Historically black universities and colleges in the United States which were founded by & for African-Americans; their founding created an identity & culture that is a defining attribute of these colleges. --Lquilter (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By the definition given in Third Culture Kid ("A Third Culture Kid (TCK) is a person who has spent a significant part of his or her developmental years outside the parents' culture.") such a person is and stays a TCK just by having been transplanted to a different culture as a youth. So by definition it is not temporal and such a person stays a TCK for his or her life. Bording Schools that predominantly catered to these kind of people may well be categorized such. As a 50+ German Alumnus to an American School in India I may be a bit biased. --Wuselig (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Categories that are based on family migration/roles are pretty tricky. Even though the status is arguably defining to some individuals, it's not something that would be considered universally defining to all members of that group. It's also going to be difficult to define the parameters of this category -- for instance, what is "a significant part" of someone's "developmental years"? What are "parents' culture"? That's without getting into the political fights that are certain to come, e.g., transnational adoptions; parents from "different" or "the same" cultures. --Lquilter (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non defining and unmaintainable. This is just a fancy way of saying that a family moved from one country/region to another at some point. Even setting reasonable limits, that likely encompasses many thousands of articles. Resolute 15:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the CFD, but cat:Military brats seems encyclopedic enough to me. It's defined as being for "the child of a person in the military, who also identifies themselves, or who is identified, as a member of the unique subculture of military children and teenagers". There are also some distinctions made about who is not included. By contrast, I don't believe Barack Obama or Isabel Allende etc etc identify themselves, or are identified, as members of the unique subculture of TCK. I'm sorry, I'm sure this category was created in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, but it's badly named and badly described, and distinguishing who is not included would be your classic wikipedia nightmare. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Third Culture Kids (TCKs) define the phenomenon that describes children who grew up outside their home or passport country. The result of this upbringing leads to the unique development of students who are a part, yet apart from their home and host cultures (Fail et al, 2004). The research into TCKs originated from the research into the Third Culture by John and Ruth Useem and John Donoghue (1963). Subsequent research in 1967 led to the discovery of the TCK phenomenon as distinct from the Third Culture, yet a result of it.
The seminal study and subsequent book by David Pollock and Ruth Van Reken, Third Culture Kids: The experience of growing up among worlds, has led to the often cited definition of TCKs as, "A person who has spent a significant part of his or her developmental years outside the parents’ culture. … [He/she] then builds relationships to all of the [host] cultures, while not having full ownership in any. Although elements from each culture are assimilated into [his/her] life experience, the sense of belonging is in relationship to others of similar backgrounds" (p. 19).
TCKs have a range of unique traits that separate them from other children and differentiate them from immigrant children, although the latter may also fit the TCK profile. TCKs are regarded as often more adaptable and flexible yet can find assimilation and social cohesion a challenge. Research has been conducted into the transition of TCKs back to or away from their host culture and programs have been developed to help this subset cope with these transitions. Most obviously, students returning to their home country for college as been a focal point of research, but also movement between family postings holds relevancy in this research.
Ref: Fail, H., Thompson, J., & Walker, G. (2004). Belonging, identity and third culture kids: Life histories of former international school students. Journal of Research in International Education, 3(3), 319-338. doi:10.1177/1475240904047358 Ref: Pollock, D. C., & Van Reken, R. E. (2009). Third culture kids: The experience of growing up among the worlds (Rev. ed.). Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey. Ref: Useem, J., Donoghue , J.,D., & Useem, R. H. (1963). Men in the middle of the third culture. Human Organization, 22(3), 169-179. Retrieved from http://www.sfaa.net/ho/ Ref: Useem, J., & Useem, R. (1967). The interfaces of a third culture. The Journal of Social Issues, 23(1), 130-143. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00567.x
Keep. The term "Third Culture Kid" (TCK) is infinitely more appropriate than "military brat." It is a term widely accepted in psychology and the implications of TCK status are understood by many mental health professionals - in fact, it is an area of specialty for some therapists. I was a TCK and am presently living in a country that is not my own. The pressures that I faced when relocating to my own country were significant. It has shaped my personality, my outlook on life, and affected my interpersonal relationships both positively and negatively. In children from non-English speaking backgrounds, the effects can be more significant. Some of the Kikokushijo students that I have taught in Japan have had tremendous trouble adjusting to life in their home country. It is not a matter of language, it is a matter of picking up on the cultural norms, mannerisms and even gestures that people use to navigate their way through interpersonal conversation.
As a category, TCK is well worth keeping, not only for its encyclopedic value, but also for helping TCKs come to a better understanding of the challenges that they face and directing them towards further reading. As a TCK and an educator, I strongly believe that this category should be kept. ref: Cockburn, L. (2002). Children and young people living in changing worlds: the process of assessing and understanding the ‘third culture kid’. School Psychology International, 23(4), 475-485. ref: Downie, R.D. (1976). Re-entry experiences and identity formation of third culture experienced dependent American youth: an exploratory study. Michigan State University , East Lansing, Michigan. ref: Fail, H., Thompson, J., and Walker, G. (2004). Belonging, identity and third culture kids: life histories of former international school students. Journal of Research in International Education, 3(3), 319-338. ref: Pollock, D. C., & Van Reken, R. E. (2001. Third culture kids: the experience of growing up among worlds. Boston & London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. ref: Useem, R. H., & Downie, R. D. (1976). Third-culture kids. Today’s Education, 65(3), 103-105.
Look, you & the IP editor, stop dropping all the citations here. Nobody is questioning whether "TCK" is a "notable" concept, which is what citations would help demonstrate. What we are discussing here is whether it is a "defining" label, such that everybody who's in the category would routinely be introduced in that fashion. For instance, "Barack Obama, TCK, was later in life elected to the presidency." Please stop trying to demonstrate that this is a real concept or that it is really of value to some folks in figuring out their psychological & cultural adaptation issues. I'm sure it is. But in order to demonstrate that it needs to be a "category", you need to read the overcategorization guidelines, and make arguments responsive to that guideline -- in particular, to the "defining" aspect. Please remember that categories are not tags that can be applied willy-nilly to any article to which they're appropriate. Rather, they're part of a navigational system in Wikipedia, and they should be used sparingly. For other purposes, lists in and separate from articles are the way to go. --Lquilter (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have looked at the comments above and the article. I'm not convinced that this is a classification that many/most/all consider as applying much less self identify as and hence is will be hard to find an objective way to identify any cases where this might be defining. As this exists, any one who can meet the the TCK definition can be included. Given all of this, we should not keep this. If in the future someone can provide objective criteria for inclusion that demonstrates this being defining, then it can be looked at again. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I note that the main article has FIVE tags on it, including that it may not represent a world view. I am not convinced that the concept is sufficently well defined for it not to be a POV issue whetrher a person is or is not a TCK. If the concept is merely that a person has multiple cultural heritages, it is probably too common to be defining, save perhaps as a high level container category. If we keep it at all the abbrevation should be expanded to Category:Third Culture Kid and it should be split by nationality: I suspect this is mainly a US concept. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see above) For those not understanding the definition, it is fairly simple: a child who has spent a significant period of time living in a culture that is not their own - a child of expatriates if you will. Yes, you could write "children of expatriates who have spent a significant amount of time living abroad" every time, but why when you can achieve the same meaning with three words or an abbreviation? From the point of view of style and word economy it would be ridiculous not to use the term. I agree that there don't need to be alumni lists in the entry, but people are arguing for the deletion of the category, which seems a little odd.
The term "Third Culture Kids" yielded no fewer than 266,000 results on Google Scholar. The term is widely accepted in peer reviewed literature - category worthy in my humble opinion. Csmagor (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Csmagor, you already said "keep" above; please don't keep prefacing your comments with bold "keep", since it makes it look on a cursory read as if there are more people weighing in than actually are. I hope that you could read WP:Categorization and WP:Overcategorization to understand better the functionality of Wikipedia's "category" system. It's pretty limited. People often confuse it with other similar systems, like tags or keywords, and try to use it that way, but it's not. For that reason we who spend a lot of time on categories recommend that it be applied in a very limited way, to concepts that are clear, widely recognized, obviously defining for all the members, and so forth. "Year of birth". "Profession." "Nationality." These are all things that are routinely included in articles and are cited, which is demanded by categories. .... There are lots of very useful facts about people that aren't good fits for the category functionality -- awards, organizational memberships, associations with other people/places/things, quirky notable habits. For things like that where we want the information out there in a useful form, it is better to use an article, or a list or template. I think here an article with an accompanying list of notable typical people would do a much better job. Otherwise, in order to support the inclusion of this category, you will have to have citeable information on each article; because it is apparently a modern concept, you will have to work to avoid its application to ahistorical biographies; you will also have to do a lot to make sure that it's not inappropriately added to living figures. And there's no good way to do all that work with a category, because you can't watchlist it. --Lquilter (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete not defining, subjective inclusion criteria, potential for massive amounts of entries, and rarely discussed in the relevant bios.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a horrible idea. We have no clear rules for inclusion, and the method of building the category makes things worse. For one thing, does it make sense to include people who lived in the United States until they were 16 and then spent two years abroad. This is not a good way to define people. Even if it was, using an opaque and rarely understood abbreviation makes the category a total enigma to most users.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 28 May 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: Having hosted a sporting event is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a city. This is an event category (which fails WP:OC#VENUES) and/or an award recipients category (which fails WP:OC#AWARD). We don't categorize cities by things like whether a city has an underground (metro) system which (IMO) is a much longer-lasting and significant characteristic (although also not strictly a WP:DEFINING characteristic), nor by things like whether a city has been beseiged (again of more long-term significance, but not a defining characteristic). These categories are not part of a wider "Host cities" category tree. It doesn't make sense to put an article like London under Category:Sports (it's not under similar categories for religion, science, art, warfare ...). For information: "Category:Youth Olympic Games host cities" has been deleted. DexDor (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hosting events could be considered analogous to "performers by performance" -- it's overcategorization by a non-defining event or affiliation, that is not intrinsic to the place itself. --Lquilter (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a host city of the Olympics can be defining of some locales (Calgary comes to mind), but for a city like London, not so much. But I know of no locales where hosting one of these three competitions is defining of the city. Resolute 15:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete classic example of not defining. Great info for a list, bad info for a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hosting something is not a characteristic of a city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This has all the problems of performance by performer categories. I assume that there are list articles already. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:08, 22 May 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. Since the single article that populated these categories was already in two subcategories of Category:Amphibious vehicles there was really nothing to merge. Since the merge results in deletion, consensus was to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's nothing intrinsically wrong with these 2 categories, but they currently only contain a single article (which is in plenty of other categories). It appears that editors (myself included) have been choosing to categorize amphibious vehicles by other (more defining) characteristics (in particular whether they are tracked/wheeled/hovercraft). There isn't such a huge number of amphibious vehicles that a breakdown of those by-type categories by country is needed. IMO these 2 categories are an unnecessary complication in the category structure. DexDor (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's just as valid, but it's not the best way to categorise because (1) there are a lot less amphibious vehicles than cars so most by-country cats would only have a few articles and (2) Category:Amphibious vehicles groups classes of vehicles (mostly wheeled/tracked armoured vehicles and hovercraft) that are really quite different so by-country categories wouldn't be particularly useful. If more categorization ever becomes necessary it might be better to separate floating vehicles from wading vehicles. DexDor (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Category:Amphibious vehicles. This class of vehicle is not sufficiently common to need to be split by country. Since there is a widespread international trade in vehicles, it is unlikely that vehicles will remain unique to particular countries for long. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:13, 22 May 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 - clear uncontroversial C2B (disambiguation) speedy case. The BushrangerOne ping only 14:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Now that the Danville, Virginia category has been renamed to its correct classification as a micropolitan area, this category should be disambiguated to refer to the Danville micropolitan area in Kentucky. ANDROS1337TALK 03:40, 13 May 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.
