Category:Cartoons animated with Adobe After Effects[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.
Adobe After Effects is a post-production software for cartoons, films and video games and this product dominates the market place: way back in 2006 Macworld wrote that "Adobe After Effects has long been the 300-pound gorilla of compositing and motion-graphics applications" (link) and, in 2019, this software won a freaking Academy Award. The closest comparisons I can find are Category:Black-and-white films or Category:Squigglevision, but both of those are more defining aspects which are visible to consumers, not a back-end technology. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2021 (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:purge and merge as proposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Edinburgh Festival Fringe is the world's largest arts festival and we actually have articles on 3 publications entirely or mostly dedicated to the festival but with little growth possiblity. Most of the category contents are general publications though, like The Scotsman, The Guardian and The Herald, which cover the festival amongst countless other stories. (Alternatively, if kept, we could purge to just the 3 articles.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and merge per nom. I only found two of these that were purely about the Edinburgh Festival. A few were also covering some other festivals, but for newspapers that cover the fringe and news generally, this is a PERFCAT. When purged there will not be enough to merit a cat; hence merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and merge per nom. I only found two of these that were purely about the Edinburgh Festival. A few were also covering some other festivals, but for newspapers that cover the fringe and news generally, this is a PERFCAT. When purged there will not be enough to merit a cat; hence merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2021 (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. bibliomaniac15 03:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In this recent discussion, it was suggested that this category should be deleted. It is a type of "remainder" category that the guidelines advise against. We don't have categories for non-denominational Christians or Jews – they are just grouped in the main categories for adherents. There is no need to merge any of the contents to Category:Muslims because each article is in the correct subcategory of Category:Muslims by nationality. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCMISC. The parent category is Category:Muslims by branch but this category is for Muslims without a specific branch. The Non-denominational Muslim article makes clear this is really the absence of denomination and not just a counter-intuitively named denomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; good follow-up of the previous discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Seen from a sociological viewpoint 'Non-denominational Muslims' (same as Non-denominational Christians'...) are a huge group at least in our Western societies. And the attribute is absolutely defining! In Germany the state made a big mistake to invite mostly only organized Muslims to round table talks and other civic participation. At the same time only ~10 % of the Muslims in Germany are members of those religious organisations sought out to represent all Muslim citizens. OTOH e.g. Ahmadiyya Muslims are very group consistent. --Just N. (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-denominational is something completely different than not organized in a religious advocacy group. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you think 'non-denominational' is in your eyes. I had to look it up as the word is neither part of my everyday life nor of my reading matters. I understand it means being part of a religious community. And usually community life is not at all prayer gatherings only but also religious advocacy group activities. So where is the contradiction? Difficult about Muslims seems that they don't form church communities analog Christian formations. Especially community membership is not formallly fixed like in our traditions. Far mor than half of the Muslims in Germany are not members of those denominational communities, due to this fact you can count them as 'non-denominational'. What is it that you didn't understand? Or what you suppose I did misunderstand? --Just N. (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the non-organizational Christan cats may also deviate from WP:OCMISC. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A non-denominational person can be either someone visiting a non-denominational religious community (but I do not think that this exists in Islam) or someone who visits e.g. both Sunnite and Shiite activities. Membership may not be as fixed as in Christianity but it should be fixed enough in order to be a defining characteristic. If they aren't active in any religious community then there is no point in categorizing them by denomination (and probably no point in categorizing them by religion at all). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People are only to be categorized by religion when it is defining. Exactly what this means is hard to define, but if they have no outward or public affiliation with a religion it is hard to justify categorizing them by it. We also seek to avoid remainder categories. To help situate this, most so named "non-denominational Christians" are actually better described as "non-denominational Protestatns". I am not sure having a category with that name is actually a good practice on Wikipedia either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is unrelated. Article and category about Pan-Islamism introduce it as an Islamist theology aiming at the creation of an Islamic state and the recreation of a caliphate. This would generally be associated with people who put much focus to Islam in their lives, quite the opposite of the people not affiliated with organized religious activities as described above or counted as unaffiliated Muslims by the Russian census bureau. Place Clichy (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a euphemism for secular or Cultural Muslims (is there an equivalent to Lapsed Catholics for Muslims?), as in the case of Makhmud Muradov for which the initial discussion was created. Practicing Muslims will by definition practice either Sunni or Shia Islam and, even and especially those who call for unity of the Ummah. On the other hand, non-practicing Muslims should not be defined by their non-practice. Place Clichy (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The current title is confusing in that it fails to distinguish that this regarding disciplines that make up a sport, rather than instances of competitions for that sport. The "by sport type" element is also redundant because "by sport" is already sufficient. SFB 22:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how does this differ materially from Category:Sports competitions by sport? Most "events" that are under this category are competitions rather than skis-swaps or rule-making events. Finding minimal differences between the two, I would lean toward merge unless someone has a meaningful distinction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Split, most content should be moved to Category:Sports competitions by sport, per Carlossuarez46, while for the remaining the category may be renamed per nom. Very good proposal by Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2021 (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: Saigon and Ho Chi Minh City are the same place. Saigon redirects to Ho Chi Minh City. When a city has gone by multiple names, we generally don't have separate "people from" categories for each version of the name. We don't have Category:People from Edo to accompany Category:People from Tokyo, even though Edo has its own article, which Saigon does not. I understand that people from this city who opposed Ho Chi Minh may not like the fact that Saigon was renamed to honour Ho Chi Minh, but it would be POV-pushing of us to have two separate categories for that reason. (The nominated category was created as a category redirect, but has been converted into a normal category by User:Johnpacklambert. Keeping a category redirect would be a good idea, though.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Only in very exceptional cases does it make sense to have separate categories for places whose names have changed. Rathfelder (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of the people in these categories oppose Ho Chi Minh and his political machinations, and would be outraged to be associated with him in this way. The city was a very different place before the Communist take over and it is very reasonable to have a seperate category reflecting this fact. There is precedent for this with other cities that changed names, such as istanbul, especially when the name changes were highly politically motivated. This is not at all like the Edo to Tokyo rename, and the nominator is under estimating how much the people involved not only disliked Ho Chi Minh, but had every reason to considering what his regime but them through after it brutally removed the previous government. There is 0 justification for retroactively applying this name change before it happened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not underestimating anything, I just don't think that despising Ho Chi Minh to any degree is a good reason to have separate categories. We are all associated somehow with things we don't like. Should we have Category:People from Stalingrad for non-reformed Stalinists who loved the man and are offended that the city name was changed? Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s worth noting that even within Vietnam itself “Saigon” is still a name that refers to a few districts of the city.—Prisencolin (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the Saigon River and Saigon Port. I don't think there's any question, though, that the city has been Ho Chi Minh City for the past 45 years. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge we do have at least one contrary usage Category:People from Constantinople and Category:People from Istanbul, but as noted we don't have separate articles for Saigon/Ho Chi Minh City (we do for Constantinople and Istanbul), also there is precedent to merge even such tumultuous transitions accompanying name changes such as Category:People from Danzig to Category:People from Gdańsk. It may be that few people who were in the former-named community into its renamed successor (not just regime change but migration), but the Saigon/Ho Chi Minh City duality seems fine to merge. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — This is a "People from" category, so it should be the current name. Leave the previous names to historical categories. As long as nobody is trying to create a "from city descent" category, we should be OK. William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2021 (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.
Oppose United with what? Sorry but I don't understand the problem, there are at this moment sub-categories of masters athletes of four sports, it is quite logical that there should be a category, as for all sports (Category:Sports competitors by sport), that contains them. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one parent category, Category:Senior sport competitors, that is the target by default. Creating a "by parameter" subcategory is only useful when the number of subcategories becomes too large but that is not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge In practice, this layer is not aiding navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2021 (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 isn't a completely formed request, since I'm more looking for input as to how the nobility tree should be organised, as currently the subcategories are a convoluted mess. Obviously the parent Category:Nobility is supposed to be a topic category, but going down the tree, it becomes confusing whether these nobility categories are supposed to be a topic category or a set category containing biographies of people who are/were members of the nobility. There's Category:Nobility by nationality, Category:Nobility by nationality and title and Category:Titles of nobility by nationality, but while both are named Nobility it seems the first is supposed to be a topic category, the second a set category for people, and the third for titles (not people). But then most of Category:Nobility by nationality and title's members are named Fooian noble titles (e.g. Category:Spanish noble titles), which seem like they would cover titles (not people) but actually confusingly contain a mixture of articles about titles and subcats about people. Update: This appears to be the result of a CfD from 2014, which renamed the Nobility by nationality and title cat, while a follow-up on the member cats didn't seem to happen.
Support this approach, assuming we have clear article sets that distinguish the noble titles from the individual nobles. SFB 22:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Titles do seem to belong to nationalities (though the nation may no longer exist), but individual people with those titles may have nothing to do with the country where their title originated, and we need to cope with that confusing reality. So the current Duke of Plaza Toro could be in Venetian Nobility and also in Nobles from Wimbledon? Rathfelder (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, though it might not be much of an issue practically, since individual dukes will likely be categorised under Category:Dukes of Plaza-Toro and not appear directly under the Venice parent cats. It would be a reason to consider when choosing new names for subarticles (Category:Fooian nobles vs Category:Nobles of Foo) though. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but I see it might make the "by nationality" wording rather inaccurate. What would be a better term though?--Paul_012 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should become "by country" instead of "by nationality". Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated proposal above. Cc: Sillyfolkboy, in case that affects your opinion. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support the change to "by country". Makes more sense than nationality in this case. SFB 16:25, 14 February 2021 (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: Single article category with no prospects of growth, therefore falling under WP:SMALLCAT.
There is no clear reason to believe that the category is going to grow since its only member was added about a year ago. The village only has 409 inhabitants and a very short recorded history, therefore a very small pool of possible notable people for Wikipedia's standards. --Antondimak (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By default biographies are categorized by place of birth or place of having grown up regardless whether that has any relationship with the reason of notability of the person involved. Whether that kind of categorization is meaningful or not is a whole separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion that we've already had and recorded for more than a decade at WP:COP-PLACE:
The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual.
Thanks for the link, that is good to know. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now With no objection to recreating if it ever gets to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now. --Just N. (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2021 (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. (The nomination was stated to be a "merge" proposal, but the target did not exist until it was created by this close.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a container for the main category for Romani topics, organized by country. Note that Romani people are never a majority in any country, therefore minorities is not necessary. Per WP:COPSEP, —Category:Romani people by country is (and would still be) the category for individual biographical articles, and this the parent topic category. Place Clichy (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the target is more useful. No country has a Romani majority.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alt this category is in the wrong place and should be called Category:Romani diaspora, similar to how we have Category:Jewish diaspora. but I feel that the parent Category:Ethnic minorities needs serious attention as it is a mish-mash of ethnic groups within a country and the diaspora of certain nationalities. That is not a cohesive idea, some of this is already better dealt with via the Category:Diasporas by origin country and Category:Ethnic groups by country trees. We need separate trees to distinguish a single group's diaspora in multiple countries vs the multiple diasporas within a single country. I have started to build a tree for the latter at Category:Diasporas by country. SFB 22:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that Romani are adequately described as a diaspora. There is no Romani home, and Romani groups are present in these societies for so long that they can be considered endogenous. Also, Category:Diasporas by origin country/Diasporas by destination country probably already covers all possible cases. Place Clichy (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the category contains two articles that do not fit "by country", what should happen with them? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You must be referring to:
Romani diaspora: this article is very much organized by country (look at its table of contents for instance) and could still be the head article of the renamed category. However it is also already in Category:Romani and Category:Romani groups. Romani content is organized at the same time culturally, by subgroup, and geographically, by present country.
Comment: I think you meant "rename" rather than "merge" in the nom? Any reason the target name shouldn't be Category:Romani diaspora, to match the article? Sorry, missed Sillyfolkboy's above comment. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I cannot quite see how Category:Romani people by country differs from the target. Romani in foo would be a main article in Romani people in foo. I feel sure we should be able to find a home for any that are left. The Roma are a nomadic people, who are thought to have spread from India in medieval times, so that they are a minority everywhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Romani people by country is for biographies; the other hierarchy is for articles about the group, e.g. laws, places, events or organisations. We should not merge those. – FayenaticLondon 07:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Fulfils our supposed aim. Orientls (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2021 (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: By definition, every ethnic group other than the Arab majority group is a minority. Recent creation with just 2 articles: Romani people in Egypt and Saʿada and Murabtin. Place Clichy (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support the expansion of this nomination to include the above, with the aim to move them to a diasporas by country tree per the below. SFB 23:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The category was not linked to the general Category:Ethnic minorities. It is the work of a SPA, populated with a very surprising agenda (why these 2 articles and not, for instance, the Copts?). All in all, this looks like a bogus category which is an arbitrary split from its parent category, that needs action anyway. Place Clichy (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Diasporas in Egypt. We need a layer to distinguish diasporic groups within a country as opposed to ethnic groups indigenous to the country. I have created the parent Category:Diasporas by country in order to serve this function and started to collate the relevant categories. SFB 22:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed distinction between diaspora and indigenous ethnic group does not seem practical and highly subject to POV. Article on Dom people (which covers the Egyptian Romani) mentions a possible migration date in the 6th century. If they are considered diaspora, then what are the Arabs? The only other article there is about Arab-Berber Bedouins, which would need quite a stretch to be called a diaspora. I do not see any essential feature of these minorities or diasporas that differs from others in the main ethnic groups category. Place Clichy (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While in principle I agree with creating Category:Diasporas by country, neither of the two articles in the nominated category are a good example of diaspora. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I do not think the distinction between diasporas and indigenous is helpful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Fulfils our supposed aim. Orientls (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2021 (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:Church of England church buildings by city[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: All members are only in England. Conforms to the "by county" category which I have created and populated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, isn't "in England" a redundant addition in this case? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: there are a few C of E churches in Wales – see above. This is part of Churches by city; we should not rename just this one "by populated place", as Churches by location has no others like that. Religious buildings are categorised by county and by city; most smaller populated places (towns) would not have enough notable churches to create a category hierarchy for them. – FayenaticLondon 10:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2021 (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 We do not categorize people by emigrating from a specific part of a country to a place outside that country. I know there is some literature that views this as a group, there is also even more literature that views Francophone Canadian emigrants to the United States as a group. I even have a friend who did not speak English until kindergarten, only French because he lived with his French Canadian immigrant grand parents. Yet Category:Canadian emigrants to the United States does not have any ethnic or related sub-divisions. Country A to Country B makes sense. Hong Kong has enough of a special status that it probably works. I have created Category:Chinese emigrants to British Hong Kong to cover those who emigrated before 1997 and after what, 1847, except there was not really anything in Hong Kong to go to before 1847, and even if there was more there than I give credit for pre-1847 this would be like Category:American emigrants to New York City. The key is that categories have to be defining to almost all of the people. We do not want to start sub-dividing all Chinese emigrants. That will be a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, but I doubt that the merits of the target category are actually defining, as population movements between Hong Kong and mainland China are like me visiting my aunt. There may be a scope for refugees of the Chinese Civil War in Hong Kong though, as this seems defining. Place Clichy (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well we now have Category:Chinese emigrants to British Hong Kong which covers those who moved when it involved going from an area controlled by one government to another. I am not sure exactly what migration controls do or do not exist post-1997, so I am not sure if the target is notable at present. I think that should be a seperate discussion though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is hard for Mainland Chinese to migrate to Hong Kong. Either family reunion, spouse , or talent scheme. However, after 2019 may be the Central Government will flood the city with Mainland emigrant. Matthew hk (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy:.. I do not know where either you or your aunt reside.. rendering this analogy useless for purposes of this discussion, but Hong Kong and the mainland remain in different passports, and crossing the border requires a visa, like any transnational crossing.—Prisencolin (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't sure, find that out from the relevant Wikipedia articles before you nominate anything here, or retract your nomination now. A nomination based on unknowns and assumptions wouldn't be a valid one. Thanks. 203.218.129.244 (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, and I have the same doubts about the target category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It doesn't seem defining that people from this particular area (and possible ethnicity) move to a special administrative region versus people from other areas. If there was a situation where they were more likely to be an internally displaced person due to war or discrimination, that would be different. I'm open minded about the target category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the associated article Shanghainese people in Hong Kong for what distinguishes this group. Also, you have suggested in a discussion that I give the “same generic response to every comment,” but that’s because people lack understanding about what the topic is about.—Prisencolin (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prisencolin: Thank you for taking the feedback to heart about repeating similar response, I really appreciate that. Please be sure to submit your own !vote for this nomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow my lack of self-awareness is telling sometimes... to directly answer your question, yes some of these people were fleeing a continuous string of armed conflict stretching from the Sino Japanese War (1937–1945), to the resumption of the Chinese Civil War (1945-49). For others, it was a way to expand their business operations, to a place with more free market capitalism; this part become especially important after 1945 as it appeared that the Communist takeover of China was imminent and private enterprise on a wide scale would be halted. In the first half of the 20th century, Shanghai was had the most manufacturing activity in all of the Mainland, so this is what distinguishes Shanghainese emigrants from emigrants of other areas (i.e. Cantonese, Northern China etc) Whether you think these reasons are "different" enough to spin off a category is your decision.--Prisencolin (talk)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Actually, the Kingdom of Bavaria was independent in the 19th century, and sovereign within the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire before and after that. Place Clichy (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Shanghai (or as least part of the Shanghai city/settlement ) is a semi-colony and people such as Charles K. Kao was educated in Shanghai French Concession and born in Shanghai (unsure inside the Concession or outside). Did citizenship of Shanghai exist in the past for the people live inside the Concession? Anyway i would still argue Shanghaiese is a concept that not easily define and not encyclopaedic to try to define it and have a cat in wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Lower Yangtze delta region (aka Jiangnan) has had a few independent states as well, like Sun Wu and Wuyue. Honestly, the category is quite small as is and are very few corner cases which you may be implying. The only “questionable” Shanghainese people maybe certain migrants from other regions who went but to Shanghai but later moved to HK.. there are two people like that in the category but they are still nonetheless referred to in reliable sources as “Shanghainese emigrees”.—Prisencolin (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would rather agree to merge as people from Shanghai is difficult to define. Post-1997 HK "citizenship" rather easier to define. And don't worry about citation, notable figure did received coverage when they receive HK "PR" status. E.g. Zhang Jingchu.[1] However, this info is notable to add to wikipedia or categorized or not is another thing to discuss. Matthew hk (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure but I seen that many high profile and wealthy mainlanders today will choose to get HK citizenship because it gives a more powerful passport and a place to park their money where it is theoretically out of the hands of the CPC, as such I'm not sure if Angelababy getting coverage for acquiring HK nationality is really all that special.... as far as defining Shanghainese, we'd just go with whatever sources say: like User:Prisencolin/sh --Prisencolin (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prisencolin (the article on Shanghainese people in Hong Kong) and Matthew hk (the concessions). On top of that ancestral background is, at least until the present time, an important identity in many Far Eastern cultures. E.g. it's recorded in Japanese passports. If this category isn't kept, listify it at the very least. 203.218.129.244 (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and eventually listify. --Just N. (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2021 (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 per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2021 (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.
Oppose - perfectly reasonable to separate the people out from the non-people. It also places its subcats in Category:People in technology, so there should be a double upmerge if not kept. Oculi (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm open to exceptions for WP:COPSEP to avoid WP:SMALLCAT but there's certainly no shortage of articles here so we should just follow the plain words of the editing guideline. No objection to a rename. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom, looking again, I'd be happy with a rename. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merging a biographical category to an industry category is not mixing apples with oranges, it is mixing apples with inorganic matter.Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Oculi. --Just N. (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2021 (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 associated with networking industry[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.
Keep and Rename Prefer Category:Computer networking people for brevity but will support any rename that removes "associated with" from the title. Kj cheetham is quite correct that this was named as a non-defining category but it doesn't appear to be used as one though: I went through the first half of the articles and got 6 executives of networking companies, 1 author of networking books, and 1 networking pioneer. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as the nom, after reading the above comments, I agree renaming is the best option. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename This needs a clearer definition, but seems usefull as a category.Dimadick (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I've looked at it, and don't recognize a single name other than Leonard Bosack. This has become a vague catch-all category, apparently for executives "associated" with the "industry" who could just as well be formerly from Pepsi or Delta Airlines (remembering two examples not currently in the category). Or are now at Starbucks? None of these have made notable contributions in the computer networking industry. Where's Vint Cerf? Jon Postel? Radia Perlman? Phil Karn? My other collaborators? (Now might be the time to do a little checking.) We already have categories for people who are in the computer networking industry, by their areas of contribution. William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per William Allen Simpson. Corp CEOs are rarely sth else than business economists, same in computer science fields as in medical/pharma corporations. --Just N. (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2021 (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 longer facilitates improvement of the encyclopedia. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No use anymore. Orientls (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2021 (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:Wikipedians who had Toolserver accounts[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: How is this still a useful user category 6 and a half years after the toolserver was shut down? * Pppery *it has begun... 05:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No longer facilitates improvement to the encyclopedia. -RevelationDirect (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No meaningful usage anymore. Orientls (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2021 (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.
Rename Latino actually reflects better the real usage by people who actually fit in this group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:OCEGRS. No indication that Latino or Latina artists, etc., do art that differs from their Anglo counterparts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Future Noms The usage I hear definitely seems to be gradually evolving toward Latinx but I'll defer to other editors on what is currently standard. If the langauge continues to shift, we'll likely want to revisit this in a broader future nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who is not American, may I ask why not just "Latin", which already exists in English and seems gender-neutral enough? Place Clichy (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: For music and dance, it is used that way: Latin music, Latin dancing, Latin club, Latin DJ, Latin beat. I've also heard "Latin lover", I guess for the alliteration. In most other contexts just "Latin" could only mean one thing: Roman. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, Latin America. And Latin languages. I wonder how in Spanish you tell the difference between these apparently so different concepts of Latin, Latino and Latinx. I think they are all translated as latino. Place Clichy (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Hispanic and Latino American artists. While it can be argued there is a distinct Hispanic/Latino culture in American arts, I do not think that it needs to be broken down into individual artistic fields per WP:OCEGRS and especially WP:FINALRUNG. Also, all parent categories in Category:Hispanic and Latino American people uses Hispanic and Latino American, which is gender-neutral enough. Per WP:C2C, category for artists should follow this pattern, or it should be discussed to change the practice for the entire tree. If kept, rename to Hispanic and Latino American (1st choice) or Latino. Place Clichy (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've not heard the vigorous debates for 50 years around using hispanic or latina or latino. Sometimes, they even form competing caucuses and run for office against each other. Hispanic Caucus, Spanish-speaking Democrats, etc. William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Hispanic and Latino American artists. All of these split outs are based on non-clearly defined groups. WE do not need to categorize by every way that people can identify. We have the one large group category, and we only sub-categorize by specific national ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2021 (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. bibliomaniac15 03:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Franklin Dam does not and did not exist (it was never built). What we did have was the Franklin Dam controversy over whether it should be built. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced we have enough things the controversy itself is defining for to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being tangentially related to the controversy is not a defining characteristic, and categorising rivers and court cases together in such a category makes little sense. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, per my below comment, this is a WP:SMALLCAT issue, so deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if/when the topic is expanded with further articles; JarrahTree has indicated (in further correspondence) that this is quite possible, though not very likely in the near future. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per Paul012. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul012. --Just N. (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support nominators change - the controversy has had long term ramifications in Australia, and the Tasmanian community and environment was affected by the controversy and the subsequent decisions. I am sure the 'delete' nominators must know all the details and be au fait with the Australian and Tasmanian context. JarrahTree 08:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what the significance of the controversy itself has to do with whether or not it should be a category. Looking at the category again, I count three articles that are directly related and would properly belong under the category were it retained and renamed: the main Franklin Dam controversy article, 1981 Tasmanian power referendum and Commonwealth v Tasmania. (The rivers and Bob Brown really don't belong.) Three articles doesn't seem like a large enough number to overcome WP:SMALLCAT, but if there are other reasons for exemption I'd reconsider. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul 012 thanks for your very considerate response (so rare at Afd's and a pleasant suprise), one of the problems of being an Australian (and former Tasmanian resident from some time ago), is that the inevitable curse of the smallcat premise for downgrading or removing on the basis of inadequate additional links. This I accept, it is the problem. So in the end, if the category goes, something similar will eventuate, I am sure. JarrahTree 03:25, 24 February 2021 (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:not renamed. bibliomaniac15 03:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- indeed - but the city itself does not have a specific titled article...as in City of Albany, New York is not specifying the city ? maybe the two cities need to be on a disambig page - even if the new york one has not got a main space title as such JarrahTree 07:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, none of the other Albanys would be titled City of Albany. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if this is relevant, but there has been a City of Albany (disambiguation), which was created as a redirect to the WA City of Albany in 2009. It appears, no one else so far has laid claim to the title City of Albany on Wikipedia. Calistemon (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not crazy about the article name but I'm a big believer in sticking to the right venue by not inserting my hypothetical WP:RM opinions into actual WP:CFD discussions. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the one in New York is also the City of Albany as can be seen in its seal. . Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Neither NY nor WA has the primary place. Albany refers to Scotland (or part of it, forget which) and was used as a noble title in UK. Both places are probably named for such dukes. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2021 (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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 21#Category:15th-century archaeologists
