Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 21 October 23 >

October 22[edit]

Category:ABU Song Festivals 2014[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Previous only 2 articles where using this category (ABU Radio Song Festival 2014 and ABU TV Song Festival 2014). These have now been placed under Category:ABU Song Festivals to serve a greater purpose, as there were no other ABU 2014 articles in existence.   Wes Mouse | chat  17:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I am also creator of the category (think I must have been having one of those blip days) so as self-nom I wouldn't object to a speedy delete if more appropriate - as I have already addressed the issue by merging the original contents from this category in the already created Category:ABU Song Festivals.   Wes Mouse | chat  19:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not sufficient content in the category or the parent category to warrant splitting it into year categories. A much better approach would be to divide by type (e.g. Radio/TV etc.), but given the brief history event that is not required at the moment and would probably just hinder navigation. SFB 19:44, 22 October 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:ABU Song Festivals 2012[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Previous only 2 articles where using this category (ABU Radio Song Festival 2012 and ABU TV Song Festival 2012). These have now been placed under Category:ABU Song Festivals to serve a greater purpose, as there were no other ABU 2012 articles in existence.   Wes Mouse | chat  17:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I am also creator of the category (think I must have been having one of those blip days) so as self-nom I wouldn't object to a speedy delete if more appropriate - as I have already addressed the issue by merging the original contents from this category in the already created Category:ABU Song Festivals.   Wes Mouse | chat  19:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not sufficient content in the category or the parent category to warrant splitting it into year categories. A much better approach would be to divide by type (e.g. Radio/TV etc.), but given the brief history event that is not required at the moment and would probably just hinder navigation. SFB 19:44, 22 October 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:Georgian-era films[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary way of categorizing films, as they're already classified by 'set in Xth century' and 'set in Xth decade'. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the nominated category does not only contain films set in Great Britain history, as could be suspected from the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Loose scope that does not align with any common shared characteristic of the settings. There may be some merit to a category along the lines of Category:Films set in Georgian-era Britain, but this category is not covering this exactly. SFB 19:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I misread this as being films made in the Georgian-era, which surprised me as I thought the necessary inventions hadn't been made at the time. Unless the period of time covered by George V and George VI was meant, but it isn't a term I've heard used to cover 1910 to 1952. i.e. category name is confusing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Beeswaxcandle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not about films made in the Georgian era, and films set in the Georgian era has no meaning for settings outside of Britain/British Empire, which this category endeavours to impose on the world. This category name does not indicate it is for setting and not origination, so is overly ambiguous. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SFB. The Georgian refers to the period 1714-1810 in Britain. It is followed by Regency, thereoetically 1810-20 when the later George IV was regent, but probably in practice 1810-37, including his reign and that of his brother William IV and even a little longer. Next comes Victorian. It is preceded by Restoration, referring to the period after 1660. These are well-understood concepts in British history. The problem with the present category is that it is operating globally. Georgian is an irrelevant term for films set in France, Germany, Spain or Russia. It might be appropriate for colonial America (the 12 British colonies). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 26 October 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:1897 by day[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only used as an example on the portal, not an actual category with contents, and unlikely to have real contents soon. It is better as a redlink on the portal page, than as a bluelink. Fram (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a project category this is really masquerading as a content category. SFB 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- No useful content that would not be better elsewhere. We once used to link the dates [[1st January]] [[1954]], but the high ups decided this was not useful and delinked them. Annual categories are all too often very small ones. The category may be looking to have categories such as Category:15 Febuary 1897. That would be highly undesirable, as we would ned off with a host of miniscule categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 26 October 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:National Register of Historic Places in Apomattox County, Virginia[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: administrative close; already deleted/merged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. "Appomattox" with two "p"s is the correct spelling. KConWiki (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close – the subject category has been deleted earlier today (22 Oct 14) as empty. Oculi (talk) 10:24, 22 October 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:People by ethnic or national descent by continent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People by continent and ethnic or national descent. – Fayenatic London 12:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Related to the below nomination, but not entirely contiguous with it - the contents of some of these categories contain things which do not relate to heritage of a national or ethnic basis, for example Category:People of Liberated African descent‎. Changing this to ancestry more elegantly and succinctly captures the given subject matter. SFB 00:11, 22 October 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:People by ethnic or national descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep, and keep it within both the hierarchy by ethnicity and the hierarchy by nationality. @Sillyfolkboy: some of your recent changes may have been helpful, but please revert those changes which have been explicitly or implicitly rejected here. – Fayenatic London 17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have recently rationalised the category tree under the new Category:People by ancestry. The nominated category contains a large variety of heritage types (ethnic, religious, cultural, regional, national, linguistic, etc.) that have not had a shared concept beyond "ancestry". The current title failed at a definition of the content so I have reworked the structure.

I have now created the following:

  1. Category:People by country of descent which contains all categories that refer to heritage from a specific sovereign state
  2. Category:People by region of descent which covers non-ethnic regional heritages from East Asian, to Scandinavia, to Jersey. These are geographic groupings in essence.
  3. Category:People by country of descent by continent - The child categories have now allowed us to separate the "destination" from the "origin" trees. E.g. Category:People of African descent has categories like Category:American people of African descent‎ while Category:People by African country of descent has things like Category:People of Algerian descent‎.

This leaves us with the remaining requirement to create an ethnic-based descent category. I thought it best to propose remodelling this category here rather than empty it out of process. I am more than happy to do the work of going through to trim this to an ethnic basis. SFB 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, dividing a category that has become too large and too ambiguous into clearly distinct subcategories makes perfect sense. Good good luck with the trimming! Marcocapelle (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment What is the advantage? We now have a new category Category:People by country of descent with 213 subcategories. Those 213 subcats all seem to still be in Category:People by ethnic or national descent with 377 subcats, the additional ones being non-country ethnic groups. So we now have a new category for ethnic groups identified with a country and the still remaining category with those plus ethnic groups not currently identified with a country. Like, so what? Are you now going to remove the 213 subcats from Category:People by ethnic or national descent? Hmains (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hmains: I held off from removing them on the grounds to allow discussion and prevent emptying out-of-process. As I mention above, I am willing to do the work of removing the non-ethnic categories. The change clarifies if a category is an ethnic one or a national one. The use of country demonyms means this isn't always obvious - we get confusing categories like Category:People of Somali descent where it is not apparent whether we're talking ethnically or nationally (and end up with a hotch-potch). Most country demonyms do not identically correspond with an ethnicity, and invariably a nation's people of minority ethnicity get caught between the two separate concepts. Inclusion of such people means that category always serves as a country-based one in practice. Ethnic countries are practically unheard of outside of small European ones, so combination of nationality with ethnicity is problematic even before we factor in global migration. The change also means that non-ethnic and national categories (of which there are quite a few) are more obvious in the hierarchy. SFB 19:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable set of categories based on subjective criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Yes we do get a hotchpotch of nations, polities, tribes and other ethnic groups. UNfortunately life is comnplicated and things do not fit into tidy boxes. Jersey is mentioned: it is a self-governing polity, a dependency of the British Crown, and not part of UK. Its natives historically spoke French, rather than English. Accordingly, Jersey descent is a legitiamte category. The Midlde East is complicated, because many people have both a nationality and an ethicity, the latter in practice being related to their religion, as most religious groups are endogamous. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: The proposal does not suggest deletion, but rather re-purposing in light of the new country of descent tree (where the Jersey category now more-appropriately sits). What is your opinion on the proposal? SFB 01:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In saying "keep", I meant leave things alone. For the Somali case, I think nationality and ethnicity are largely the same, though there may be some Somalis who are Kenyan citizens, as the ethnic and national boun daries may not quite match, but the differnece probably does not matter. My comment on Jersey was not intended to refer to how the category is parented, but to argue that it was appropriate, whereas Kentish or Lancashire descent would not be (and should be merged to English). However, I consisder attempts to "tidy" this tree into neat compartments, separating nationality and ethnicity to be doomed to failure, because thge reality is too complicated for that to be possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Peterkingiron: In the modern age it is usually quite clear what someone's nationality is. It is also quite clear what someone's ethnicity is – we should actually require a clear indication of this to include such an attribute in the article anyway. Just having "Somali" is most definitely an issue as there are nearly two million Somalians of non-Somali ethnicity. Just read an article like Somali Bantu and you can quickly see how such an ethnic categorisation could quickly become a BLP issue as offensive for a person so defined. SFB 10:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename, and revert all the changes that have recently carved this category up into different types. I find the changes to have created more confusion than clarity. It's much easier to lump ethnic and national descent categories together because of the disputes that exist over what is a nation and what is a country, what is an ethnicity, how do the two interrelate, and so forth. Just one example of an issue that arises based on the new categorization system adopted: the Cook Islands is a country, but is it "sovereign"? I can easily provide reliable sources for both sides of the debate. The status of states, territories, and ethnicities also can change over time, so it's useful to not have to try to update this category structure to satisfy the intricacies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Keep vote above). I do not think that sovereignty is the issue. Issues of ethnicity and nationality are complicated. Carlossuarez46 seems always to oppose the existence of any ehtnic categories. I think that a better test may be the concept of a polity. IN this case it needs to be a polity with a significant intersection of ehtnicity, or it may be a colony (or overseas territory). There is a saying among lawyers that "hard cases make bad law": the general rule should not be abandoned because it occasionally produces difficult results. We periodically have issues of people saying that France is in America, because French Guiana is an overseas department: French Guiana should clearly be treated as a separate polity from France. Conversely, Provence and Normandy are both part of France itself and we should not allow Norman and Provencal categories, because both have belonged to the French state since the Middle Ages. I might be persuadable on having Breton categories, due to the survival of a Celtic language there. The reality is complicated and we will never succeed in getting a perfect solution. I would suggest:
For very small polities, there should be no dual ethnicity categories: people should be directly in the parent for their ethnic descent (origin) and directly in their national category.
For larger polities (or ethnicities), intersection categories should be allowed which should be parented both to the ethnic descent and present nation categories.
If there is a very large population with a common dual origin, such as Americans of Russian Jewish descent, a triple intersection may be permissible. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do, in part because of the unmaintainability and changing nature of ethnicity type categories? For example, when did people become "German" vs. "Bavarian" or "Prussian" or even "Austrian". Are we to suppose that people were the ethnicity of the places they lived defined by today's borders? Until the Holy Roman Empire (which included Austria) was abolished and Germany gelled excluding Austria(-Hungary), did anyone really think that an Austrian was less German than a Bavarian such that one would state clearly and unequivocally as WP seems to pronounce that they were of different ethnicity? It seems such a stretch and seems also to harken to times when one's ethnicity had to be particularly defined so that perhaps Austrians of 1938 were fully German, but weren't in 1937 nor were they German again in 1945. If ethnicity is maleable then it cannot be defining (another parallel reason to oppose these types of categories). The further in history we go back, the worse it gets: St. Paul was Turkish of Jewish descent in WP parlance? or was he Roman of Jewish descent because of his "citizenship" or even Greek of Jewish descent? This gets all crapped up when we deal with trees such as Category:People from Tarsus, Mersin which has all sorts of pre-Turkish Christians in it but alas rolls up to its grandparent category Category:Turkish people by location. At best, it's ahistoric, at worst it's cultural misappropriation; either way it's not a way to organize human knowledge which is what this encyclopedia is supposed to do. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46 and Good Olfactory: I think we're letting the minutiae overwhelm the main point: for cases where an ethnicity and a nationality have the same name (e.g. Category:People of Turkish descent) it is unclear whether the categorised person is an ethnic Turk or progeny of Turkish nationals. The current arrangement is clearly more confusing for this group because we can categorise a person there for very different reasons from another person – at this point the defining element of categorisation begins to fall apart (effectively Category:People of Serbian descent actually covers the scope of Category:People of ethnic Serbian descent or people descended from non-ethnic Serbs who lived in Serbia).
Most importantly, the two very different concepts need splitting because such cases can cause serious misrepresentation. It effectively means descendants of victims of the Armenian Genocide could be placed in a category which also covers Turkish ethnicity. The "is Cook Islands a country or not" issue exists beyond this category – you could level the same problem at every item in Category:Categories by country, so I don't see that as specific to the nomination. SFB 02:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mention the Cook Islands issue because you created it as an issue by splitting all of these categories in to either Category:People by country of descent or Category:People by region of descent. You put it in the latter; I moved it in to the former. Well, if they hadn't been split up in this way, the issue wouldn't arise at all in this context. So I see this project as having created more issues than solved. It might sound like a good idea in the broad sense, but once one considers the minutiae, as one has to in order to implement it, it just becomes a huge mess. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the mess, the only solution is to delete and come up with a coherent way to organize the articles in such a way that is accurate, objective, and verifiable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Good Olfactory: on that basis, can you start a cfd for the regional descent category? Do you have a problem with the "country of descent" ones too? To be honest, I know this was slightly provocative editing, but I really think citizenship and ethnicity are separate ideas (hence my decision to build these areas, while also raising the discussion here). SFB 05:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could; but I think I might wait for this discussion to conclude first. I don't want to muddy the water further by starting one before this one has ended. Splitting them up into country of descent and ethnicity descent is an approach that I think has some logical appeal; I do see some issues with it, though. Often there are nationalities that correspond quite closely (though not perfectly) with ethnicities. Do we really want to attempt, in the categorization system, to make a distinction between those who are of Hungarian descent by nationality and those who are "merely" Hungarian descent by ethnicity, but not by nationality? To me, it makes much more sense to simply say that "of Hungarian descent" can mean either, or both, and that therefore the parent category should be Category:People by ethnic or national descent, with an emphasis on the "or". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I agree that there is no big issue for those people who come from a country's dominant ethnic group with a "nation or ethnicity" approach, but it does mean all ethnic minorities are currently bundled into the tree for an ethnic group to which they do not belong. Is there any other precedent for maintaining a category in which you would categorise two subjects in the same place for two very different reasons? SFB 19:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if the category is for ethnic or national descent, how are the ethnic descent categories bundled into a tree where they don't belong? If it's either/or, by definition they do belong there. I personally don't feel that the concepts of ethnic vs. national descent are that different, really. They certainly get spoken of in the same breath an awful lot. I think very few people, when discussing their ancestry, would say, "nationally, I am of French descent. Ethnically, I am of Arab descent". They would be more likely to just say, "my ancestors were Arabs living in France". (I'll see if I can think up or find any parallels, but it's difficult if users disagree about how dissimilar or similar the concepts are.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename, and revert all the changes that have recently carved this category up into different types. This 'OR' category Category:People by ethnic or national descent was created exactly to solve the problems again discussed here. No one can figure out something better and WP cannot impose rules to try to make unruly world facts to be organized, neat and consistent. Hmains (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many national descents are not ethnic at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 5 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_22&oldid=1074813957"