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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and OCAT. We don't, for the record, have a comprehensive scheme of categorizing all films by their producers the way we do for directors — because the producer(s) rarely constitute a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the films in their own right, we permit this only for a very narrow selection of "much more notable than the norm" producers (Steven Spielberg frex) rather than automatically creating one for every person who ever produced a film. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 7 March 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.
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. MER-C 12:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:NARROWCAT, it doesn't make too much sense to categorize people by birth in an adminstrative unit if that unit existed for only 30 years. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support short-lived region which few people will have directly identified with. Given the lack of Augustów Governorate revivalists, this isn't an area which captured the identity of its inhabitants. SFB 19:49, 24 March 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:Congress Poland emigrants to the United States[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. – FayenaticLondon 14:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this Imperial Russian category is one other category by state within nationality in the tree of Category:Immigrants to the United States for which the same rationale applies as for the Polish one. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It includes immigrants from the first part of CP history, when it couldn't be said to be part of Imperial Russia (compare Congress Poland to Vistula Land). If it is deleted, it will be troublesome to figure which bios to upmerge to that category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: That problem is easy to overcome—instead of having a bot do the merge, one does it manually, article-by-article. And if there is doubt about an article, one leaves it out. The basic rationale (as I understand it) is that these should be moved to Category:Polish emigrants to the United States. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Emigration is inherently a country to country act, not an act based on ethnicity. We should not merge these people into a category really meant for people from a different polity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though in theory you may be right, this would involve a fundamental discussion about the whole emigration/immigration tree. For now, I would suggest to leave it consistent with how the tree is organized already. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Category:Congress Poland emigrants scheme, which surely has some bearing on how we should do things. The nominated category is an anomalous "specific country to U.S." category floating out there, not really tethered to the regular scheme. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge After the 18th century partitions, Polish remained an ethnicity, but except where there is good evidence that a Pole came from Congress (I.e. Russian) Poland, as opposed to provinces annexed by Austria or Prussia. This is thus a case where it is better to be vague. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good Olfactory clearly is pushing a revision of the immigration categories that would destroy the current system. We currently have people in Category:Cuban emigrants to the United States who were ethnic Chinese born in Cuba. We have Category:Ottoman emigrants to the United States, Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States, Category:Yugoslav emigrants to the United States. These categories exist because emigration is the movement from one country to another. We cannot classify as undiferentiated immigrants from Poland those coming from a non-indepdent Poland. If this category is to be merged anywhere it is to ;:Category:Imperial Russian Emigrants to the United States. Good Olfactory has consistently tried to impose his presentism on past categories, both in the organizational scheme and in the emigration scheme, and has generally been rebuffed. Attempts to get rid of imperial Russian cateogries have been defeated because they are based on fundamentally false understandings of Imperial Russia. The fact is that the vast majority of immigrants to the United States coming from the Russian Empire prior to 1918 were not Russians in any meaningful way. They did not think of themselves as Russians at all. They self identified as Jews, Ukrainians, Ruthenians, Poles, Lithuanians, Romanians or Finns. They were seen as non-Russians both by the government of Russia and by themselves. To tag them as "Russian Empigrants to the United States" would be historically incorrect. However emigration is a country to country movement. People resident in the United Kingdom are British emigrants to the US, even if they were born in Russia. If they were in the UK for 40 years before coming to the US, they are British. These people are not Polish by nationality and cannot be put in an undiferentiated Polish emigrant cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: #1: You did not directly address the lack of a parent Category:Congress Poland emigrants, which was central to my rationale. The point is that there was no "current system" that splits off Congress Poland—there was just this one category (which you created). In the midst of this discussion, you have now attempted to create such a system, which is rather unhelpful for users coming fresh to this discussion, because it causes some confusion. #2: It would be nice if you stuck to the issues rather than on your opinions of the users involved in the discussion and your characterizations of their opinions on unrelated matters and their overall motives (which I think come very close to caricature and the creation of straw-men). #3: I think some of what you have written betrays a lack of nuance about how a category system can work to improve navigation (as opposed to communicating black-and-white information). I would be happy to expand this idea, but I'm not sure how worthwhile it would be to spend the time clarifying my opinion which you have either misunderstood or purposively misrepresented (I'm assuming its the former). Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issues I bring up are relevant here. Emigration is a phenomenon that occurs as the motion of individuals between two places and exists in very specific historical context. It can not be treated as the movement of members of some sort of amorphous "nation". It is specific movement from a specific state to another specific state. These people are clearly leaving Imperial Russia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issues related to your speculation about my motives are not relevant here. You state that "These people are clearly leaving Imperial Russia." This is the precise reason I suggested upmerging it to Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to the United States. Essentially, the nominated category is not a wrong appellation, it's just unnecessarily specific for categorization purposes. As for merging also to Category:Polish emigrants to the United States, I think it's plausible that the target category could contain Polish people from any Polish state in Europe, whether sovereign or not—or even from the ethnic group of Polish people—since that is more in line with what "nationality" in fact means in the context European history. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite some time ago, the nominator changed the statement in the nomination to read that there are "hardly any" of these types, which is true. They are relatively rare. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging these to the Polish category is a wrong headed plan. Emigrants are categorized not by nationality. People coming from the German Empire to the US in 1905 should not be categorized as Polish emigrants. Emigrants are not categorized by the amorphous nationality as proposed above. It is a horrible plan, which would lead to categorizing people born in Brazil who never set foot in Poland as Polish emigrants in some cases. It would undermine the whole reasons for having the Polish emigrants category. It also would lead us into the awful mess of trying to figure out what Jews were and were not Polish. The current system of categorizing based on the political entity the person left is much more workable than the awful plan proposed above that would lead to chaos.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category is Category:Emigrants by nationality. "Nationality" can mean a variety of things and it depends greatly on the context. I don't think your theoretical fears are justified, though, as it's typically pretty clear where any given article should be placed. Neither I nor the nominator is proposing any radical change: things are already set up this way in this category scheme. In this particular case, there's no reason the articles in the category could not be in both the Imperial Russian category and the Polish category: after all, the nominated category is already within the category tree of both of these. So really, it's just a straightforward upmerge proposal, not any radical reorganisation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You only don't think it is a radical change. The change would move us further away from by nation, which is really where this category should be. It would move us away from the better categorizing of people that we are heading towards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 30 March 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.
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:Rename. In the end, these are buildings and structures. Constructions is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's comments: Hi. I think it is a good idea. However, I am not voting "rename" for now, because I have a suggestion that may be even better (at least in my mind). How about "Category:Viking buildings and structures"? The original category was intended to comprise constructions (buildings and structures), that was made by the Vikings (and their slaves) and not just anybody living in the Viking Age. This is more specific, than just constructions from the Viking Age, that would include constructions made by other people and cultures such as the Celts, the Anglosaxons, the Obotrites, etc.. What do you think? RhinoMind (talk) 22:00, 7 March 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category that was probably never used. There would only be one page to put in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 4 March 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:Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) participants[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. MER-C 12:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of these people are notable for being on this show, making this overcategorization per WP:OC#PERF. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability and defining are two different things; that being said, appearing on the show is not a defining characteristic of the individuals who have performed on it. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I worry about in this particular case is that without this category, every single person in it could simply be readded directly to Category:Participants in American reality television series, which is already overly large and in need of diffusion as it is — it does not need to have another 215 articles dumped into it, but needs at least 200-300 articles, preferably more, filtered out. I concur that I'm not convinced of its real definingness, given that the show isn't the source of the person's notability the way it is for some other reality shows — but if all it's going to do is further inflame a category that's already too swollen as it is, then deletion isn't helpful for structural reasons. Reluctant keep, but I'd support a larger discussion about rethinking our entire structure of Category:Reality television participants to have stricter inclusion criteria — the whole thing is dancing way too close to the edge of WP:OC#PERF. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whole "participants of reality shows" thing should probably go, except for those people who have that as their defining attribute. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We do not allow performance by performer categories, because they give rise to category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 17 March 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.
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, will list for speedy renaming as proposed by the anon. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Mercury" seems an odd categorization to me. This is a list of templates of citations for books (and journals, etc.) that relate to Mercury. This isn't books that relate to Mercury, just some of the sources used in the Mercury articles. It's not a front-end user useful category but more for back-end maintenance. The entire subcategory scheme under Category:Specific-source templates is unclear so I'm suggesting organizing it by WikiProjects. Therefore, I'm suggesting that this be renamed and reorganized as templates under Astronomy wikiproject (the closest one for Mercury). Ricky81682 (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The pages in this category aren't wikiproject pages (i.e. pages used only by a wikiproject) and they aren't talk pages (of pages of interest to a wikiproject) so they should not be in a wikiproject category. We already have (at least) 2 types of categories with "WikiProject" and "templates" in their name; categories for template talk pages (example) and categories for wikiproject templates (example). The proposed rename would introduce a 3rd type of category - that's a recipe for confusion. DexDor (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DexDor, there are multiple wikiprojects which cover the Planet Mercury (geography, geology, WPSolarSystem, astronomy, astrology). "planet" should be added to the category name though, as this isn't about the element or the god. Several of these templates are geology templates, for example. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:44, 5 March 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unless the difference can be explained, I assume this is redundant to Category:People from São Paulo (city). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – one of several dubious categories and articles created by the same hand. Oculi (talk) 16:33, 4 March 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mostly text as written for an article. Parent categories make little if any sense, as does the one page contained in this category. RacerX11Talk to meStalk me 04:59, 4 March 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.
