Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 4 February 6 >

February 5[edit]

Category:Articles using E without any arguments[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Category:Articles using E without any arguments

Category:Works based on Street Fighter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Category:Works based on Street Fighter

Category:Pop-folk albums[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: split. There was no real discussion despite efforts to re-list. I am not competent to split this, so it will be added to WP:CFDWM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Bulgarian and Western styles need to be distinguished and not mixed together. Deleting is also an option as is simply moving the more Western folk-pop albums to Category:Folk rock albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 22:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel that this or a variation of this name could be valuable as a category redirect. Sean Stephens (talk) 06:15, 6 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:American people of Arab-Jewish 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not sort by religious descent.
Alternative
to Category:American people of Algerian descent
and Category:Mizrahi Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Egyptian descent
and Category:Egyptian-Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Iraqi descent
and Category:Mizrahi Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Lebanese descent
and Category:Lebanese-Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Moroccan descent
and Category:Mizrahi Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Syrian descent
and Category:Syrian-Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Tunisian descent
and Category:Mizrahi Jewish culture in the United States
to Category:American people of Yemeni descent
and Category:Mizrahi Jewish culture in the United States
Also, many/most of these are not Arabs. Just because they currently speak Arabic does not make them Arabs, any more than speaking English makes me a bloody sassenach (as my grandad would say).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Jews are an ethnic group, not simply religious adherents. Dimadick (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle as it concerns a trivial intersection. As far as I know, Jews in the United States are a single ethnicity regardless of the country that their ancestors came from. Two important side notes:
- similar categories should also be nominated (see under Category:American people of Jewish descent)
- it should be a merge instead of a deletion, e.g. merge Category:American people of Algerian-Jewish descent to Category:American people of Algerian descent - however that does not apply to the Arab subcategory
- Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and strongly disagree with Marcocapelle's rationale; Jewish heritage is heterogeneous, and a Mizrahi Moroccan Jew is unlike an Askenazi Russian Jew even if they're both in the US diaspora. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, Category:Mizrahi Jews should be added as the second merge target. Still there is no reason to distinguish e.g. people of Tunisian-Jewish descent from people of Algerian-Jewish descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim was heritage, rather than religion by descent. There's no such thing as "culture by descent" or "heritage by descent". If these biographies are about a notable contribution to culture, then they belong in the culture category. Otherwise, delete.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep somehow -- Jews in most countries have been endogamous, so that being Jewish is an ethnicity as well as a religion. This is properly divided into Ashkenazi Jews of eastern Europe (Polish, Russian, etc); Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain & Portugal and settling in Greece, north Africa, etc; and no doubt others. I doubt it makes much difference whether they emigrated from Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, etc, but it would be appropriate to keep (or merge) as Category:American people of north African Jewish descent and cognates such as Category:American people of Levantine Jewish descent. I do not like the idea of adding anything of this to "culture" categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a prejudice that Jews are endogamous, in the sens that they would have been free from intermixing with their neighbours for centuries. People are defined by their cultural identification, not their genealogical tree, and any quest for racial purity is absurd. Place Clichy (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arab-Jewish, keep the rest. The way this Arab-Jewish category is set is a completely trivial intersection between Jewish descent and a container of "Arab countries" that is based on the connection of this set of countries with the Arab league or the fact that they are in majority Arab-speaking. Arab-Jewish is not a specific ethnicity, as opposed to Sephardi or Mizrahi Jews. National Jewish subcultures are in most cases defining however. Parenting people of Algerian-Jewish descent (or Moroccan ot Tunisian) to a Mizrahi category is especially absurd, as North African Jews are quasi-exclusively Sephardi. Parenting other national categories to Sephardi or Mizrahi is tricky and often wrong, as Jews from e.g. Syria or Lebanon would probably identify sometimes as Sephardi and sometimes as Mizrahi, and e.g. article Syrian Jews explains that they derive their origins from the two groups. I am sympathetic however to the notion that cultural identification (supported by reliable sources) should prime over mere descent when classifying biographical articles. All national categories are already parented to Category:American people of Jewish descent (and a variety of regional intersections) so there is no need to merge. Place Clichy (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the categories. Implying that just because your ancestors at one point lived in a country (or in some of these cases, like Lebanon, just as likely what is not the country but what was not neccesarily clearly a country when they lived there) means you are part of a specific culture is not actually true.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 11 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:Australian Living Treasures[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) 23:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of a category previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 8#Category:Australian Living Treasures. The same issue still applies, however: having been named as icons in a listicle compiled by a subjective public opinion poll is not a defining characteristic for the purposes of justifying a category. We've regularly deleted things like this when they were tried for other similar poll-based lists like The Greatest Canadian, music magazine rankings of songs or albums, and on and so forth. Listing them in National Living Treasure (Australia) (where they're already listed) is fine, but it's not a strong or defining basis for a category. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining; these people are presumably notable for something else that lets them be designated as a "living treasure". I guess all lives aren't treasured down-under just important people's. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete We've alreay discussed this and I don't think anything changed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:36, 7 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 of Ningbo 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect categorization of people who came from Ningbo city as "descent". This is neither a notable ethnicity nor a nationality.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom. Place Clichy (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having an ancestor who lived in a specific city is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • note for the record: the term "city" used in China is somewhat misleading in this context because: "A prefectural level city is often not a "city" in the usual sense of the term (i.e., a large continuous urban settlement), but instead an administrative unit comprising, typically, a main central urban area (a city in the usual sense, usually with the same name as the prefectural level city), and its much larger surrounding rural area containing many smaller cities, towns and villages. The larger prefectural level cities span over 100 kilometres (62 mi)."--Prisencolin (talk) 01:36, 13 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:Scottish emigrants to England[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) 23:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't make any sense. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without objection to recreation for Scottish emigrants to medieval or Tudor England. But currently the category does not contain any people from those periods. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Migration involves crossing national boundaries. Rathfelder (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland and England are different nations. In the U.K. we talk about the "nations of the U.K." Philafrenzy (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Moving from Scotland to England, or vice versa, is not emigration — since they're both part of the United Kingdom, it's got no more to do with "migration" than it would if I were to pack up and move to Quebec. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marcocapelle; it was once really emigration (often to the enemy) so if it was limited to emigrants prior to the James I and VI's time it may be re-created. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are both now in the U.K. but weren't before the UK existed. After the creation of the U.K. Scotland and England remained separate countries, albeit in a union. It makes perfect sense. It's just that nobody has ever thought of it before. As a minimum it is valid for the period before the creation of the union. See Scotland and Kingdom of Scotland. (England to Scotland should also be created) Philafrenzy (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So do you want similar categories for Wales and Northern Ireland? Rathfelder (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you really want to keep the category then you should populate it with Scottish emigrants to medieval or Tudor England. Otherwise the category should be deleted as empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea but it is valid even if it only had members from the post-union period. See this link "In the mid-fifteenth century, somewhere between 1 and 2 percent of England's inhabitants (about 6 percent in London) were immigrants. Most—about three-quarters—came from a handful of nearby realms: from France, Scotland, and Ireland..." Philafrenzy (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These percentages are irrelevant if you are not going to add articles to the category. Categories are not a goal in itself, they exist to aid navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are merely to indicate the scale of pre-union migration. In the current era, our own article says 795,000 Scots live in England. They won't all have settled permanently but clearly this category has plenty of potential. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:59, 5 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:Hong Kong people of Lower Yangtze 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, in the spirit of WP:G4, this category was created under a different name after it became clear in this discussion that the original category would not be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert, Place Clichy, Prisencolin, Carlossuarez46, William Allen Simpson, and Peterkingiron: pinging contributors in the earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the record I think Category:Hong Kong people of Chinese descent is too common to be worth categorizing by, and there is no real justification to have sub-categories of any kind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So.. does that mean Category:American people of European descent should be eliminated because it included it’s too common to be worth categorizing by as European Americans are 70% of the population? Additionally, at one time the Chinese were perhaps only a fraction of their overall population during the colonial era. Also, are you aware of the relatively vast corpus of literature on this subject. Please see citations of Shanghainese people in Hong Kong (note the previous article excluded Ningbo people, such at the shipping magnate Yue Kong Pao). I've been working over the past week to make it is now 19,007 bytes long compared to the faction it had before.—-Prisencolin (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • American people of European descent is a container category, and is not to have any articles in it. I will argue that in the case of Russell M. Nelson none of the specific origin places of his ancestors (I think there are 5 different ones listed) are defining enough to him to categorize by, and I would elimanate all those categories in his case. Although do to his very strong enthusiasm for family history research, and that all his great grandparents were immigrants, his case to be categorized in that way is much stronger than some. I would actually argue that if we had an article on my grandmother she would without question fit in Category:American people of English descent, since she was very much in touch with her immigrant grandparents and her Englishness informed how she thought and acted in very clear ways, but I would reject the same label for myself because 2 generations further removed from the immigrants it is not defining. In the case of Chinese descent, I argue the only reasonable sub-divisions are the 56 recognized ethnicities. Seeing the Han Chinese as one unified ethnicity may be debatled on the edges, but there is no universally agreed on standard ways to subdivide them, and that is what is required for categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyways what does "real justification" even look like to you? Surely the corpus of literature concerning sub-ethnic classifications of Chinese people in Hong Kong is justification enough. Industrial Entrepreneurship and Ethnicity : a Study of the Shanghainese Cotton Spinners in Hong Kong By Siu-lun Wong (1987) is an analysis of the ethnic dimension of the cotton spinning industry, specifically contrasting the practices of the Shanghainese from the majority Cantonese. It was written as a PhD thesis by a candidate at Oxford and later published by the University Press.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, first this should not be considered for G4, because it is considerably better defined and larger in scope than whatever categories nomination is comparing it to. When the old category was created (don’t know by whom) it was exclusive to the people of Shanghai origin. Additionally there are still some misconceptions being held, I wish to dispel them here:
    1. Ancestral origin was literally a census item in the Hong Kong census for several decades, with the term “Shanghainese” or “Shanghaiese” in the old being used in publications by the government. This is something I didn't learn about until the last discussion was over and obviously didn't appear. It also appears on government documents and is overwise and is overwise an important aspect of one's identity in Chinese culture.
    2. The last CFD seems to have had the impression that "Shanghainese" as a descriptor refers solely to the city of Shanghai, but especially in the context of Hong Kong society it is much broader. ""the term Shanghainese loosely refers to Chinese people who are ancestrally from the core areas of the Lower Yangtze Delta region in China" Overseas Chinese Business Networks in Asia. Australia East Asia Analytical Unit. 1995.
    3. Some literature has referred to "Shanghainese" it an “ethnicity” outright namely An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of China by James S. Olson.—Prisencolin (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When asked to identify themselves, the residents of the city readily respond ‘‘Shanghaiese,’’ whose connotations today reflect an attitude of superiority, confidence, and high self-esteem. With such a sense of special identity, the residents of Shanghai essentially constitute a distinct ethnic group in the People’s Republic of China. - Olson, 1988


Ethnic neighborhoods (where both primary and secondary relationships are ethnic) are thus clearly distinct from ethnic communities (where primary relationships alone tie the group together). To demonstrate the usefulness of this approach, analysis is made of the Fujianese and Shangainese ethnic neighborhoods and communities of Hong Kong's North Point area. The applicability of this model to American ethnicity is also tested. - Gulden 1980


Distribution of Cotton Spinning Mills by Ethnicity of Owners, 1978 Ethnicity (shows a chart with items including "Shanghainese" "Chaozhou" "Cantonese", "Fujianese, "Sichuanese" - Wong 1988

  • @Marcocapelle: I think this is borderline canvassing here with pinging six users who voted delete on here who will inevitably vote for deletion WP:BEFORE reading the contents of the new category, when I've tried to make it obvious that this one is not the exact same as alleged.--Prisencolin (talk)
  • (procedural reply) By default, in case of follow-up on a previous discussion, I am pinging all contributors to that discussion, whether I agree with them or not. When you look at this and other CfD pages you will find confirmation of that. The fact that in this case there were so many delete votes should not make a difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (substantive reply) On the contrary with the header on the category page you made it perfectly clear that this is just a replacement of the previously deleted category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? The previous category specified that it was only consisting of people from Shanghai. Just because it is "similar" in scope means that it's straight up the same thing. In anycase, the fact that the header has around 2,000 bytes more information suggests that it's not eligible for G4 because "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement" .--Prisencolin (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, Run Run Shaw: As a child, his family moved to Shanghai. He graduated from the Shanghai YMCA School, where he learned English. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright so would you be fine with Category:Shanghainese emigrants to Hong Kong or Category:Lower Yangtze emigrants to Hong Kong? Either way I think it's extremely helpful for the navigation to articles related to this topic to have a cross section. This is not something that arbitrarily appeared out of thin air, it's something that is widely attested in sources, as I have stated. The specific phrase "Shanghainese emigrants" is used in sources like David Faure; et al. (1984). From Village to City: Studies in the Traditional Roots of Hong Kong Society. Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No we do don't have category migrants by city or region of the country they come from. Meanwhile the article with a list of these people is perfectly fine to cover the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assuming you mean "don't have"... is there actually a relevant guideline or policy that says this? Categories like Category:American people of Sicilian descent have existed for a long time, and this one actually survived 2 CFDs. The premise of that category is "This category includes articles on American people who immigrated to the United States from Sicily and their descendants." Meanwhile, there's no reason not to have both a list and a category, per WP:NOTDUPE, if you accept that a list of article should exist in the first place. The only instance where I'm aware of a consensus otherwise is the fact that films are not categorized by the actors that appear in them.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another useless descent category (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories) without any indication that "Lower Yangtze descent" is definable or meaningful. Imagine a US category for Category:American people of Lower Mississippi descent that includes anyone with any ancestor from Louisiana or Mississippi...? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Carlossuarez46:, okay that's just reductio ad absurdum... did you read any of the improvements to the category and article defintion I made? Further you gotta be kidding me "USELESS?" there's a substantial amount of literature out there. Also, to be pedantic there is the concept of Okie which has an article, and literature about their descendants in California (i.e. Grapes of Wrath), I have not seen any category created for this but I suppose that would be a thought experiment.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because your premise is both absurd and useless. Okies (and Arkies) didn't emigrate; they migrated. Nobody is of Okie descent. Okie is neither an ethnicity nor a nationality.
        William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The people from Oklahoma and Arkansas thought of themselves as distinct groups, and were viewed as such by those around whom they lived. In Detroit in the 1950s there was more antagonism by northern whites towards southern white migrants than towards African-Americans as shown convincingly in the book Racial Situations: The Contradictions of Race and Class in Detroit. There are all sorts of internal migrants groups and migrant sub-groups that one can find some literature on, this does not make them all defining enough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright I suppose but this particular discussion is neither here nor there. (" it may be valuable to talk about Okie ethnicity, it is important first to deconstruct the experience, to understand that the subculture has operated in ..." American Exodus: The Dust Bowl Migration and Okie Culture in California) (also: " Stay out. But the Okies didn’t. Today those descendants number about half of the valley’s 2.7 million people." Los Angeles Times. Please tell me that Oxford University Press and the Los Angeles Times are "absurd and useless." I may be inclined to believe you if you argued they are absurd and useless leftist propaganda machines.
          The fact remains, Shanghainese and Lower Yangtze/Jiangsu/Zhejiang people DID emigrate from the Mainland to British Hong Kong when it was a colony controlled by a foreign power. Further, the literature speaks of an emigration still. There was a concern in the last discussion that post 97 emigration might cause problems with categorization but so far it doesn't seem seem any particular individual applies to this situation.--Prisencolin (talk)
Note concerning the name of the category, the phrase "Lower Yangtze descent" appears in such works like

Second, in all of these Lower Yangtze descent groups and lineages (Hazelton 1987, Dennerline 1987, Hymes 1987, Davis 1987) it was a small group of elites that actively promoted the lineage, through the research and printing of genealogies and other activities. These active elites doubtless had a variety of motives, but they tended to encourage the creation and reproduction of a lineage identity - Takacs, Jeffrey Lee (2001). All Heroes Think Alike: Kinship and Ritual in Baguazhang (PDF) (Thesis). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

--Prisencolin (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Per WP:G4 The earlier conversation was just closed, good grief. This isn't defining and that remains true no matter how long the reply my !vote receives below... - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m going to keep it brief: Can you please state why you think it isn’t defining in your own words rather than make a WP:VAGUEWAVE? Also, the category is clearly different from the previous discussion, and the fact that it hasn’t been axed yet after two whole days suggests that it isn’t eligible for G4.—Prisencolin (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed snarky aside from my original !vote. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy delete per WP:G4. As I stated in the previous discussions, the topic of regional Chinese subcultures in Hong Kong will probably be defining enough for cultural topic articles, such as neighbourhoods, restaurants, cultural associations etc. but not for biographies. The problem in the scope of this category is not the Shanghai/Yangtze part, it is the people/descent part. Place Clichy (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Place Clichy: Tung Chee-hwa's entire career in politics and business is said to have been built due to his status an a Shanghainese in Hong Kong. There is evidence of this for several other people as well.[1] In any case, there is not much of a precedent to limiting descent categorization to solely what is most influential in a person's life and career, but instead it relies on what is verifiable and reliably sourced.--Prisencolin (talk)
    This is very interesting and relevant. It should be covered in the article about him in great length and with all appropriate context and explanations. It could also be the topic of dedicated article on the Shanghainese in Hong Kong that you could probably write with all the knowledge and material you have shown here, as I tried to suggest above. However this is still not relevant for a category of people by descent. I note for instance that Tung Chee-hwa is actually born in Shanghai, he is therefore not technically of Shanghainese descent, except if you consider that we should place everybody from Foo in a category for Fooian descent, which kills the purpose of descent categories. (Bullying on other editors' talk pages is not very civil and anyway unlikely to change their opinion.) Place Clichy (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tung Chee Hwa was born in Shanghai but also identifies with Ningbo, the birthplace of his forebears, thus his ethnic/regional/sociological identification can be said to be "Shanghainese descent," with Shanghainese referring to Jiangnan (Wu Chinese-speaking people) more broadly. While it may not align with WP practices, scholarly literature has referred to Tung as "Shanghainese descent" in these exact words[1]. Marcocapelle pointed out the same objection to classification you did on the grounds that some of the people were born in Shanghai, and in response I created Category:Shanghainese emigrants to Hong Kong using wording found in literature, and based off existing categories like Category:Bavarian emigrants to the United States. He does not appear to have an objection to that category at this time.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact Shanghainese people in Hong Kong has not only existed since 2006, but I recently expanded it to be more than 20,000 bytes in length and is currently pending a GA nomination. Given that a fully fleshed-out head page exists, WP:OCEGRS is fulfilled, and the category should be kept.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment race was literally a question on the US census, but we do not categorize people by race. We also refuse to group Category:American people of Syrian descent and Category: American people of English descent into any super category less than the sum total of all Americans, and so refuse to even have de facto definitions of race. Plus Cateogry:American people of Syrian descent is a sub-cat of Category:American people of Asian descent which goes against how the US census does things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfC about how to even create definitions for categories[edit]
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:Barcelona Metro line templates[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: do not merge; populate instead. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single media member, almost eponymous Lithopsian (talk) 14:27, 5 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:Members of the Women's Engineering Society[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. Category:Women's Engineering Society was not nominated, but it too seems to be categorizing members, so a follow-up nomination would likely be appropriate here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "Members" sub-category doesn't seem to be needed, as the parent category is effectively used for the same purpose anyway. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no notable requirements to be a member and being a member is not a notable and defining characteristic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCASSOC. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- we do not categorise by membership of professional associations. Where is fellowship makes a person a particularly notable member, we might have a list per common outcome for OCAWARD. If kept, we should reverse merge, by analogy with alumni categories, where we allow have a category for (past) membership of a college, with the college article as main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete membership in this society itself is not defining. People will be placed in the most applicable sub-cats of {{:Category:Women engineers]].John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- we do not categorise by membership of professional associations. --Just N. (talk) 22:04, 12 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.

Kings of Anshan (Persia)[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 2-3 articles in each category, together 4 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:SMALLCAT : "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme," Which in this case is sub-categorization for monarchs of individual states. Dimadick (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not necessarily diffuse monarchs of every country by century and this is a case where it is certainly not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The point of the monarchs by century is to diffuse large categories. This is more of a case of WP:NARROWCAT and it chops up the articles rather than aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. This is what goes wrong when a century structure is artificially imposed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. --Just N. (talk) 22:06, 12 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.

Mayors of places in Arizona[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1-3 articles in each category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Are all mayors of a place from that place though? -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kj cheetham: Delaware lets resort towns have both residents and non-resident property owners vote and run for office to ensure that the local residents have diluted political influence. Connecticut let's the ultra-wealthy reside in their penthouse in Manhattan but still vote locally at their rolling "country" estate. For the other 48 states, we can assume residency (citation). - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now While these locations would have had more than five, most are non-notable. No objection to recreating any if they get 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom and in agreement with RevelationDirect. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now. --Just N. (talk) 22:08, 12 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.

Ancient Roman buildings and structures in Britain[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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with article name Roman Britain and category name Category:Roman Britain.
copy of speedy discussion
  • Oppose both. The main article is, quite properly Roman Britain, which did not extend to the United Kingdom. These other categories should be "...in Britain" or "...in Roman Britain". Rathfelder (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- "Roman Britain" (RB) is a well-known and well-understood term. It is no doubt unfamiliar to Irish and others, but refers to that part of GB which was under Roman rule. This was England and Wales together at times with parts of Scotland. Any UK or GB category will inevitably have nothing in it but an RB subcat, making it a waste of space. We do not talk of Roman England, because that is an anachronism: England derives from Angle-land, referring to a post-Roman immigration. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The top category and one of the subcategories were previously opposed for speedy rename to Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in the United Kingdom and Category:Roman villas in the United Kingdom, @Wikihistorian and Rathfelder: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is also related to this full CfD discussion, @Fayenatic london, Laurel Lodged, GPinkerton, Sillyfolkboy, Oculi, Peterkingiron, Johnpacklambert, and Justus Nussbaum: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt How can they be in Roman Britain? Roman Britain does not exist. They were formerly in Brittania; that too no longer exists. On the other hand, they are to be found in the modern state called the United Kingdom. The alternative rename should therefore be "Ancient Roman stuff in the United Kingdom" or "Roman stuff in the United Kingdom". Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: some of the structures still exist; others existed in the past, but are ruins now or have been completely obliterated. Roman Britain no longer exists, but the United Kingdom did not exist in Roman times. Surely the simplest way to give these a consistent format without veering into the inaccurate for some of each category would be to use Roman (or Ancient Roman) widgets in Britain, which would apply equally well to past and present structures. P Aculeius (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that sort of works if you're happy to use the fudge of "Britain" to paper over unsightly cracks. But what about Ukraine? Would you be happy that this nom would set a precedent for the same to be done to Ukraine? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Ukraine didn't exist as a concept in Roman times, the title of such a category would explicitly limit the scope to the modern state. It might be less than ideal in the case of things that no longer exist, or in the sense that people might imagine that some sort of "Roman Ukraine" existed. But the same concerns don't apply to Britain, which existed then and now with substantial overlap—Scotland didn't exist as an entity, and while some of its territory lay outside of Roman control for most of the history of Roman Britain, the Romans were aware of it and interacted with it (Agricola even built a series of forts stretching far into the highlands), so from a certain point of view you could say that it was still part of "Roman Britain"—the unconquered part. I'm not terribly concerned with "precedent", because nothing about Wikipedia says that once you make a decision about the best name for category 'A', you have to reach the same conclusion for category 'B', even if the facts and considerations are different. We can excavate the ruins of that bridge when we come to it. P Aculeius (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What these arguments really amount is "We're special. We don't have to play by the rules because we're British.". That argument fell apart in the Brexit negotiations with the EU when every "we're special" claim was carefully but politely rebuffed. In Wiki space, the myth continues but not unchallenged. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bridges and theatres were in Roman Britain while the archaeological sites are in England or Wales. I would not have an issue with having some of these articles in an Archaelogical sites category (also, or maybe even instead), but that concerns a different tree than the ones we are discussing. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and precedent; also Rathfelder's observations. --Just N. (talk) 22:12, 12 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:Recipients of the Sniper's Badge[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (Likely WP:OVERLAPCAT and definitely WP:OCAWARD)
We have 4 articles total under Category:German military snipers and all 4 are from the Nazi period and all 4 had more than 20 kills. The Sniper's Badge is a Nazi award for snipers who had more than 20 kills, although only 2 articles currently list the award. (I assume all 4 probably won the award per WP:SYNTH but, when I tried to confirm that theory, I got search results from Storm Front and similar sites I'm not going to click on.) Both the articles treat the Iron Cross as prominent but give only passing reference to this award so it doesn't seem defining. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 5 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:Recipients of the Egypt Medal[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) 22:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The Egypt Medal is a British campaign medal that was automatically issued to all British participants in both the Anglo-Egyptian War and the following Mahdist War. While participation in those conflicts may be defining, we already categorize those same people under Category:British military personnel of the Anglo-Egyptian War and Category:British military personnel of the Mahdist War. This award category seems redundant and non-defining. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 5 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.
  1. ^ https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/tungcheehwa
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5&oldid=1007436400"