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. I'm taking the prior CFD's comments into account when deleting these categories. Courcelles (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Associates of organized crime groups in Russia

Category:Associates of organized crime groups in the United States

Category:Camorra associates in Italy

Category:Associates of the Sicilian Mafia

Category:Associates of Mexican drug cartels

Category:Lucchese crime family Associates

Category:Bonanno crime family associates

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The parent category for these (Category:Organized crime associates) was recently deleted. Suggestions were made in the nomination that the subcategories should be deleted as well, but they were not included in the nomination. These are the former subcategories. The same rationale for deletion applies. The original rationale, given by User:Robofish, was: "BLP issues. This is the kind of description that's OK in an article, where it can be explained how someone is associated with organised crime and supported with references, but dangerous as a category. 'Associates' is too vague: it could mean a very strong connection, or a weak one. It seems too easy to imply illegal activity by adding someone to this category. I advise deleting it and its subcategories and merging its members (when it is uncontroversial that they are involved in organised crime) into better defined categories." I support deletion of the categories and re-categorization of the articles based on the original rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 16 June 2010 (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. Courcelles (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Catholic Members of Parliament to Category:Catholic Members of the United Kingdom Parliament

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose specifying which country's parliament this category is referring to, to match its parent, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. As it stands now, the category is vastly underpopulated from what it would be if done completely. (Currently it includes just a handful of incumbent MPs.) I'm assuming that "Members" should remain capitalized because "Member of Parliament" is a formal title, though I'm willing to be corrected on that point of capitalisation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. It makes sense to codify these categories, and the capitalisation seems correct. It should of course be much thicker - the Catholic Herald seems to suggest that there are roughly 70 or so incumbent Catholic MPs, but this doesn't include former members like Anne Widdecombe and Norman St John-Stevas (et al.). Severe Punishment (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary over-categorisation. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I am not aware of any specifically Catholic causes in the UK parliament. (I am assuming that these MPs are already in suitable categories. Anne Widdecombe is in 'English Roman Catholics' and in sundry MP categories. Is there any evidence that her religion had any bearing on her politics? Are we going to have 'UK MPs by religion'?) If kept rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nom). As nominator, I'm fine to go along with deletion if that is the consensus. I think that perhaps in a country that has an officially established Christian religion that is non-Catholic this might be worth categorizing, but honestly I don't really know enough about the issue to have a definitive opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment since this category is timeless, what would the category look like if all notable Catholic members throughout the history of Parliament were properly placed here? A use then? Hmains (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete rather than rename as they are unconnected terms, the religion of Members of Parliment is not really notable, and we do not have other religous groupings associated with MPs. MilborneOne (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Lots of MPs are Catholics, but very few of them are notable for their Catholicism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ameba Content Catalog ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A WP:SPA account is adding references to film content available via Ameba, which does not have a Wikipedia article as yet but it is a Winnipeg-based IPTV system for kids' entertainment. Being listed in Ameba's catalog is obviously not a defining characteristic of these films -- and this brand new editor likely doesn't realize how categories should be used. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This Category is inline with other specific categories such as: Programs broadcast by Treehouse TV, Disney Channel Shows, YTV shows, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekgear (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is. Those categories group shows produced or commissioned by those networks. Your category is for archival programs that Ameba has licensed non-exclusively, for a little known IPTV service. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The assumption of "produced for" or "commissioned by" is not correct. Also, licensing and notoriety of a service should not be the means test for the creation of a Category. Tekgear (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're right on the first point. However, I disagree with your second: it's unlikely we'll retain this category if Ameba isn't notable enough for a parent article, according to the guidelines in WP:COMPANY. I do see a few news hits, basically the press release licked up in a few trade publications, that might indicate it would squeak by. If Ameba isn't notable on its own, then being shown via its IPTV cannot be considered defining. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So if they get a parent article, then the category will be approved? Tekgear (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but this looks like clear cut WP:LINKSPAM. Every edit by Tekgear so far has been to promote this service. Creating a new article about - guess what? - Ameba would risk speedy delete for conflict of interest. Cards on the table here, are you linked to Ameba in any way?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect he or she is. But per WP:COI, if so, and the editor wants to declare an affiliation, I'd offer to help him or her draft such an article in a WP:NEUTRAL manner, as a sign of good faith. Still opposed to this category but I'd help with an article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ameba probably fails WP:GNG at the moment. It is hard to find out anything about in on Google beyond the official website.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My Googling did turn up these news hits in key animation and film trades. They're all bylined, too. I think it would pass. What do you think? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Passable, but not hugely notable. Ideally an article about the site from a newspaper etc would help, rather than online press releases.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – there are categories such as Category:BBC television programmes but I hope these are for programmes commissioned by the BBC rather than merely broadcast. Category:Programs broadcast by Treehouse TV sounds dubious to me. Occuli (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That is not the case for all the titles listed in BBC Television programs Category either. A quick scan shows TV shows listed from come from Paramount, 20th Century, and Fox 2000 among others with no BBC commissioning or credits - other than that they purchased the rights for distribution. All I intended for this Category to be equal with what the other Categories in this "genre" are - listing of content that are available on the platform/channel. It is strictly informative without being promotional in any way. Tekgear (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2010 (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 to modified nomination. "People" doesn't seem to work for anyone, so I'm closing all of these (even the ones without comments) to eliminate that term from the categories. This entire category tree could be standardized to, say, "Former students," but that is a much greater project. The closes below suggest an acceptance of different standards for different nations, so I'm closing these to match the contents of each category rather than a global scheme.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by school in Australia to Category:Former pupils by secondary school in AustraliaCategory:Former students by secondary school in Australia

Nominator's rationale: as part of nominations here below. 'Former pupil' may or may not be the preferred Australian-specific term - unsure. Note - will nominate the subcategories of this page 'speedily' should this nomination succeed Mayumashu (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No objection to restricting membership in these categories to exclude staff etc and as such support a name change. Indeed, I am not convinced these "by school" categories are useful at all - as opposed to "by school" lists - but I'll refrain from suggesting deletion. In my opinion, "pupil" comes across as old-fashioned and is certainly not a term widely used in contemporary Australia. Perhaps "former student" or past student" or indeed just "student" would be more appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will alter the nomination accordingly. I agree that lists are likely enough here but failed to get deletions in the couple of nominations I tried a while back. Mayumashu (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "former students". Orderinchaos 19:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldnt Alumni be a concise term that readily understandable Gnangarra 05:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently 'alumni' is not the standard term used in Australia/N.Z. for former students of secondary schools Mayumashu (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:School alumni in Australia. This is the standard WP format, though perhaps properly applicable to tertiary colleges and universities. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2010 (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 to modified nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by school in New Zealand to Category:Former pupils by secondary school in New ZealandCategory:Former students by secondary school in New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: as part of nominations here below. 'Former pupil' may or may not be the preferred N.Z.-specific term - unsure Mayumashu (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In NZ the word "pupil" is largely confined to primary schools. The word "student" denotes an older more adult age group and is greatly preferred for secondary schools, the students of which are encouraged to be adult anyway. I recommend keeping the category as "Former students" and therefore recoomend no changeRick570 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, the category is currently 'student' and not 'former student'. You d support Category:Former students by secondary school in New Zealand, right? Mayumashu (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – nearly every subcat of Category:People by school in New Zealand has the form 'Former students of'. In the UK too, secondary school 'pupils' have been called 'students' since the 1990s if not earlier. Occuli (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "former students". Orderinchaos 19:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will edit accordingly. Mayumashu (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldnt Alumni be a concise term that readily understandable Gnangarra 05:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That s the question - whioh term is most acceptable for the N.Z. context Mayumashu (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:School alumni in New Zealand. This is the standard WP format, though perhaps properly applicable to tertiary colleges and universities. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These nominations are about changing the standard, at least for categorisation, as 'school' could included tertiary-level institutions, which already has its own separate tree, as well as primary ones, which we want not to have. These cats list former students by school at the secondary educational level and the name should reflect this clearly Mayumashu (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by schools in Pakistan to Category:Former pupils by secondary school in Pakistan

Nominator's rationale:' as per below nominations and UK language specific Mayumashu (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by school in Sierra Leone to Category:Alumni by secondary school in Sierra Leone

Nominator's rationale: the one school listed is a secondary school. (This nomination too in conjunction with those below.) Mayumashu (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by secondary school in Canada to Category:Alumni by secondary school in Canada

Nominator's rationale: as per noms. below Mayumashu (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by high school in Romania to Category:Alumni by secondary school in Romania

Nominator's rationale: as per below Mayumashu (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by high school in Taiwan to Category:Alumni by secondary school in Taiwan

Nominator's rationale: as per other nominations listed below Mayumashu (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2010 (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 per modified nomination, but without use of "secondary. From my uneducated read, "secondary" makes sense, but that's not what people who live in the UK are saying here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:People by schools in the United Kingdom to Category:Alumni by secondary school in the United KingdomCategory:Former pupils by secondary school in the United Kingdom
• Category:People by school in Northern Ireland to Category:Alumni by secondary school in Northern IrelandCategory:Former pupils by secondary school in Northern Ireland
• Category:People by school in Scotland to Category:Alumni by secondary school in ScotlandCategory:Former pupils by secondary school in Scotland
• Category:People by school in Wales to Category:Alumni by secondary school in WalesCategory:Former pupils by secondary school in Wales
• Category:People by school in England to Category:Alumni by secondary school in EnglandCategory:Former pupils by secondary school in England

Nominator's rationale: as per nomination below, schools listed are primarily secondary level and only should be, and teaching staff etc should not be included Mayumashu (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My only concern here is that alumni is ambiguous. It can mean people who attended the school in some cases and in others people who graduated. So at a by country this is probably not ambiguous since attended vs graduated varies only by country, I think. So is now the time to see if there is a better way to handle this? 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I d say encourage comment on this matter while also working on tidying up what does exist now of this cat tree. Graduates are a sub-set of alumni, so I might suggest possibly having Category:Graduates of Eton College as a subset of Category:Old Etonians, though I don t know if it is in fact necessary. 'People' is even more non-defining as it can include teaching staff if not others too. Mayumashu (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The terms "alumni" and "graduates" are not used of former school pupils in the UK. They are only used of former university students (since one does not "graduate" from school in the UK - one simply "leaves"). Schools use the terms "former pupils" or "old boys/girls". So the nomination is fundamentally inaccurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you suggesting Category:Pupils by secondary school in the United Kingdom or Category:Former pupils by secondary school in the United Kingdom? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter is probably preferable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment just to support Necrothesp comment Alumni normally relates only to universities. Also note one of the parent cats is Category:People by educational institution in the United Kingdom which includes staff/teachers so do we have a reason to exclude non-pupils. If not then leave as was as it might mean sorting a very complicated category tree. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However non-pupils are, for the most part anyway, separately subcatted under Category:People by educational institution in the United Kingdom, at Category:Academics by university in the United Kingdom etc. There may be a few prominent teachers listed amongst the students for a few lists and where this is the case, a 'People by ...' supracat can be recreated. Very few secondary school teachers however are WP:Notable for being teachers, but there are a few, admittedly. Mayumashu (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nomination now ammended for UK-specific language use. Mayumashu (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now the next question, does this only apply to the UK or do other countries have similar usage? Anyone? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it should vary according to common formal English use for the country in question - alumni for the States, Canada and Latin America, former pupils for Indian subcontinent, Southern and Eastern Africa, and I m sure for rest of Europe, Oceania, East Asia, etc not sure Mayumashu (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment dont object to re-naming, but looking at the Category:People by school in England and the suggestion it is changed to secondary school most of the schools in the current category are non-state schools and somebody English would not think of them as secondary schools in the general sense as the expectation that it would included the local state secondary school, most would consider it wierd that Eton for example (and most of the schools in the category) is categorised as a secondary school. Would it be a lot easier to have Category:Former pupils by school in England a fairly simple change on the original category. Also note that it is very rare that primary schools would be notable to have Category:Former pupils by primary school in England which doesnt leave a lot of other schools. I know this is getting into ENGVAR issues but the categories are meant to be to help readers find stuff not to confuse them. MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you have a point that since elementary schools are very rarely notable, users will likely take 'school' to mean non-elemenary level ones and therefore secondary or equivalents. Then it goes back to the first issue I had with Category:Alumni by school, the supracategory for this page, that in North America a 'school' is an 'education instituation' and there is also Category:People by educational institution. (see a few nominations down this page). Perhaps one could merge these two supracategory pages and then leave the British and other ones at 'school'. Another idea I had was that by 'secondary school' one can mean a school that provides secondary level education, which would include Eton and other public schools. So, I m still favour of using 'secondary' here. Mayumashu (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that doesn't correspond well to how the term "secondary school" is actually used in the UK which tends to be reserved for that tier in the state sector. The private sector has endless variation that makes sweeping generalisation tricky, but a lot of it follows a different tier system with different transfer ages - using your example of Eton it doesn't take pupils until the equivalent of the third year of a secondary school. (I'm not sure that none of the categories cover prep schools.) Timrollpickering (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:School alumni in Foo. This is the standard WP format, though perhaps properly applicable to tertiary colleges and universities. Old Etonians do not graduate from the school: in UK, you graduate only on completing a university degree; Eton is a secondary school. We do not do primary school alumni, so there is no problem. Old Fooian is a normal UK format; I am an Old Salopian, having been educated at Shrewsbury School, but for WP conformity, I am an Alumni of Shrewsbury School. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??There is Category:Old Salopians and there isn t Category:Alumni of Shrewsbury School. The trouble is that with the present name we could do priminary schools - a name change to 'secondary school' would eliminate implicitly encouraging doing primary schools without having to monitor categories, cutting down on work. Almost no subcats for these nominated here - the UK ones - uses 'alumni' in fact - I disagree that we can t go with local usage here, under a Category:Alumni by secondary school or Category:Former students by secondary school, whichever. Mayumashu (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to Former pupils by school in Foo. As stated above, "alumni" is generally not used for schools, whilst the usual meaning of "secondary school" is too narrow for the category. Timrollpickering 20:31, 26 June 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by schools in India to Category:Former pupils by secondary school in India

Nominator's rationale: listed are alumni by secondary school, and not staff or other people or alumni by elementary or primary schools (and UK-specific term used) Mayumashu (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2010 (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 as modified. — ξ^xplicit 20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by high school in the United States to Category:Alumni by secondary school in the United StatesCategory:Alumni by high school in the United States

Nominator's rationale: the intention is to list alumni and not to include teaching staff or other people connected to high schools or other combined grade schools that include the high school grades. Mayumashu (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The term "secondary school" is not often used in the U.S., if at all; "high school" is instead overwhelmingly the norm. Otherwise, the rename makes sense. postdlf (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will go with 'high school' in that case Mayumashu (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2010 (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 to Category:Alumni by secondary school. — ξ^xplicit 20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni by school to Category:Alumni or former students by secondary schoolCategory:Alumni by secondary school or Category:Former students by secondary school

Nominator's rationale: current name can be taken to be synonymous, in casual terms, with Category:Alumni by educational institution, its supracategory (at least in North American English). Any alumni/former pupils by (strictly) primary or elementary schools should most likely be deleted, should they be listed in subcategories for this page Mayumashu (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:Alumni by secondary school – use 'alumni' at the top level and local usage at lower levels. There is no need to list all possible synonyms at the top level. (Category:Alumni by educational institution includes tertiary education, universities etc.) Occuli (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Secondary school alumni or Category:Alumni by secondary school. Alumni is the standard WP format, though perhaps properly applicable to tertiary colleges and universities. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Territorial Decoration recipients to Category:Recipients of the Territorial Decoration

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with other similar categories in Category:Recipients of United Kingdom military awards and decorations and Category:Recipients of United Kingdom civil awards and decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:George Medal recipients to Category:Recipients of the George Medal

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with other similar categories in Category:Recipients of United Kingdom civil awards and decorations and Category:Recipients of United Kingdom military awards and decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2010 (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: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mission Inn ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category currently contains the main article on the Mission Inn, a song written at the Inn, a book taking place at the Inn and the author of a biography of the Inn's builder. In other words, these are very very loosely associated topics and this does not warrant a category. Pichpich (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep—very, very few hotels/inns can claim such fame as having songs written in them etc. Useful and interesting category. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 09:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But we generally don't use categories to stress such things. There's no Hotel Chelsea or Lorelei category though many people, poems, songs, books are associated with them. Pichpich (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – these just seem to be articles mentioned in the Mission Inn article. A category with no parents tends to be difficult to defend. Occuli (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added two parents, so your point is now  Fixed – ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately neither parent is valid as the hotel is a hotel and its category contains non-hotels. Eg a book is not a hotel, heritage or otherwise. Occuli (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So what? Category:Barack Obama has, as its parent, Category:21st-century presidents of the United States, yet not every page within is that of a President. This is normal with categories. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That is also wrong, as are many category inclusions. There is no need to copy errors. It is quite straightforward: Mission Inn has various properties so it goes in various categories. A subcat of Category:Hotels should include articles about hotels only. Category:Categories named after hotels would be an obvious parent but even Hotel Chelsea has no associated category. Occuli (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying that every eponymous category must have a parent category and that the parent category must begin with the word "Categories ..."? MissionInn.Jim (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Inn sounds like a fascinating place but I agree it doesn't merit an eponymous category. The connections are much too tenuous imo. Zona Gale because she once wrote a biography that had "Mission Hill" in the title? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a small and loosely held category--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: for now, I would like some time to consider this. I can definitely see the potential for more images being placed in this category, although I personallyy prefer to post images in the Commons. As far as articles, you might be right that there will not be very many. I do plan to write an article for Frank Augustus Miller some time, but haven't had a chance. Just a note ... contrary to what my user name might imply, I have no affiliation with the Mission Inn. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have no objection to Category:Images of Mission Inn: this is a tightly defined category capturing a defining characteristic of an image of Mission Inn. Look at say Category:Bond (band) - this mostly a container category for clearly defined subcats, not a collection of articles connected in some vague manner with the band. Occuli (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we create a category named Category:Images of the Mission Inn, then what would the parent category of that category be? I feel the parent of such a category should be Category:Mission Inn, but that is the category originally being questioned. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to keep: Initially after it was suggested that we delete the Mission Inn category, I was not particularly opposed. After reflecting on the matter, doing some research, and adjusting the description and content of the category, I have concluded that it should be kept (IMO), for the following reasons:

• 1) Although there are few articles and media files in the category now, I believe there will likely be more in the future. The Mission Inn is very eclectic. I can see potential for individual articles about some of the collections, histories and architecture of the Inn, as well as the current owner, the Mission Inn Museum, and other features of the hotel. It is also likely that lists related to the Mission Inn will also be written, e.g. presidential visits, historic events at the Inn, artifacts of the Inn, etc. Images and postcards of the Mission Inn are very common. As long as people are allowed to post media to Wikipedia, outside of the Wikimedia Commons, then this is likely to grow also.
• 2) The fact that an eponymous category has not been created for any other hotel, yet, does not necessarily indicate that an eponymous category is not appropriate. The reason for categories is to help readers and editors locate information associated with a particular topic. The question to answer is; "Does the Mission Inn category help, or not?" I believe it does. Keep in mind Wikipedia is very young. In 10, 20, 30 or more years down the road, although the technology will probably change greatly, I expect we will see many more articles in much more detail on Wikipedia. Many articles, including those related to famous and historic hotels, will likely need an eponymous category in order to tie them to the main article.
• 3) After reviewing Wikipedia:Overcategorization, the only example of over categorization that might apply is Small with no potential for growth. For the reasons stated above, I believe there is potential for growth, although I don't expect that will happen quickly.
• 4) It was suggested that we create a new category just for the media files / images of the Mission Inn. However, if we did that, then it would seem even more natural to me to create a parent category to associate the Mission Inn subcategories with the main article.
• 5) Although Wikipedia doesn't currently have eponymous categories for any other hotel, the Wikimedia Commons does. Associating categorized information between Wikipedia and the Commons is easier and cleaner if we keep the names the same.

Note: I agree including Zona Gale in the category was a stretch, and that article has now been removed. I did start an article about Frank Augustus Miller, the Master of the Inn, which I have now included. If the group decides to remove the Mission Inn category, I will abide by the decision, but over time I expect it will likely be added back by someone. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article contents should be linked-to from Mission Inn, but grouping this type of stuff together is not typically what categories are created for—the contents for the most part are not defined by their linkage to Mission Inn and, as has been said by others, we're really only dealing with a tenuous or loose connection between the inn and the things categorized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a means to categorize articles connected with the Inn and provide an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Belarusian pop groups to Category:Belarusian pop music groups

Nominator's rationale: To match the rest of Category:Pop music groups Pichpich (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency. Wonder if ultimately this group of cats shouldn t be Category:Fooian popular music groups? Mayumashu (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wonder if ultimately ... " - This may well be the case: "popular" but not "pop" artists from such places are AFD firewood. Follow the rules and wikipedia coverage is limited to two extremes, either the eurovision crap or the cream of classical music. The world of music between usually fails notability guidelines. East of Borschov (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia featured desktop backgrounds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category consists almost solely of pages which are cross-namespace redirects to it ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 07:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this category is and should only be on Commons. — ξ^xplicit 20:06, 2 July 2010 (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 to match the article, 2012 phenomenon. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2012 millenarianism to Category:2012 phenomenon

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the main article, 2012 phenomenon. Note the previous discussion just ended without a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match the category name to the article name, which in light of the recent move request is not changing. I made this rename suggestion at the last discussion and was told that it would not work because confusion might result with the 2012 Olympics. I never really understood that, since I'm not aware of anyone anywhere referring to the 2012 Olympics as the "2012 phenomenon". This name seems as good as any to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the main article has also recently undergone a requested move (more recently than the category), which also was closed as no consensus. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would be better if the Requested Move had ended with a consensus, but until there is one the category should be renamed to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2010 (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; probably qualifies as speedy criterion C2C. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Languages of Pakistan by province or territory to Category:Languages of Pakistan by administrative unit.

Nominator's rationale: This would be consistent like other national division cats in Category:Categories by administrative unit of Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge/rename as nominated. This actually comes under speedy criterion C2B, since it is a disambiguation fix from an unqualified name to match the name to the format of its parent category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Populated places in Balochistan into Category:Populated places in Balochistan (Pakistan) and rename Category:Union councils of Balochistan (which is a subcat) to Category:Union councils of Balochistan (Pakistan).

Nominator's rationale: All the cities listed in this category are in the Pakistani portion of Balochistan (region). The category Category:Populated places in Balochistan should have little or no articles at all since the Balochistan region is divided between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan - hence the cities can correctly/geographically be sorted rather into their own respective country categories. In the case of this redundant category, all of the articles that are categorised here belong to Pakistani Balochistan. Hence they should all be merged into Category:Populated places in Balochistan (Pakistan) as that is geographically correct/accurate. You may also notice that someone has already made the redundant cat a soft redirect into the latter. The subcat Category:Union councils of Balochistan (which is a subcat of this) should also be renamed into something like Category:Union councils of Balochistan (Pakistan) as all the union councils listed in here are in Pakistani Balochistan Mar4d (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My first reaction was that this should be a "reverse merge" as Balochistan is a Pakistani province, and I do not think it is a province of the other two countries, though adjacent regions of them may have Balochi inhabitants. However the nom's reasoning makes me doubt. I do not think that Union Councils needs renaming since there will be none in the other two countries as (I presume) this is a Pakistan-only governmental structure. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning for the rename to "Balochistan (Pakistan)" rather than just "Balochistan" is so that the cats. can match consistently in line with all others under Category:Balochistan (Pakistan) - Mar4d (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2010 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 2#Category:Cantonments and military bases of Pakistan. — ξ^xplicit 20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cantonments and military bases of Pakistan into Category:Military facilities of Pakistan.

Nominator's rationale: The former is redundant and both are categorised under Category:Military facilities by country. Mar4d (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2010 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 2#Category:Cantonments and military bases of Sindh & Category:Cantonments and military bases of Karachi. — ξ^xplicit 20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Cantonments and military bases of Sindh & Category:Cantonments and military bases of Karachi

Nominator's rationale: As you may notice, both these categories are subcats of the one I have proposed above for merging. These categories should be deleted as they are useless - and are based on administrative divisions of a country. You will notice that no country category under Category:Military facilities by country has divisional sub-cats within it i.e. the United States does not have a category like Category:Military facilities of New York City etc. Also, since this is a military category belonging to a country, you can't have something like this (as it doesn't make sense). You cannot have "Military facilities of New York City" but rather "Military facilities in New York City" - and no such subdivision cats exist in the first place anyway. So no justification for these sparsely populated categories Mar4d (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I do not see why Pakistani military bases should not be split by province, but it should be Category:Military bases in Sindh. I doubt we need one for Karachi (a city). I suspect that the US categories are split by state (though I have not checked). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with having it split into provinces, but I do not see the reason. The Category:Military bases in Pakistan would not be populated itself; unless it is very large, then there is a rational reasoning to split it. Mar4d (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2010 (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 both with precedent in mind, as well as no opposition. — ξ^xplicit 20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clothing for men ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Men's skirted garments ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added to nom at 22:16 17 June 2010 UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a follow-up nomination to the recently deleted Category:Clothing for women. (This category was created while the one for women was being discussed.) The same rationale that supported deletion there applies here: this is an arbitrary collection and depends quite heavily on the cultural biases of the person doing the categorizing. What is considered men's clothing in one time and culture may be unisex clothing in another and women's clothing in yet another. Amusingly, the current contents include Apron, Bathrobe, Bermuda shorts, Bloomers (clothing), Capri pants, Coat (clothing), Costume, Diving suit, Jeans, Safety pin, Shirt, Shorts, Skirt, Straitjacket, T-shirt, and Trenchcoat. Women don't wear any of those, right?

Even the subcategories are misnamed and/or consist of arbitrary groupings: Category:Men's skirted garments contains, among others—Hakama, Lava-lava, Longyi, Lungi, Sarong, Ta'ovala, and Wrap (clothing)—all of which are worn by men and women. This is, as the closer said in the previous discussion, all "hopelessly arbitrary". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 190.135.145.204 (talk · contribs) appears to have been the sole culprit for the amusing additions. Do any of the contents need to be upmerged somewhere? Also, shouldn't Category:Men's skirted garments be part of this nom? postdlf (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, yeah, Category:Men's skirted garments should be added. I had forgotten to add it on. Thanks. All the contents of both seem to be otherwise well-categorized. Those in Category:Men's skirted garments are already in the immediate parent category Category:Skirts. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 17 June 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hong Kong people of Shundenese descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a follow-up to this discussion, where Category:People of Shundenese descent and its subcategories were deleted. This one was omitted from that nomination and should be likewise deleted. For the other nationalities, we upmerged to the category for "Fooian people of Chinese descent", but for good reasons there is not a Category:Hong Kong people of Chinese descent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Those listed come from or have forebearers from Shunde district, regardless of ethnicity (Canton, Teochew, Hakka, etc.) An equivalent would be Category:Canadian people of Long Island descent or sth. Mayumashu (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A bad idea. Occuli (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category seems quite well enough populated to make a worthwhile category. I am not sure that the name is quite right. Since 99% of Hong Kong people are Chinese, there is a very good reason for there being no Chinese category, but I see no reason why they should not be split by ethnic or local origin within China. After all HK had much immigration from mainland China. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that particular Chinese sub-national ethnicities should be catted for for H.K, but Shundenese is apparently not an ethnicity - Shundene people redirects to Shunde District. Shundenese or Shundene are anyone from Shunde District, in other words - as I say above, it s like subcatting Canadians of American descent not even by which American state their forebearers came from, but by which part of which state. Mayumashu (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2010 (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 to Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal by country. Subcategories will need a follow-up proposal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country to Category:Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal by country

Nominator's rationale: This category breaks down its supercategory ("Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal") into its country-by-country instances (e.g. "Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States"); it covers something broader than particular cases of abuse (e.g. responses to abuse are also included). So the most consistent naming would be "Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal by country". TheGrappler (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal by country. This is a 'by country' subcat scheme for Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. (I think 'Church' is needed.) Occuli (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sensible suggestion, thanks. If we want to get "Roman Catholic Church", "Roman Catholic" or just plain "Catholic" consistent, it does mean that a lot of the by-country subcategories like Category:Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Norway - need both "Roman" and "Church". TheGrappler (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2010 (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 those with hyphens to non-hyphenated form, no consensus on the rest. On CfD, even hyphenation can cause a firestorm. There is no consensus here, but leaving some hyphenated and some not seems unacceptable to most. The "not" camp makes a strong argument that the categories are too specific with the hyphen, so that's the direction I've chosen. This certainly begs for a renomination to the names proposed by Mayumashu, but there is definitely not consensus on that approach yet. (Note: I am both American and Jewish, though I hope that isn't seen as an influence on the decision.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming the following:

• Category:Canadian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Canadian origin
• Category:Mexican American Jews to Category:American Jews of Mexican origin
• Category:Czech-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Czech origin
• Category:Latvian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Latvian origin
• Category:Lithuanian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Lithuanian origin
• Category:Iraqi American Jews to Category:American Jews of Iraqi origin
• Category:Moroccan American Jews to Category:American Jews of Moroccan origin
• Category:French-American Jews to Category:American Jews of French origin
• Category:American Jews of European descent to Category:American Jews of European origin
• Category:British-American Jews to Category:American Jews of British origin
• Category:English-American Jews to Category:American Jews of English origin
• Category:Scottish-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Scottish origin
• Category:Portuguese American Jews to Category:American Jews of Portuguese origin
• Category:Spanish American Jews to Category:American Jews of Spanish origin
• Category:American Jews of Middle Eastern descent to Category:American Jews of Middle Eastern origin (parent cat Category:American people of Middle Eastern descent)
• Category:American Jews of North African descent to Category:American Jews of North African origin (parent cat Category:American people of North African descent)
• Category:Egyptian American Jews to Category:American Jews of Egyptian origin
• Category:Syrian American Jews to Category:American Jews of Syrian origin
• Category:Italian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Italian origin
• Category:Romanian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Romanian origin
• Category:Hungarian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Hungarian origin
• Category:Greek-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Greek origin
• Category:Russian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Russian origin
• Category:Slavic American Jews to Category:American Jews of Slavic origin (parent category Category:American people of Slavic descent)
• Category:Polish-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Polish origin
• Category:Austrian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Austrian origin
• Category:German-American Jews to Category:American Jews of German origin
• Category:Swiss-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Swiss origin
• Category:Tunisian American Jews to Category:American Jews of Tunisian origin
• Category:Ukrainian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Ukrainian origin
• Category:Belarusian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Belarusian origin

Propose upmerging the following:

• Category:American Jews of Baltic descent to Category:American Ashkenazi Jews (no Category:American people of Baltic descent)
• Category:American Jews of Latin European descent to Category:American Jews of European origin (no Category:American people of Latin European descent)
• Category:American Jews of Germanic European descent to Category:American Ashkenazi Jews (no Category:American people of Germanic European descent)

Nominator's rationale: hyphenation ambiguous, could be taken to mean a few different things (dual citizens who are Jews, Jews who are citizens of these countries with American origins, vice-versa, or whathaveyou) and for this reason hyphenation for subcategories of Category:People by ethnic or national origin was deleted in favour of a naming that spells out what is meant. This is a sub-set that has been left over and an attempt to rename using the term 'descent' was rejected as suggestive of Booian ancestry (and thereby not Jewish ethnicity) - see this discussion - here, 'origin' was proposed as being not too suggestive of Booian ancestry. (To be clear, what is listed are Jews with American citizenship who were once settled in Booia or citizens of Booia or whose parents or forebearers were.) Mayumashu (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/upmerge per nom. This proposal reflects the rough consensus that was arrived at in the DRV when the discussion drifted towards what could or should be done with these after the undiscussed speedy rename changes were reversed, which they were. I support this choice for the reasons discussed there and because it is clearer than what exists now and it seemed to have majority support in the DRV. A few other users have strongly criticised using "descent", so "origin" seems like a good compromise. A few users even preferred the retention of the hyphenated compound adjectives, but they are hopelessly ambiguous, in my opinion. If you ask 4 different people what they mean, you could easily get 4 different answers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Olfactory, would you likewise support Category:American Jews of Russian Jewish descent? Seems like a good alternative, that came up a bit down the page, as it lessens the ambiguity that just using 'descent' or 'origin' may hold. It seems to lessen the chance of taking what is meant to be descent of "Russianness", where the intended meaning is, of course, descent of Russian Jewishness Mayumashu (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All. Firstly because Mayumashu trivializes and misrepresents this matter by focusing on mere "citizenship" when anyone should know that regarding the matter of Jews' identity its complex and involves both an ethnicity and belonging to a religion, in this case Judaism. Furthermore, the names of the categories that Mayumashu and Good Olfactory propose give no inkling that they're just about "citizenship" alone. In addition, the consensus at the recent DRV was to overturn Mayumashu's and Good Olfactory's handiwork and keep the original old category names that were fine for years, but that they now wish to overturn yet again with the same illogic against the consensus at the very recent Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent (which was clearly not the way that Mayumashu and Good Olfactory allege now -- just read it) and that opposed the changes that both users Mayumashu and Good Olfactory engineered and had taken it upon themselves to make without any wide consensus originally, and as they now continue to do without even bothering to inform the larger numbers of Judaic editors, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism for example, especially who have a deep knowledge of this subject matter. So Users Mayumashu and Good Olfactory now add insult to injury (that was fortunately overturned at the DRV) by misrepresenting what happened at the DRV when the consensus there was, not as they incorrectly claim here, but was strongly opposed to them, and was heavily in favor to overturn their changes and to NOT institute either "Category:Jewish people of fooian descent" or "Category:Jewish people of fooian origin" because both the words "descent" and "origin" create the identical problems of mis-identifying and implying Jews as either "descending" or "originating" from non-Jewish nationalities, ethnicities, groups among of which the majority of non-Jews are either Christian (in European areas) or Islamic (in Oriental areas) and to claim that Jews are either "decsended" or "originate" from these Christian majorities is not just totally false but patently absurd and a violation of WP:NEO; WP:NOR; WP:NOTMADEUP and a few more problems as fully explained in the lengthy DRV, see it all at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: Regarding:
  • Category:American Jews of Baltic descent to Category:American Ashkenazi Jews (no Category:American people of Baltic descent)
  • Category:American Jews of Latin European descent to Category:American Jews of European origin (no Category:American people of Latin European descent)
  • Category:American Jews of Germanic European descent to Category:American Ashkenazi Jews (no Category:American people of Germanic European descent)
• Simply because these few latter categories are clearly based on purely LINGUISTIC criteria (i.e. Latin European; Germanic European) that is one valid way of categorizing Jews without confusing their "descent" or "origins", and GEOGRAPHIC criteria (Baltic; Middle Eastern) that is another valid way to categorize Jews. With both language and geography, when clearly stated and understood, being valid criteria and that do NOT confuse complex ethnic or religious descent or origins, which is why they should be also be kept, regardless of what other categories they may not suit because Wikipedia does not require total and absolute uniformity and conformity of category names according the the dictates and wishes of Mayumashu and Good Olfactory who are known to work without consensus and who specialize in making mass nominations and then executing speedy changes that create more problems than they solve. IZAK (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several contributors in the DRV discussion besides Good Ol'factory and myself suggested using 'origin' and not 'descent' and suggested having a CfD on this matter, hence this nomination. There has been, in fact, a fairly developed consensus here at this project, cats for discussion, for having people categorised by ethnic or national origin/descent without using hyphenated adjectives, because of the ambiguity hyphenation convey. User:IZAK fails to explain how a name such as Category:Russian-American Jews is any better at conveying that listed are not, firstly, Russian Americans who practice Judaism and are, the intended, ethnically Jewish whose family a generation or more in Russia. (In fact, the category should allow for both types of people to be included.) That is, the hyphenated name is no better in emphasing Jewish ethnicity over "Russianish" (Russian nationality, ethnicity, citiznenship, etc.), to take an example. 'origin' is not the perfect term either in emphasing Jewish ethnicity over Russian, but it is better in showing that what is not meant is dual Russian-American citizenship or Russians of American origin/ descent who are Jewish. As for User:IZAK's comments critical of GOF's and my work in editting category names in general, not that we need to defend ourselves, but GOF has always gone about this work going through the proper channels and procedures, from what I ve seen, and I think I ve done so too, though I ve probably goofed up a few times here and there. Category pages are shared by users of different interests because they interconnect - the pages in question here are not the sole domain of Judaic editors, but also for those interested in human migration and for anyone with general interests too of course. Pages are tagged to let all those interested in them know of nominations. As for the attempt to speedily rename these pages before, again, they were done in good faith following correct procedure, as I interpreted it (based on the naming structure of parent categories and renaming precedent). Mayumashu (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! The issue is not the hyphen, some are and some aren't, nor is it about "tracking citizenship" as if Wikipedia is now some huge "passport control agency" tracking human migrations alone, rather the issue is how to retain the clearest description of a complex sub-group such as the Jews who, while they exhibit definitional elasticity for purposes of Wikipedia categorization as Mayumashu and Good Olfactory are proving with their never-ending handy-work, yet nevertheless there is a vital need to have clarity and specificity. It is precisely because Wikipedia has clearly defined articles/subjects/categories about Russian Americans that it is logical and possible to add it to the subject about Jews so that Russian American+Jews="Russian American Jews" just as the accepted term "Russian Jews" means Jews from Russia and no normal person or scholar uses the circumlocution of "Jews of Russian origins or descent" (do you want Wikipedia to come across as sounding like a crazy fool? violating its own rules of WP:HOAX and WP:NONSENSE?) Likewise no one in real life or in academia uses the term "American Jews of Russian origins or descent" as if they are terms detached from the way language and terminology is used by normal humans. Wikipedia is user, meaning reader, friendly, it does not want to foist and create its own Wiki-sociological-mumbo-jumbo-jargon based on silly arguments. No one refers to Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin as "(Singing?) Americans of Italian origins or descent" but as "Italian Americans" and ditto for their kids and grandkids even if born in America. Believe it or not Lady Gaga is an Italian American, check it out. Categories should correspond to terminology in articles! So likewise with Jews, while they are American Jews, they are something else first, such as "Russian American Jews", "Polish American Jews", actually to be specific there is no harm or insult to call them they are "Russian Jews" or "Polish Jews" or "Hungarian-Polish Jews" no matter how many generations on they have lived in America, it's the way Jews and scholars refer to them as well quite often. In Brooklyn you have "Syrian Jews" and "Hungarian Jews" even though they have been in America from 50 to 100 years. It is incredible that we have to actually discuss such obvious matters and it is absurd and ridiculous the lengths to which Mayumashu goes to uphold fake rules that have nothing to do with real life, history or reality. This is not about favoritism for Jews. This is about that Mayumashu, Good Olfactory and Cyde have taken on themselves "the job" to change all categories of humans as they please, without getting comprehensive input from every group they change to their liking which they then claim is "what Wikipedia wants" which it is most decidedly not! IZAK (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "fake rules" as you call them is convention that has been established on this project page, over the past few years with the input of some forty or more contributors/users/readers in the case of 'people by ethnic or national origin'. Fine, strictly speaking, the issue is not about the hyphen but compound adjective use (which typically uses a hyphen) - Russian American Jews (or Russian-American Jews) can be taken to mean, depending on what English you use, Russian citizens who are American Jews, American citizens who are Russian Jews, or dual citizens who are Jews, as already said. Sure, to Americans amongst Americans, mostly no discussion on what is meant by a name is necessary but, obviously, non-American users read WP too. Admittedly, compromising naming pattern and style to suit and make it comprehensible to most, no matter which English one uses, can result in a degree of wordiness and names that are somewhat less natural or normal to some - isn t this needless to say? But, honestly, how is the name 'American Jew of Russian origin' any less comprehenible to an American than 'Russian(-)American Jew'. Mayumashu (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, please keep me out of your conspiracy theorist rantings. As you've been told numerous times, I had nothing to do with nominating the categories the first time or this second time. Feel free to continue to express as much paranoia as you wish, but with regard to my actions, please at least make an attempt to refer to facts based in reality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to ignore the user's suggestiveness and tone, but that it has been brought up, that goes for me too. Mayumashu (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've left IZAK a very stern warning regarding his behavior. Should he persist, he will find himself in a temporary block. — ξ^xplicit 23:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per IZAK. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per IZAK. --Yoavd (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Upmerge most per nom. Dispute (Ashkenazi) as requiring verification. As has been noted in the Fooian Barian category renames, the categories are ambiguous. This will, at least, attempt to determine which is which. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True enough - not every single Northern or Central European Jew would necessarily be Ashkenazi. Upmerge to Category:American Jews of European origin (or Category:American Jews of European Jewish descent) instead then? Mayumashu (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think IZAK wants "Fooian American Jews" to mean Americans of Fooian Jewish culture/origin/descent, rather than American Jews of Fooian origin/descent. That's yet another ambiguity, in addition to the possible (although unlikely) American Jews of Fooian nationality. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very good alternative that you ve suggested, Category:American Jews of Russian Jewish descent etc., right? Mayumashu (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I also question whether Fooian American Jews should be in the category Fooian Jews. There's no good place to discuss that question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also question this as the Jews in question are American Jews, first and foremostly. After 75 years in the States, one's family no longer "Russian", etc., is one's? Mayumashu (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per IZAK. He makes some very good points, plus we just had a very similar CfD not too long ago...Give it some time instead of trying to find new angles with which to achieve a preconceived outcome. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 14:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "we just had a very similar CfD not too long ago". No, we didn't, although you may be thinking of a recent DRV, which does not qualify as a rename discussion even though the issues were discussed (in the wrong venue, however). The categories were renamed via WP:CFDS, but there was no discussion. These changes were reversed at WP:DRV because there was no discussion, and the closer essentially said that there could be a discussion using full CFD, and this is it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per Izak. Reply to unsigned, After 75 years in the States - I agree. The cats would seem only relevant to immigrants, or if the person has continued to be identified with that sub-group. A child born to Italian ex-pats may or not be 'Italian' depending on if s/he assimilates or strives to remain 'Italian'. --Shuki (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. So, are you in favor of depopulating the cats, making sure that only recent immigrants are included? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all, at least for now. 'Origin' is a word I think its best to avoid, and the proposed changes sort of misses the point. The most relevant criteria, especially when categorizing people who are 3-4th generation Americans, is the belonging to a community or subcommunity. --Soman (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about Category:American Jews of Russian Jewish descent etc. Instead of either 'Booian origin' or 'Booian descent' we could use 'Booian Jewish descent' to add clarity. The compound (hyphenated) adjective is so unclear about what is meant, where what is meant can be interpreted so differently depending on what the common usage is where is from. Mayumashu (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All as these are the prevalent terms used to describe such individuals. Alansohn (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename most per nom. WE had long discussions about a year ago in which we renamed all non-American dual nationality categories to "Booians of Fooian descent". This should also be done to American categories. Oppose the items to be merged to Ashkenazi, which is changing a local origin to an ethnic one, the converse being Sephadic. These items need to be nominated for a separate discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All, I think renaming them will cause more problems, because then you shut people out of the category that have duel nationality. Colt .55 (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Please explain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. No credible argument has been given for "keep", as WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to categories. Even if it did, no one would know which of the plausible meanings was intended. Some have argued about whether the specific name should be American Jews of Fooian origin/descent/culture, or Americans of Fooian Jewish origin/descent/culture, but the present names violate clear Wikipedia guidelines. See, for example WP:Category names#Heritage. The second bullet point suggests these categories should be deleted, but I don't really consider that seriously at this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? The categories are obviously contentious, have no clear definitions, no obvious name, and are riddled with dubious entries/members. Past attempts to restrict them to people who emigrated from one country to another have failed miserably, and they seem like a classic example of WP:OCAT. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. I don't agree that they don't have an obvious name, just no clear definitions. Perhaps they should be deleted, but I'm sure some would consider that evidence of anti-Jewish bias. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the accurate name for these categories would be American Jews whose ancestors emigrated from Russia etc. Anything else is ambiguous, since "of Russian descent" or "of Russian origin" could mean Russian nationality or Russian ethnicity, which are quite different things. However, I don't think it's likely that people would support changing the category names to these ones, even though they are completely unambiguous and accurate. Therefore, we are left with these ambiguous, error-filled, BLP-violation magnets. Now, aside from the potential of spurious accusations of "anti-Jewish bias", is there any reason why these categories need to exist, or shouldn't be deleted? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess you're right. I guess I'd have to be neutral on deletion, but strongly against the articles existing at this name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it would have to be Category:American Jews who or whose ancestors emigrated from Russia, assuming one's parents are also one's ancestors. I still like Category:American Jews of Russian Jewish descent or Category:American Jews of Russian Jewish origin, as they include emigrants, emigrants' parents, and emigrants' ancestors and is clear on 'descent' or 'origin' being Jewish and not ethnically Russian descent/origin. Still no takers? Mayumashu (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems acceptable. I still would like to see IZAK agree to one of these moves, as the category names are ambiguous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Myamashu's latest proposed names (Category:American Jews of Russian Jewish descent or Category:American Jews of Russian Jewish origin) are also unambiguous and would be better than the current names. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 4 July 2010 (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. Articles already redistributed. Courcelles (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Former populated places in Scandinavia to Category:Former populated places in Europe

Nominator's rationale: I suggest this should be upmerged; there doesn't seem to be any logic having a distinct "Scandinavia" subdivision (it doesn't have any Scandinavian parent categories); the depopulated places are unambiguously within Denmark/Norway/Sweden and can also be categorized as such. TheGrappler (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Move articles to Category:Former populated places in Norway, Category:Former populated places in Denmark, Category:Former populated places in Sweden, Category:Former populated places in Finland then delete. P.S. is there a consensus to place stone age archaological sites into "populated places" (see Kierikki)? East of Borschov (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would make sense. As for Kierikki and similar... not sure what a good general rule would be. It would seem that many such sites meet the definition of a "(former) populated place" without being a "(former) settlement". TheGrappler (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, they've all been subcatted as you suggested. TheGrappler (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honorary citizens of Vienna ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The normal practice with "honorary citizenship" categories has been to essentially treat them as awards and therefore to listify them. This one is already listified at List of honorary citizens of Vienna, so I think the category can be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Award categories should be listified and this one is already. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (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: no consensus. SInce there is an extended discussion of meatpuppetry here, I ignored the number of arguments and focused solely on the substance. Category:American people of Puerto Rican descent seems to suggest that there's room for subdivision within Hispanic/Latino categories, so there appears to be nothing wrong with this approach. We can revisit later, seeing if this remains an outlier down the road or is part of a greater expansion of Puerto Rican descent categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent to Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No other category categorizes LGBT people by a specific national descent. Do we really want to start doing this? Categorizing LGBT people by nationality is sensible, and perhaps by general ethnic group is OK (Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people), but in my view this is starting to slice things a bit thin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Against merging. While it is useful and valid to have a Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people, it is also important to recognize the specificity of LGBT Puerto Rican people in the United States and to be able to easily identify them in relation to LGBT people from Puerto Rico. I created this category after another Wikipedian deleted all of these names from the Category:LGBT people from Puerto Rico. Consult scholarly works such as David William Foster's Latin American Writers on Gay and Lesbian Themes and Lawrence La Fountain-Stokes Queer Ricans: Cultures and Sexualities in the Diaspora for rationale behind having LGBT Puerto Ricans in the US be identifiable and linkable to LGBT people in Puerto Rico, and why it is important to be able to distinguish between Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Mexican Americans, and others in the US. Another relevant scholarly source is "Puerto Rican Queer Sexualities", special issue of CENTRO: Journal of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies (Spring 2007). Finally, identifying Puerto Ricans in US as separate and also as part of bigger category of Hispanics or Latinos is consistent with many general Wikipedia editing practices for this specific group.--Lawrlafo (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We're talking about two different layers here. If they are Puerto Rican, they should go in Category:LGBT people from Puerto Rico—I have no problem with that. But if they are only of Puerto Rican descent, why is it important to have the intersection of ethnic descent and LGBT? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Because LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent in the US identify as (or are considered) Puerto Rican and American (being both, as Puerto Rico is a non-incorporated, colonial possession of the US, and all Puerto Ricans are US citizens except those who explicitly reject this citizenship and accept that of another sovereign nation), and most leading scholars and activists commonly see the links and circular migration patterns between the two. It is not easy to account for this in Wikipedia. AIDS researchers and many others also distinguish between the broader panethnic labels ("Latino, Hispanic") and specific country of origin (such as Puerto Rican), because of the great limitations in these broader categories. This is why it makes sense to have an easily-identifiable category for LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent.--Lawrlafo (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That didn't really answer my question. Why is this particular intersection important to maintain? I realize that it's important to retain the category Category:People of Puerto Rican descent as well as Category:LGBT people—but why the combination of the two? There are hundreds if not thousands of similar intersections we could concoct in the category system—but why this one? It's not part of an overall scheme. It's just "out there" as a one-of-a-kind intersection. The Puerto Rico/U.S. situation with nationality and ethnicity complications is far from unique in the world. Do you think we should have Category:LGBT people of Montserratian descent, for example? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is important to many LGBT Puerto Ricans and to scholars who do research on LGBT Puerto Ricans and to others who are interested in issues pertaining to this population, for example sexuality studies scholars and AIDS researchers. It is also useful for teaching. I teach a class called "Queer Culture of the Hispanic Caribbean and Its Diaspora", in which is its required for students to be able to identify LGBT Cubans, Dominicans (from the Dominican Republic), and Puerto Ricans who live in the Caribbean and who live in other countries (the diaspora, particularly the US). You agree to the existence of Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people, which is a category that identifies people in the US on the basis of their ethnicity and sexuality. As I have attempted to explain above, the terms "Hispanic and Latino people" are overarching categories that homogenize and bring together people of 17 different Latin American and Caribbean backgrounds in the US. It is useful to have that category, but also ones which differentiate. There are books that focus on LGBT Puerto Ricans in the US such as Lawrence La Fountain's Queer Ricans: Cultures and Sexualities in the Diaspora. I don't know how many Monserratians there are in the US, they are certainly not a visible political constituency in the US in the way that Puerto Ricans are. If you follow US politics and news, you are aware that the Puerto Ricanness and homosexuality of specific individuals such as Ricky Martin and Anthony Romero are relevant to many people. There are many other Puerto Rican LGBT people, and I intend to help interested parties find easily accessible information on this population. That is the purpose of this category.--Lawrlafo (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be better if I renamed the category in question to Category:LGBT Americans of Puerto Rican descent, and created subcategories for other such as Category:LGBT Americans of Mexican descent and Category:LGBT Americans of Cuban descent? This is in a nutshell the clarification I am seeking with this category.--Lawrlafo (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Against merging, however why not just rename "Category:LGBT people from Puerto Rico" to "LGBT people from Puerto Rico and of Puerto Rican descent"? Lawrlafo, did make a valid point in that many U.S. born people of Puerto Rican descent simply identify themselves as Puerto Ricans. It may also seem strange but, there are some Puerto Ricans who are so "Americanized" that they do not consider Puerto Rico a "Latin" country and therefore do not consider themselves and recent to being called Latins. That's politics for you, you go figure (smile). Tony the Marine (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opposition to this recommendation, except that other categories do not follow this model.--Lawrlafo (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, setting aside whether we should maintain Category:American people of Puerto Rican descent, which is not the focus on this nomination. Catting by sexuality and ethnic or national descent is WP:OC to me, as well. Mayumashu (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Catting people who openly disclose their sexuality and ethnic or national descent is a legitimate practice and there are hundreds of individuals identified for countries around the world in Wikipedia using this criteria.--Lawrlafo (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You've hit on the relevant distinction right there: for countries. LGBT is routinely mixed with nationalities to form categories, but not with ethnicities and national descent, as you suggest. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That is incorrect, Good Ol'factory. There are four categories mixing sexuality with ethnicity in the US in Wikipedia: Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people, Category:LGBT Native Americans, Category:LGBT African Americans, and Category:LGBT Asian Americans. In other words, there is consensus for the main editors of the Category:LGBT people from the United States that creating subcategories indicating race and ethnicity is valid and useful. Your objection is for me to create a further subcategory (a subgroup of the Hispanic and Latino American people category). I would prefer that this be the matter being discussed, as opposed to suggesting that I am doing something that is not already being done on Wikipedia and in the scholarship of numerous scholars interested in the intersections of race, ethnicity and sexuality.--Lawrlafo (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We're referring to two different concepts, apparently. The ethnicity categories you cite are not as specific as "of Puerto Rican descent". In that sense, this category is unique and not part of an overall scheme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. There is no connection between sexuality and ethnic/national descent as far as I know. And Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people is not otherwise subcatted. (If there is a notable connection between LGBT people and those of Puerto Rican descent, an article should precede the category. There seems to be an underlying assumption that these people are all American - do Puerto Ricans not travel?) Occuli (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I never entirely grokked the argument that Puerto Ricans were somehow unique in regards to the relevance of a "members of this ethnic group in other countries by sexuality" intersection that's not generally considered necessary for any other group; however, I do feel I should note that I suggested this as an option to the creator after he challenged me on having removed several people from Category:LGBT people from Puerto Rico who have Puerto Rican ethnicity but were born and raised and worked and lived and died entirely within the mainland United States. I still don't entirely see the value of this — what's relevant in regards to sexuality is the country or countries within which the person has actually occupied some physical or cultural space, not the country their parents or grandparents came from — but I did offer to defer to his judgment in the matter. I do remain concerned about the possibility of Category:LGBT people from Puerto Rico getting misused again — though I suppose another alternative would be to recombine the two categories as Category:LGBT Puerto Ricans instead (which would at least have the benefit of being more accurate to both groups, as well as being more consistent with constructions such as Category:LGBT Native Americans. No !vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Against merging, if anything the category Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people should be dismantled and broken up into categories such as Category:LGBT Chicano and Mexican American people, Category:LGBT Cuban American people, Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent, etc. Hispanic and Latino American is not an ethnic or racial category as almost all those in favor of merging have tried to argue. Even as a linguistic category, it fails: a Chicano youth in L.A. could be descended from Nahuatl speakers, never having spoken a word of Spanish, and still be labeled Hispanic or Latino. Ethnically, he would have nothing in common with a Dominican American from New York of African descent, who in turn would also not have anything in common from Jewish Argentine ex-pat living in Boston. So if they don't have language, ethnicity or race binding them together, what exactly makes them all "Hispanic/Latino" except for some vague sense from the Americans that they all come from more or less the same place and have more or less the same culture? Wikipedia should not be erasing important and meaningful national distinctions in favor of reifying a questionable construction by the US census. However, even within this demographic, national origin within the faux-ethnic category of Hispanic/Latino has been a distinction drawn by the US government for quite some time: just look at this year's US census form or any EEO self-identification form. Finally, I would like to point out that both Lawrlafo and I are both scholars in the field. (These distinctions are, unfortunately, all too often left out of Wikipedia discussions.) I'm a faculty member at Harvard, where I received my PhD in Romance Languages and Literatures. I will let Lawrlafo identify himslef if he so wishes, suffice it to say that he is a well-known expert on LGBT and Hispanic studies. --Jsterron (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Jsterron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Against merging: I agree with Lawrlafo and Jsterron's arguments against lumping all Hispanic or Latino BGLQT artists and celebrities under one category Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people that would dispense with the individual's ethnicity, race, nationality or provenance in general. As Robert Darnton observed in his book, The Great Cat Massacre, "Setting up categories and policing them is ... a serious business." (193, Vintage Books, 1985.) Similar valid objections would arise if an attempt were made to merge Latin-American or Hispanic "lesbians", "bisexuals", "queers" or "transgenders" into a category such as "Hispanic or Latino (sic) American-Gay (or Homosexual) people". Please respect a group's freedom to be classified as it desires. It's the democratic way. (For what it's worth: I am a lawyer and writer, and a student of Puerto Rican-Hispanic and Puerto Rican-Anglo, among other, literatures.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broncocastro (talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Broncocastro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Against merging
  

I have read though this whole discussion, and have the following comments:

• To say the existing "LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent" cat should not stay because "no other category categorizes LGBT people by a specific national descent", is like saying the US should not build a space station because no other country is doing that, or that American men should not dye their hair because men from other countries don't do that, or that the Census should not ask for your ethnicity because other countries don't ask for it. In other words, if we all thought that way, there would be no progress...

• Is catting by sub-ethnic group slicing too thin? No. Otherwise why is the US Census asking for sub-ethnicity its Census questionnaire? Or why does Wikipedia itself do it in more than one place (SUCH AS HERE)? Or, otherwise why do your friends ask your sub-ethnicity the minute after you tell them you are Latino? Wikipedia should be a reflection of reality, not some mechanized system where the product that has to fit a given pre-conceived mold. So, no, sub-catting by ethnicity is not slicing too thin. However, subslicing by city within the country of origin, I would admit that at this point is slicing too thin.

• It is common knowledge that Puerto Ricans from the mainland act, think, behave, etc, differently to those from the Island. This is a sociological phenomenon. "LGBT people from Puerto Rico" should go into Category:LGBT people from Puerto Rico and "LGBT people from the mainland of Puerto Ricans descent" should go into Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent to reflect this phenomenon.

• Merging Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent to Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people would be taking a step backwards from sociological reality in the US, backwards from the direction that Puerto Ricans (and other Latino sub-ethnicities) are talking in the U.S. Unlike race, where you can leave it at white, black, yellow, green, etc, (or Anglo-Saxons, etc; take your pick) ethnicity does not follow such straight rules. Instead of merging, we should be sub-categorizing the Latino LGBT group. If Wikipedia was 5 years old, I would say "Yeah, leave the lowest category at LBGT Latino"; but it has grown and the next logical step of that growth is greater granularity. As an example, when Wikipedia was young, there were articles only about countries and global cities, but as it expanded, towns were added, then districts within those towns, then neighborhoods within those districts, then streets within those neighboorhoods, etc. Pennsylvania Avenue, Fifth Avenue, blah blah blah.

• People of Puerto Rican descent in the US do not always consider themselves Americans, and not always Puerto Rican either. In essence their ethnicity (as well as nationality, but let's no go there) is this: what they say it to be. Puerto Ricans in the US have developed their own culture: they are neither Puerto Ricans, nor Americans, but at the same time they are both Puerto Rican and American (but almost never, American and Puerto Rican). I guess you have to be Puerto Rican to understand this phenomenon fully. Unfortunately most people who have seen Puerto Ricans in the mainland, have only seen one side of this equation, and generally do not know what this really means.

• Some people have this idea that what defines a person's nationality as Puerto Rican is determined "by where they were born and raised and worked and lived and died," etc. (all of which are usually "here, there, and everywhere"), or determined "by the country or countries within which the person has actually occupied some physical or cultural space, and not the country where their parents or grandparents came from," (ignoring the circular migration patterns of most Puerto Ricans, ignoring the lack of a solid cultural identity of most Puerto Ricans, and ignoring the dual residency of many Puerto Ricans). But nothing could be further from reality. You could apply that rule to the Italians or to the Irish, who went to the US and settled, and lived their lives there, and that made them Americans. But the undefined political situation between PR and the US, unlike the situation between the Italy/Ireland and the US, is in limbo, Such undefined political situation is the basis from which this whole debate rises, and the basis for the "uniqueness" of Puerto Ricans in the US. A category such as Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent will make sure all such groups can be properly categorized. As a side note: It might help understand this (to an extent) if you check out the Jews who, despite being born, raised, lived, worked, died, etc., in the US, several generations later they are still Jews. That might help understand why many Puerto Ricans in the US after being born, raised, educated, lived, worked, died, etc., in the US they are still Puerto Ricans -- or at least they are "People of Puerto Rican descent" -- but not Americans.

• To say that "the Puerto Rico/U.S. situation with nationality and ethnicity complications is far from unique in the world" is making an oversimplification. Such oversimplifications should not form the basis for not keeping the existing Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent. I won't get into the details (because they often involve politics and, you know, a discussion on politics always has a beginning but never an end), but the problem is that the PR/US situation (with nationality and ethnic complications) does not have to be unique in the "world", for none of the categories under discussion encompass The World: it only has to be unique in the United States....and IT IS. For no matter how much American a Mexican, Monserrattean, etc, is, only Puerto Rico holds that unique place were Puerto Ricans are American citizens, but Puerto Ricans in nationality, where Puerto Ricans are born in the US, but continue to be Puerto Ricans many generations later, and where even for purposes of The US Government itself, "in an international sense" Puerto Ricans are not from a foreign country, since they are subjects of a land owned by the U.S., but "in a domestic sense" Puerto Ricans are foreign to the U.S. because their land has not been incorporated into the United States. So, to say that the PR/US situation...is far from unique, is, forgive my frankness, a very short-sighted declaration, and one which cannot be the foundation for a merge/no-merge recommendation. So catting by sexuality and ethnic or national descent is not overcategorizing, at least not in the case of Puerto Ricans.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

• COMMENT: Thank you, Mercy11, for your observation and especially for your detailed and thoughtful comments and arguments against the merging of the categories in question. Bronco Castro (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Bronco Castro[reply]
• Response to Ol'factory's persistent personal attacks and threats: For the sake of clarification, I think that all concerned should know that Ol'factory continues to press this issue with me in private, via "talk" messages on this site. I have said all that I can to quiet the alleged "suspicions", but now Ol'factory continues to badger me about my having offended his, or her, feelings. I have no interest in communicating with this person in private or otherwise anymore. Please, Ol'factory, cease in attacking me and stick to defending your proposed merge. Thank you, Sincerely, Bronco Castro (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Bronco Castro[reply]
  • I apologised to you and invited you to similarly retract some of your more inflammatory comments here. This is a rather graceless way to reject attempt at a reconciliation. Nice going. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apology accepted, so let's start over, please. Truce? I'd be happy to let bygones be bygones and discuss the matter at hand. I'm just not interested in defending myself or my motives, or retracting my comments about your word choices and arguments. I'm sorry that any of them offended you. I did not mean to offend you, personally. I'd be happy to continue an open but sensitive and intelligent discussion over the necessity for the separate category, or as "Lawrlafo" has proposed creating the various categories. I think that what this scholar and contributor has done is essential to facilitating research, as well edifying for the diverse BGLQT communities, specifically on the different and stellar contributions from their members. I also agree with all of the responses made by "Mercy11" and others in support of maintaining the separate category. Bronco Castro (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Bronco Castro[reply]
      • Yes, that's what I was trying to achieve. There's no reason we can't move on. I am satisfied that I have had my say as to my opinion and don't need to restate it. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I actually support a merger to Category:LGBT people from Puerto Rico, followed by a rename to "Puerto Rican LGBT people". However, I do not support such a merger to Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people. People that were born in PR but raised in the US are commonly included in such "ethnic" categories (wrongly included, but whatever). Being Puerto Rican is not just an ethnicity; while the Puerto Rican citizenship is a chimera of sorts and the American one was subsequently imposed, the validity of the first was never revoked. That argument has been taken to court before and discussed all over, but it is still a valid observation. Hence the difference between those that were born in the archipelago but raised in the US and those that were born to Puerto Rican parents (most of which are more "Puerto Rican" than some people born in Puerto Rico). Anyways, by simply stating "Puerto Rican LGBT people" we avoid the whole issue, including both groups. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:29, 4 July 2010 (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.