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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This does not appear to be a topic of study. A google search suggests its a topic of concern only on Wikipedia. This should be upmerged to the parent as it's a novel cultural topic. (fyi - a few others in Category:Burgher people by occupation, but I'll start with the one I'm surest about first). SFB 22:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: In what way does WP:DIFFUSE suggest we should come up with entirely novel topics? In fact, this goes specifically against another part of guideline on that page, namely that category should be a "defining characteristic [that] reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". A term which is not listed in any third party source, let alone attributed to the people in the category, is the polar opposite of the overriding intention of categorisation. SFB 21:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say we shouldn't come with novel topics either. So what then? Do we end up with categories containing thousands of entries simply to enforce to the letter one particular part of a long piece of guideline?--obi2canibetalkcontr 10:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: The entire Burgher people article tree amounts to 219, so not thousands. More populous ethnicity categories reaching into thousands will have the real-world discussion to match relevant diffusion (e.g. African-American sportswomen, Jewish track and field athletes, etc). SFB 21:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge That this group is an ethnic group and that some intersections of this ethnicity and occupation are notable does not make it so every intersection of this ethnicity with occupation is notable. Unless we can create a reliably-sourced, more than just a list article Burgher sportspeople we should not have this category, and above it was demonstrated that we cannot, so we should eliminate this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2015 (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.
1 article Wine Regions By Country categories[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:upmerge/delete as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Bulgarian category contains only a list article while the Polish one contains 1 city article with a small section on a winery. I don't see how either one of these categories aids navigation but no objection to recreating later if/when more content appears. (This follows the recent successful nomination of Category:Wine regions of Turkey, which was a hybrid of these two with both unrelated city articles and, eventually, a list article.) RevelationDirect (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until we have articles on the wines of particular regions, there is no point in having a category, with nothing but a main article. The same action is appropriate for the Polish case, Zielona Góra#wineries is a section which deserves categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without bias against recreation if we have articles created on specific wine regions, not just on places that produce wine, but on places as wine regions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Serbian-speaking territorial units in Croatia[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. "Serbian-speaking territorial units in Croatia" is vague and thus unsuitable for a category. I don't think it's possible to define a sensible, non-arbitrary threshold (a percentage or an absolute number of speakers) for this category, so I've tried to redefine it as "municipalities of Croatia where Serbian language is co-official."[1] This turns out to be problematic too: the official status of Serbian language does not necessarily correspond to the census proportions, and the legal threshold for an offical status is the percentange of Serb inhabitants, not the percentage of Serbian speakers. Theoretically, it is possible that census data indicates e.g. 60% of Serbs, but only 5% of those that declare that they speak Serbian, so this is yet another gap between what this category purports to describe and what the census data indicates. Since this category may be perceived as controversial - as it is closely related to issues that have caused a great deal of edit warring over Croatian settlement articles recently - and since we now have an article named Minority languages of Croatia, created by MirkoS18 specifically to supersede this category by listing the territorial units in question, while providing detailed figures and references (and thus much better value for the reader), I feel that this category, being ill-defined, is not useful. GregorB (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A good point: indeed, these categories are certainly not without precedent, and they serve a legitimate purpose, so I'm considering an RfC to establish what e.g. "Serb communities" is supposed to be defined as. GregorB (talk)
Comment. As the creator of category in question I can say that from the beginning it was at least an imperfect solution. The intent was to meaningful and constructive respond to category Category:Serbian-speaking countries and territories. Editors were adding each village separately in this category so I thought that A) there is option to ad Croatia in Category or B) to create subcategory only with local governments where Serbian is co-official (I was thinking that official status was objective basis since what would be "significant number" of speakers and what would that number mean at all in this confusion about Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, Croatian where 3 men in Petrinja can speak the same local dialect and claim that it is 1 or 2 or 3 different languages). Now, over the time I made a couple of articles that deal with this topic (Minority languages of Croatia, Serbian language in Croatia, Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities in the Republic of Croatia...) so that categories in question lost almost all of their utility (except the fact that they are still part of bigger categories Serbian, Hungarian, Italian and Category:Czech-speaking countries and territories plus all of them are in category Category:Regions of Europe with multiple official languages but in last one we can just add article Minority languages of Croatia). It is also important to recognize that due to the aforementioned editorial conflict now we probably have too many categories and places in articles where minority adjective is added without a good description of each specific case-it now maybe may be even cause of some confusion for reader (during the conflict I just wanted to make 100% sure that this information will be visible to readers). After all this, my ideal solution would be A) (support) delete this and similar categories I created, B) (suggestion) add article about Croatia in categories such as Italian-speaking countries and territories in each case where Croatia recognise some language as minority language (I think it might be 6 new categories) C) (suggestion) add See Also link to article Minority languages of Croatia in article Croatia#Languages(don't merge them-just delete them), D) (remark) Delete links for deleted categories from Wikipedia articles and E) (maybe also) Add link to article Minority languages of Croatia into See also section of municipalities and settlements and add the same article in category Category:Subdivisions of Croatia or Category:Municipalities of Croatia or corresponding articles. I apologize for the long comment and errors.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My comments at GregorB's talk page might apply here. Clearly the language by town isn't workable; I was wondering if there would be some way to do it regionally and then have the towns under that. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the creator and a heavy editor in this area both think this is beyond salvaging, I'll defer to them because the category in it's current form certainly is problematic. The same logic should apply to the other ethno-linguistic sub-categories of Category:Subdivisions of Croatia. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This whole business seems to me misconceived. My understanding is that Serbian and Croatian are essentially the same language, the difference being in how it is written - in Cyrillic characters for Serbian and Latin script for Croatian. In other words, it is impossible to determine how many of the population speak one language or the other. The Serbs are predominantly Orthodox and the Croatians Catholic, so that religion may be regarded as a surrogate for ethnicity, and likewise being Muslim as an indication of being a Bosniak. I think that some years ago we had discussions on American cities with a substantial Black population (not being a majority) and decided that the category scheme is impracticable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Peterkingiron Actually both Serbian and Croatian are standardized form of Shtokavian dialect wahere Gaj's Latin alphabet is used both in Serbian and Croatian while Serbian Cyrillic alphabet is used only in Serbian (number of people are from Census but it is still arbitrary since the same thing can be seen as one or the other language). That is all one pluricentric language. At the same time Croatia consider Serbian and Croatian to be two different languages and Serbian is granted status of recognized minority language with legal national and international guaranties for its use in public official settings (e.g. Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities in the Republic of Croatia or European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages). Only form in Cyrillic is used as protected minority language per decision of relevant institutions. All of that is now described in article Minority languages of Croatia and is visible in articles. The thing is that category was designed before and now it is questionable if we need this one anymore. I would agree that it can be deleted together with other categories created at the same time.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a suspicion that the situation would be more complicated than I realised. However, I still remain dubious as to whether there can be a salvageable category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2015 (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.
