Category:Populated places in the United States with Middle Eastern plurality populations[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. -Splash - tk 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS. There was only one article in the category as of my closure time. Splash - tk 21:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A place is not defined by whether 50.1% of the population vs 49.9% of the population is middle eastern, or even a relative majority (i.e. plurality). This is essentially an arbitrary threshold; when voting, one vote makes a difference, but one more Middle Eastern family doesn't change the essential character of a town. Listify and delete, as we've done for other similar categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. We should have a list for this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other the nominator rightly points out, a threshold of 50% is WP:OC#ARBITRARY. It excludes places that are 0.1% less Middle Eastern than some other group, and lumps those which are 0.1% more Middle Eastern in an undistinguished heap with those which are 95% Middle Eastern. That's silly and unhelpful; this sort of information is much better presented in lists, which can show the actual percentages, and allowing sorting on a range of criteria. The other great folly of these categories is that they are undated. Particularly in cities, the ethnic composition of an area can change significantly in only one or 2 generations, as immigrants cluster, raise families, then prosper and move on, to be replaced by new immigrants. So to have any real meaning, categories such as these should be dated ... but that would lead to category clutter, as some areas have passed the threshold in many censuses. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, some places went from about 5% to 30% Hispanic between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, so major change can take less than a generation. Redford Township, Michigan went from being 8% to African-American to 28% African-American in that time frame. So the change can occur in a lot less than a generation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2014 (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:Populated places in the United States with Asian American majority populations[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 BOTH. The deletion arguments are much stronger than the keeps especially as to arbitrary and transitory. As to one of the keep reasons, I do not think we can try to judge the mind of the US Congress nor interpret US law ourselves without conducting (Wikipedia) original research so those theories are out of scope. -Splash - tk 21:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A place is not defined by whether 50.1% of the population vs 49.9% of the population is asian, or even a relative majority (i.e. plurality). this is essentially an arbitrary threshold; when voting, one vote makes a difference, but one more Asian family doesn't change the essential character of Fremont, California. Listify and delete, as we've done for other similar categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Majority rules. 50% plus one is a rather well-defined margin in law and in politics and tipping that scale marks a strong defining characteristic of the essential characteristic of a populated place in the United States. Arbitrarily ignoring this defining characteristic robs readers of an aid to navigation across articles that share this defining trait, with nothing gained by its needless deletion. Alansohn (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, how specifically does the character of a place change once 51% become Asian? Demographics is not a vote. Are you really suggesting there is some sort of qualitative difference between 49% counties and 51% counties (or areas where Asians are in second place to whites as the plurality?) Do you have any evidence on offer?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wank, please use my full username going forward. Majority rules, and the Justice Department has consistently worked to ensure that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is enforced nationwide. In passing this law, Congress believed that White majorities voted differently from non-White majority populations and I can't imaging that any more evidence could possibly be needed. In a nation where the majority rules, the transition of any community to a majority population of a well-defined minority group is a strong defining characteristic. By pretending to ignore this reality with the patent nonsense that majority means absolutely nothing, we make Wikipedia worse for all those readers who would benefit from the ability to navigate across articles sharing this defining trait with very genuine real-world significance. Alansohn (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question. How could we qualitatively differentiate a county with 49% african americans from one with 51% african americans? Do they vote differently? Majority in terms of demographics is an arbitrary cut-off point for categorization purposes, and is not defining of the places in question. Do you really think some shift happens when it goes from 49 to 51%? No evidence of this has been presented.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Majority rules for voting, and while one could certainly correlate ethnicity with voting patterns, it is not a 1-to-1 match. Your majority rules argument seems to assume that everyone from a given ethnicity will vote in the same way, and thus a change from 49 to 51 would make a difference in local elections. But that's not what happens. The US census gives data about all sorts of things one could conceivably categorize on, such as % of families vs single people, % of people under 25 (which would also be an obvious impact on voting), average income levels, etc. All of this is rich demographic data, but it doesn't fit well into our binary in/out categorization system, whereby some counties with 49.9% asian populations would be excluded while their neighbor with 50.1% asian is included in the category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did answer the question. The Voting Rights Act, and its efforts to foster the development of majority-minority voting districts demonstrates that rather sharp division between majority and non-majority, with 50% plus one as the number. Our elected officials categories include people who won with 50% of the vote, as well as those who won 100%, while arbitrarily excluding huge numbers of those who lost with anywhere from zero to 49.9%. And that's just the binary categories. We group Category:Actors, Category:Authors and Category:Basketball players, yet there are plenty of notable people who have acted, written a book or played basketball who are not included in these structures, as there is no sharp defining characteristic as to what makes some who writes or acts to be categorized as an author or actor. We use groupings in reliable and verifiable sources, and this defining characteristic meets that standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn's focus on the Voting Rights Act is mistaken. How exactly is it relevant to the VRA to have a category which lumps together places which had this characteristic decades before the VRA was enacted along with places which have only recently passed the threshold? The comparison with elected officials is silly. They are placed in the category because they held the office, not because of how they got there. We do not have categories for candidates who got more than 50% of the vote; we have categories who won the election, even if that was by discarding votes. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Among other issues this is not a permanent trait. Populations change. So we either have to limit this to current places, which really does not work, or apply it to any place that ever fit for this category, which also does not work. This is much better treated by time specific lists. Especially since technically we do not know any place currently has an Asian-American majority population, only that it did at a given census. To make things even more fun, the definitions used for race have changed from census to census. In the 1970 census those whose ancestors came from India were classed as white.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also is this a majority of the population is Asian, or is it majority non-Hispanic Asian? This is a serious question when you have people like Sean Reyes, Utah's Attorney General, who identify as both Hispanic and Asian, and I have known others, although Reyes might be the most public official who identifies that way. Actually, there is another question. Should this category be used only where at least 50% of the population only identifies as Asian, or where 50% of the population marks some Asian group as one of their racial identities. I have known enough people who were Americans with one parent who was of European descent and the other who was of Korean, Japanese, Filipino, Chinese or Vietnamese descent that this is a reasonable question. Then there are Tiger Woods, Ella Bully-Cummings, and many other people of mixed African and Asian descent. In some places half the population that identified in the census as Asian also identified as being in some other racial category as well. For the last 70 years US military presence in East and South-East Asia has been such that such mixing is quite common. In fact, if I read Reyes biography right, only his father is Hispanic or Asian at all, his mother is a white American. In fact people like Dean Cain have mixed ancestry that may even start before 1944. There was a book written on California's Punjabi Mexicans, a group that came about in the early-20th century, the offspring of Punjabi fathers and Mexican mothers. Then there is Hawaii, where you can find people whose mixed ancestry is Filipino, Samoan, German and Seminole Indian. Many of these people have migrated to the mainland 48 states. So Asianess is a complex thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Even more irrelevant than usual, but per this source from the United States Census Bureau, "The data on race were derived from answers to the question on race that was asked of individuals in the United States. The Census Bureau collects racial data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and these data are based on self-identification." Whether it's Dean Cain, Tiger Woods, Ella Bully-Cummings or the masses of California's Punjabi Mexicans, the Census data is based on how these individuals identify themselves. Alansohn (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not when it is reconsidered and reprocessed. The fact of the matter is that there are people who mark Asian, and some of them mark other races as well, but some try to exclude a good portion of the Asians as "multi-racial", which most of these people have not marked. Additionally the census scrutinizes those who mark "other" and then fill in something, and if what they fill in is deemed to actually put them in white or some other definied race, they are put there, thus forcing Albaninas, Greeks, Jews and Arabs who fully believe they are not white to be counted as white. You are missing the point that in actually reporting of data those who marked Asian and also marked white are treated as less Asian, but they fully marked themselves as Asian, not under some fanciful box of "multi-racial".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Other editors above rightly point out that a threshold of 50% is WP:OC#ARBITRARY. It excludes places that are 49.9% Asian American, and lumps those which are 50.1% in an undistinguished heap with those which are 95% Asian American. That's silly and unhelpful; this sort of information is much better presented in lists, which can show the actual percentages, and allowing sorting on a range of criteria. The other great folly of these categories is that they are undated. Particularly in cities, the ethnic composition of an area can change significantly in only one or 2 generations, as immigrants cluster, raise families, then prosper and move on, to be replaced by new immigrants. So to have any real meaning, categories such as these should be dated ... but that would lead to category clutter, as some areas have passed the threshold in many censuses. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So your concern is that in 40 to 50 years, after two generations, a watershed change from one minority population as a majority to another will require two categories, and that this will clutter up articles? Alansohn (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. My point is that such information is useless unless dated to a particular census, so we would need a category for each census. That creates massive category clutter. Secondly, no huge change is needed; a tiny shift in the population balance could push a place over this arbitrary threshold in one direction or another. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You're making the patently "silly" argument that another category might perhaps under rather unusual circumstances be needed in as many as 50 years. In all of my research I have not found any place where this argument would apply, but even if this were to occur I feel confident that Wikipedia could handle the clutter of two categories by the year 2040, and that it would benefit from allowing readers to see that there have been two different minorities in a majority role. Remember that your argument is based on some populated place shifting from one majority-minority group to a different majority-minority group over a span of generations. The claim that this "creates massive category clutter" simply cannot be taken seriously as a justification for deletion, nor can the claim that majority being 50% is somehow "arbitrary" be taken any more seriously as an argument. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, before sneering at a reply as "silly", please read what I wrote. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe BHG's point is that in order for these categories to make sense, we have to have some notion of *time* period in the categories. That means, we would have to create the following sub-categories:
And so on, forwards and backwards in time. Then, there would be certain places, for example various chinatowns and places in Hawaii, for example, that would have such a category applied for decades on end. Hence, category clutter. If a particular area moved up or down in the ranks across the 50% line during one census, it would have to be removed from the relevant category, but this disappearance would be hard to see (vs on a list, where you could easily see that it dropped to 49%). Nobody is disagreeing that this information is not useful, we just feel that categories are the wrong way to capture it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make things even more fun, in 1990 there was not an Asian race counted, it was the Asian Pacific Islanders Race. They only became two separate races for the 2000 census. Thus in theory a place that had 5 Chinese, 3 Samoan and 7 German residents in 1990 would fit the majority category for 1990. If in 2000 it still had the exact same 15 residents, it would no longer fit the majority category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons presented by Alansohn. Lekoren (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arguments presented by Obi, BHG and JPL are more convincing/logical/relevant than those presented by Alansohn. DexDor (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2014 (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:Counties and county equivalents of the United States with African American majority populations[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. Analysis is overall as the debate above. -Splash - tk 21:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A threshold of 50% is WP:OC#ARBITRARY. It excludes places that are 49.9% African American, and lumps those which are 50.1% in an undistinguished heap with those which are 95% African American. That's silly and unhelpful; this sort of information is much better presented in lists, which can show the actual percentages, and allowing sorting on a range of criteria. The other great folly of these categories is that they are undated. Particularly in cities, the ethnic composition of an area can change significantly in only one or 2 generations, as immigrants cluster, raise families, then prosper and move on, to be replaced by new immigrants. So to have any real meaning, categories such as these should be dated ... but that would lead to category clutter, as some areas have passed the threshold in many censuses. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Majority rules. 50% plus one is a rather well-defined margin in law and in politics and tipping that scale marks a strong defining characteristic of the essential characteristic of a populated place in the United States. Arbitrarily ignoring this defining characteristic robs readers of an aid to navigation across articles that share this defining trait, with nothing gained by its needless deletion. While there those among us who can call 50% "arbitrary", the Department of Justice draws a sharp distinction between majority-minority districts and those where minority populations are not majorities, in its enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The claim that titanic shifts in population over 40 to 50 years could lead to the "category clutter" by having a whopping two categories could hardly be taken seriously. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The United States Census takes place every ten years, and each census produces the data by which these labels can be applied. If a place has a an African American majority each time, it will be in 4 or 5 categories for those 40 or 50 years, and an comment which doesn't understand that simple calculation could hardly be taken seriously.
Nor could the snide comment about "titanic shifts". A tiny shift can be enough to push a district above or below the 50% threshold.
The suggestion that these categories are of any use in a a place against the Voting Rights Act is overly simplistic, and misplaced. Majority-minority Congressional districts are based on an overall calculation of the racial mix of a proposed district, not on the weight of the many individual census areas which may comprise it, and assessing that requires detailed figures for all the census areas. It is preposterous to suggest that readers would be helped by grouping a previously-mixed area which gained an African American majority in the last decade with one which attained that level transiently when racial data was first collected in 19th-century censuses. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons presented by Alansohn. Lekoren (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2014 (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:Withdrawn - I made the nomination when there was no obvious population for the category. Since then, Carlossuarez46 has succeeded in populating it. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The permcat (non-stub category) doesn't even have 30 articles, let alone 30 stubs, the absolute minimum for justifying a stub category. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 19:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? There are 248 articles in the category (of stubs), >> 30. What is the problem? Please explain. --doncram 22:49, 24 January 2014 (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 to Category:Nigerian women medical doctors. However, Roscelese has a fair point about the status of a very old CfD. Whilst it is not invalidated by the passage of time, it is important to remember that we are not writing legislation here. [[[WP:CCC|Consensus can change]], especially over a time span of five years. -Splash - tk 21:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Should match the by country parent. That was established in this discussion which did not mention this county, which was listed, in the discussion but had clear support for medical doctor and not physician. Not opposed to a rename of the parent to Category:Nigerian physicians it that is the correct choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just rename the parent category; that's the one that's out of step with the rest of the tree, which uses "physicians". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the linked discussion which explains why there are valid exceptions? This was included as one of those. I'm not opposed to this as I said above, but we need a reason other then not matching the rest of the tree (note that this is not the only exception). Vegaswikian (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense - I hadn't read that discussion. I maintain that the category named above shouldn't be renamed, or at least not as a result of this discussion; if the entire category tree should be "medical doctor" instead of "physician" (and I have to point out that that discussion is verging on five years old - it doesn't mean that the opinion of WP community has necessarily changed, but you'd really need to hold another discussion to find out), you've got to start higher up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to match the parent as was supported by a full discussion. If you want to start changing all physician categories to medical doctors, or the reverse, that is a new discussion. Personally I don't see that happening since local usage is apparently different so both are correct at the country level. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as WP:ENGVAR and per my own suggestion in the previous cfd (which I had entirely forgotten about). Oculi (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2014 (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: I can't help but feel this is a little too vague and a little too specific at the same time. Nazi-era or World War II musicals may actually be a legitimate category (South Pacific would also belong in the latter), as a natural subcategory of Nazis/WWII in fiction, but the weird title here seems to be intended to pick up the dissimilar The Producers as well, and I'm just not sure there's any benefit to the grouping. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category creator's response: Nazis existed before WWII and some are still alive today. Not sure how The Producers is "dissimilar". The musical-within-a-musical Springtime for Hitler was written by a Nazi and features Nazis within it. Unsure about ”vague and...specific". This seems like a well-defined category to me. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete What's next, musicals with marxists? Films with socialist characters? If we had musicals/works about Nazi-ism, that may be workable (and such cats probably already exist), but the presence of a Nazi lurking in the shadows is not defining of Sound of Music, nor most of the other entries here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWay to vague of a defining category. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2014 (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:renamed. A clear consensus, so I'm invoking C2B (Disambiguation) and WP:NOTBURO. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Commons:category:swinging is about the act of swinging on playground equipment or other pendulumns, causing confusion. See this comment on a bot-owner's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. This is a case where we don't have need for disambiguation in the article, but should have a dab in the category - case in point being a commons category which is unrelated.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Since the Wikipedia article is Swinging and not Swinging (sexual practice), wouldn't that be confusing? I'm not familiar enough with categorization guidelines to know if there's a way it's supposed to be done, but it seems the two should be uniform. Once those are uniform, maybe it could be addressed over at the Commons (renaming the current Swinging there to "Swings" or something). --— Rhododendritestalk | 18:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, normally they match, but there are exceptions, where the category gets a more specific name - this is one such case where it makes sense. You could rename the commons cat, but I've tried that before and it's a bit of a nightmare, discussions dont' get closed, it takes forever, and they have a whole other purpose, so Swinging could contain objects that are swinging that aren't swings for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename and consider renaming the article for clarity. Seyasirt (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename And consider renaming the article for clarity as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator If this passes, I intend to create a redirect FROM Swinging (sexual practice) to Swinging and open a discussion regarding a possible move on Talk:Swinging. However, I think we should wait until this closes before proceeding on that front. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:17, 26 January 2014 (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:NO CONSENSUS. -Splash - tk 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The sibling categories of all of these use the adjictive form, not the noun form. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All the sibling categories use "United States". The US stub category tree uses "United States" and the US stub templates use "US" not "American" -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stub tags always use the noun form ({{Greece-stub}}, not {{Greek-stub}}) allover the trees; and the sibling categories I was refering to are the similar categories of other countries - not the ones related to entities like United States Air Force. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:11, 27 January 2014 (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 no clear inclusion criteria. However, can you please put the articles back? It's considered bad form to empty a category for nominating it for discussion. @Ottawahitech:, since you created this you may want to add a few other relevant articles so we know what this cat is supposed to be about.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I categorized the two articles again under the category to be deleted. In general, anything to do with law related to globalization would be a sub-category of Category:Sociocultural globalization. However, it would be difficult to define which legislative acts in which countries would qualify under this category. If the intention is to collect articles about legislation that is related to globalization, then that probably should be Category:Globalization-related legislation, but such a sub-category should be further sub-categorized by country. Meclee (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even clear to me why this law is directly related to globalization however; it's not really about interdependence of countries; this is more about how the IRS manages expatriate tax obligations, and US laws around expatriates paying taxes date back at least 100 years; this law is just another step in the enforcement of those older tax obligations that have been on the books for a very long time. If we think about globalization as interdependence of countries, including international trade, then all of the trade acts/etc would need to be added here. Ultimately, globalization is too vague a container for legislation; rather, things like "taxation", "trade", "human rights", etc make much more sense as a way to group such laws.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Globalization is not the interdependence itself, it is the processes that create these interdependencies, and legal processes can be relevant. I agree that laws are generally best categorized under "law" by "juisdiction" and by whom and/or what they are regulating. If it is beneficial to group together legislation that affects or is affected by globalization, I would suggest that the category "Globalization-related legislation" be created with some clear criteria for inclusion. Personally, I can think of no such criteria. 74.192.53.65 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, almost everything is affected by globalization. I can't think of any criteria either that would justify keeping this cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2014 (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: This category is now surplus to requirements. The people that were in this category are now all in "Chetnik personnel of World War II", and a nationality category (mostly "Serbs of Montenegro"). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is a redundant category. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 07:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate. The category has been emptied out of process, and the nominator has presented CFD with a fait accompli. Unless the category is repopulated, editors cannot assess its usefulnes. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
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:Wikipedia pages with to-do lists, The Who[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.
Delete Support as per nom. While the to-do list is good it does not require a category to support it. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2014 (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 had three entries. I just removed two of the three on the basis of no source mentioning the film's classification as such and no other mention of the word "transhuman*" in the article. The remaining entry, Hanna (film) relies upon a single short review that calls the protagonist "transhuman." I'm not seeing anything to indicate there's a discernible genre, movement, or grouping called "transhumanist films," and certainly none that define it per the category description as "films with a transhuman subject" (which, if kept, is what the category should be renamed as, to make clear it's a category of movies with transhumanist themes rather than a kind of movie called transhumanist). — Rhododendritestalk | 02:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Hanna is not a film about transhumanism, and I don't think this is a genre.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have actually seen several transhumanist films fairly recently, in a film festival-like event. The ones i saw probably don't have Wikipedia articles and probably are not yet Wikipedia-notable, but it seems clear to me that there is a genre of these. Keep and add more to the category. Could anyone please do some searching to find more to add to the category, to make it more obvious? But, Keep. --doncram 04:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying there was a festival about "transhumanist film[s]" or that you recently saw several movies at a festival which you would consider to be transhumanist films? Whether or not the category is kept would be based on the former, as necessary to establish "transhumanist film" as an acknowledged type of film before applying it here. Regardless, I'd be personally interested to look into the festival if you remember the name/have a link? --— Rhododendritestalk | 05:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The small, non-notable event i attended was explicitly for showing of transhumanist films; there is clearly a community using the terminology and there is clearly to me a legitimate genre and usefulness of the label. The link to 10 transhumanist films provided by Erik, below, should document that there are more of these. And here is a link to a Woodstock film festival with transhumanist billing, mentioning 2 films. These two links can adequately document that 10 or 11 or 12 films have been publicly described as transhumanist. Many more also meet the criteria of transhumanism as has been described to me, but finding a source naming them publicly as transhumanist should probably be required to put a film into the category. --doncram 21:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: What about a list like this? It may be better as a Wikipedia list than as a Wikipedia category. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Erik for that list of top 10 transhumanist films. The creation of a List of transhumanist films (currently a redlink) is an excellent idea, but the usage of a category and a list as well (as well as possible usage of a navigation template) are complementary. The existence of a list is not reason to delete a category and vice versa; see wp:CLT for discussion. I'll start to add that source and the category to the 10 or 11 or 12 film articles. This further supports KEEP ing the category. Thanks. --doncram 21:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik:@Doncram: - One source is a blog post from a transhumanist organization searching for transhumanist themes in various films to apply the label to rather than pointing to a type or genre of film. If I can Has Cheezburger? blogged about Top 10 Lolcat Films because they feature cats and bad grammar I don't think it would merit Category:Lolcat films either (I don't mean to trivialize it by the comparison, btw). The other source is a little more on point but it, too, isn't talking about "transhumanist films" but rather films about or influenced by transhumanism or transhumanist themes. Closer, but still not defining a genre or type such that it would merit a category. I'm not saying it can't be a type of film, but the sources supporting it are so scarce and so lacking in depth and precision that any application beyond what was included in that film festival or on that list would be based on original research. --— Rhododendritestalk | 23:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a type of film and it seems useful to allow that to be noted in category tags in articles. Categories are not supported by footnotes, and IMHO are not very important beyond providing interesting linkages to support later explicit linkages in lists (which is an important function). Categories-focused editors may have different views about what categories are for. As you, Rhododendrites, say "any application beyond what was included in that film festival or on that list would be based on original research", which is what I said, too. IMHO, it is good to have it as a category, so that other films of the type can be identified gradually in their articles. I am not right now inclined to start List of transhumanist films; i'll add some notes to Talk:Transhumanism to record the links/list noted, with assumption that forces here are tending towards ripping out the connections noted.
Rhododendrites, don't ping me further on this please. You have made your !vote already. Thanks. --doncram 17:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ping you? A ping is a courtesy to show when you've been mentioned. I'm perfectly happy to respect your wish not to be pinged as much as I don't understand why that would be worth requesting. However, "you have made your !vote already," is confusing -- not the least because you've replied in this thread more than I have. Regardless, this particular reply of mine certainly isn't furthering the discussion at hand, so I'll say if I've done something to offend you, I welcome a usertalk page message. --— Rhododendritestalk | 22:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: retroactive genre/hijacking attempt by religious cult. Smetanahue (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Statements by Lugnuts further above and by Smetanahue here seem dramatically over-stated for effect. To be clear to anyone else reading this later, the religious cult assertion and the dictionary assertion are jokes. Transhumanism as a field, as an academic area, as a term, seems to me to be emerging. Allowing identification of films of this type seems useful, but may be too sensible or avant garde or something else, for some peoples' taste. I don't understand their reasons, anyhow, from these delete vote statements. --doncram 17:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a well-defined genre. Pichpich (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2014 (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.
