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 change per this concurrent debate on the subject. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Multiple categories of such types "of" the US or sublocation to corresponding category "in" the US or sublocation.

Nominator's rationale: Multiple Renames. Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas#rename Protected areas categories, there are multiple categories of articles covered by WP:PAREAS that use incorrect "of" when "in" is called for. Protected areas are designated by the IUCN, a world-wide body, so protected areas in the United States or any subdivision are "in" the US or subdivision, they are not designations "of" the US or subdivision. The US also designates National Monuments and National Forests, which are "of the United States" but "in" any given state. Not designated by IUCN, but, similarly, there are bird sanctuaries and wildlife sanctuaries categories that are more properly described as "in" rather than "of". The US government may designate Bird Sanctuaries and Wildlife Sanctuaries, but the categories are best used to describe all such sanctuaries designated by anyone. This proposal to rename multiple categories this way is a follow-on to similar proposal, accepted and implemented, for renaming of National Historic Landmarks that are designated by the US government from "in state" to "of state" a while ago. I posted proposal to rename within WP:PAREAS, and I amended the proposal for some additional information. No comments were received; i interpret that is because this is a reasonable request. I am not requesting "speedy" treatment because there is no urgency, to provide for wider notice, and to allow for any comments/modifications. Note, i include in the "from" list of proposed "changes" a number of red-links, as there are no sanctuaries in some states, in order to verify completeness of the request and for ease of preparation of this request. It seems best to show categories for all states, even where non-existent. The proposal is not to create new empty categories; if/when implementing please disregard the non-existent categories. doncram (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please change from / to:

Request is all the renames as noted above, except of course for where the "from" category does not exist.

• Comment. What a long nomination! My concern is with 'Protected areas'. I'm concerned that it may be a bit ambiguous. It is clear from how it is used what is intended and that is the common name. But as a category name it is ambiguous. Since we are considering a mass rename, now would be a good time to consider this issue since the nomination is on the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Yes, it is huge, it took me a long time just now to edit in all the appropriate notices to every category affected. I agree you are right to be concerned about the term "protected area". It does seem ambiguous. I have raised related issues to this repeatedly in WP:PAREAS talk area, specifically about how the term has been misapplied (in my opinion) to various U.S. National Memorials such as Jefferson Memorial. I and several others seem to have a working consensus, consistent with the stated goal of the wikiproject, that the term should be applied to protected areas as defined by IUCN (and perhaps as listed in a database, WDPA), which mean environmental areas designated by a government to protect biological diversity and natural features, as opposed to "National" monuments that might merely designate a memorial but have no natural environment protection. I wonder if all occurences of "Protected area" should be changed to capital "Protected Area" and very clearly defined to refer to IUCN/WDPA-designated areas, only. See discussion in Talk of WP:PAREAS. However, in terms of this proposal, this proposal does accomplish the correction of "in" vs. "of". There are no "protected areas" formally designated as such by the US or any sub-government. So, while it might be an improvement to change "Protected area" to "Protected Area" in the proposal, if that could be supported by some consensus to create the formal term, in order to refer specifically to IUCN designated areas, the proposal as it stands would implement an improvement. I presume you do not oppose the proposal as it stands, you just wonder if it could be further improved? If that is correct, please also comment in WP:PAREAS, which unfortunately is not a very active wikiproject right now. I guess i feel that further modifications, from "Protected area in ___" to "Protected Area in ___" should be left to a later CFD. doncram (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment This change will make the US categories different from the worldwide categories found in Category:Protected areas by country and perhaps in some countries' subcats. Either the US cats should not change or all the world-wide categories should be changed also. Hmains (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • response Good point about the protected areas in the proposal. I actually was just noticing part of that problem, as i responded to a posting in Talk of wp:PAREAS about some protected areas in Canada. I am not sure about how the process here is supposed to work, but I will try expanding the proposal to include all of the other protected areas outside of the U.S. About the National Monuments and the National Forests, however, the comment does not apply. National Monuments and National Forests are "of" the U.S. and may be "in" but are not "of" any given state. Thanks. doncram (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • followup I created a separate proposal Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 13#Renames of categories for National Parks, Protected Areas, related categories world-wide to clean up related categories world-wide. If it is appropriate to extend the closing date of this proposal so that it closes simultaneously with the other proposal, that would be fine by me. The other proposal, consistently, systematically addresses the use of "national parks", a term which I perceive to be a wikipedia-only coined term. I propose to eliminate that in category titles, moving to "National Parks of COUNTRY" terminology instead, for National Parks designated by a given country. doncram (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • further followup That CFR proposal is going badly. User:Gnagarra there notes "I dont see any reason to propose wholesale changes just because your suggestion for US categories was questioned in relation to other country formats. I dont think I'll do much browsing of other country formats, as I dont see any reason to make such changes....", and it seems the consensus there may be that cleanups specific to one nation at a time are preferred. I would like for this US-specific proposal, here, to go through. doncram (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S. I am hopeful that a revised proposal there, cleaning up use of just the Protected areas term, and avoiding thorny issues about the proper use of "National parks" as defined by states within the nation of Australia, will be accepted. doncram (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fugitives wanted on sexual assault charges to Category:Fugitives wanted on sex crime charges

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think category "Fugitives wanted on sexual assault charges" should be renamed as "Fugitives wanted on sex offense charges" or something similar. There are so many sex crimes other than "sexual assault", and the term itself seems to be overused. For example, John Mark Karr and Richard Steve Goldberg were fugitives wanted for possession of child pornography. Renaming would make things easier. Reverend X (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - categorizing fugitives on the basis of the type of crime they're alleged to have committed is overcategorization. It also raises WP:BLP concerns because, while the charges are a factual matter, tagging people as alleged sex offenders is highly controversial and should be left to articles, where the allegation can be properly sourced. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepRename per nom; if we're going to be in the business of categorizing fugitives, categorizing why they are fugitives seems entirely appropriate. I see no WP:BLP concerns: we aren't saying that they are sex criminals, merely that they are doing something somewhere else whilst they are wanted to answer somewhere for sex charges. As for sourcing, we have that same issue for convictions as well, but we categorize fraudsters, murderers and others for which categories are in the same position vis-a-vis fugitives. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom for clarity and inclusiveness. Hmains (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (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 with Category:Fugitives wanted by the United States. Kbdank71 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FBI Wanted Fugitives ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is useless, there is already category "Fugitives wanted by the United States". Reverend X (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Fugitives wanted by the United States. Although you technically could be a fugitive wanted by a United States agency but not be wanted by the FBI, these cases will be rare and being wanted by the FBI does not really add anything more defining once someone is a fugitive wanted by the U.S. For those that made the FBI's "Top 10 List", they can be placed in Category:FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Good Ol’factory - don't know whether the FBI keeps a different list than the DEA, INS, ATF, IRS, and other g-men, t-men, etc., but presumably being on any of their lists is basically similar. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- with Category:Fugitives wanted by the United States. - Longhair\^talk 23:10, 13 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People on British stamps ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category is a cross-namespace redirect to List of people on stamps of the United Kingdom. That list contains several dozen entries, while the category contains only 3 articles. I don't actually have an opinion about whether this information should be compiled in the form of a list or a category, but it seems horribly confusing to have both. Russ (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not defining—perfect material for list. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List is much better for this; for very few people is being on a stamp defining: one is usually on a stamp due to one's prior notabiity or royal birth (which makes you notable here usually). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2008 (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. Wizardman 04:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images uploaded by userFugitivedread ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for individual user's uploaded photos, if allowed would set precedent to keep a similiar type of category for every user. Galleries are usually found on user subpages, there is no need to make a category for this. See similar precedent. VegaDark (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bad precedent; what would be next: Category:Articles edited by user:______, Category:Articles started by user:_________, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (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. Wizardman 04:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Game show card games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category is redundant, is not accurate (listing segments from a game show; not gameshows themselves), and seems to have little potential for growth. Modor (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the category is not tagged for discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now it is tagged for deletion. Munci (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Confusing category at best. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. These are not "card games" as that term is generally understood. They are game shows or segments of game shows that happen to use cards for some purpose. The Price is Right has dozens of pricing games that use various props and it is not useful to categorize them on the basis of what props are used, and it is similarly not useful to categorize shows based on the props. Up next Category:Game shows with wheels, Category:Game shows with buzzers, etc. Otto4711 (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per previous cfd decision. 2005 (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous CFD decision was no consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Confusing. MBisanz ^talk 08:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (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 both to Category:Irish people of Iraqi descent. Kbdank71 13:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Irish of Iraqi descent to Category:Iraqi-Irish people

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category created after the redirection of Category:Iraqi-Irish people and recategorisation of the only article in the category. I have reverted the redirect and undone the recategorisation, because this should have been brought to CFD. I make no recommendation either way other than to note that there is obviously no need for both categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse mergeSupport Necrothesp renaming as per recent similar nomination discussion (down this page), as the former naming (more) clearly indicates that Irish citizens of Iraqi descent are to be listed Mayumashu (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both categories to Category:Irish people of Iraqi descent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Necrothesp. These hyphenated categories are liable to be ambiguous. I do not know if there are Irish-Iraqis - probably not many, but there might be. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per the above comments. The expanded phrasing is much clearer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as unnecessary ethnic categories. Are Iraqis sufficiently homogenous that Iraqi-Irish is the same for Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, Christian, whatever? If so, then let's axe all the Fooian Iraqi cats; if not this cat is useless by mixing up things that other wikipedians think ought not be mixed. Can't we all regard these ethnic categories are not useful by now? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per Necrothesp. This solution provides clarity which is what WP should provide to its readers. Hmains (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British military personnel of the Transvaal War to Category:British military personnel of the First Boer War

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Almost always referred to in English as the First Boer War, which is the title of the Wikipedia article on the war. Transvaal War is a pretty obscure name. The same also goes for Category:People of the Transvaal War and Category:British people of the Transvaal War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. However think we should also rename Category:British military personnel of the Boer War (and associated cats) to Category:British military personnel of the Second Boer War Kernel Saunters (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian-Irish to Category:Irish people of Indian descent

Nominator's rationale: Incomplete nomination, listed here purely to complete the procedure after the category was tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination Mayumashu (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - these hyphenated dual nationality categories are liable to be misleading. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Much clearer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary ethnic category. We have Category:Indian people by ethnic or national origin and its subcats, so pray-tell which ethnic or national origin are these Irish people descended from? Utterly useless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom shipbuilders to Category:British shipbuilders

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "British" is the descriptor used for pretty much every other category and has the advantage of being an adjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - given the preponderance of shipbuilders in Northern Ireland (about which there are continual arguments regarding the adjective "British"), this could be a thorny one. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The category really only acts as a holding cat for subcats for the different countries of Britain. In any case, there is no compelling reason why this category should be different from 99% of others, which also include people from Northern Ireland. It's always possible to categorise Northern Irish people under both British and Irish cats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - (these are people rather than companies). It should be a subcat of Category:British people by occupation (and in fact contains no NI subcat anyway). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - per nom. Craigy (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Left wing activists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Objective category, fails naming convention. Also would fails 3.1 neutrality. MrPrada (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Surely you mean "subjective"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea yea, 4:30 am nomination, grin. MrPrada (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Whenever possible, people who are notable as activists should be categorized by a specific type of activism they were associated with (LGBT rights, environmentalism, etc.) rather than simply as "left-wing" or "right-wing". Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, cat difficult to define. At some point the entire 'activist' cat needs to be discussed. --Soman (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Potential to keep it - This and its subcategory (next item) currently have one item - for New Zealand. I suspect the objective is to deal with the extreme left - revolutionary socialists, marxists, trotskyites, etc. If so, this is a potentially valuable super-category. However, perhaps there is a better name for it. I am not sure we can judge its value until it is better populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete left-wing is NPOV and subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Left wing activists by nationality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Objective category, fails naming convention. Also would fails 3.1 neutrality. MrPrada (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Surely you mean "subjective"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea yea, 4:30 am nomination, grin. MrPrada (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Whenever possible, people who are notable as activists should be categorized by a specific type of activism they were associated with (LGBT rights, environmentalism, etc.) rather than simply as "left-wing" or "right-wing". Also, this isn't being used correctly anyway; a category of this type should be a container for "Left-wing activists from (Country)" subcategories, not for individual articles. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per supercat. --Soman (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• See previous item where I have commented. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment in the parent cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AIDS reappraisal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Comment This was originally tagged for speedy deletion, but probably should have been brought here instead for a renaming. The replacement category, Category:AIDS denialism, has already been created and the articles moved there. I originally opposed the deletion/move, but after a lengthy discussion I changed my mind. I do think that the discussion there should be preserved (perhaps transferred here?) if the category is deleted, but otherwise do not oppose the deletion/move. Sapphic (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Summary of the discussion (from my POV only): the RSes use the term AIDS denial, instead of this term, to describe the foci previously covered by this category. I have recategorized them with the term used by the RSes. Antelan^talk 15:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion, as the category's been replaced under a different name. However, the discussion on the talk page should be moved to Category talk:AIDS denialism rather than deleted. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2008 (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 to Category:Australian criminals. Kbdank71 13:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian mobsters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Mobster is a term that doesn't see widespread use when describing criminals and organised crime in Australia as far as my research efforts can determine. Longhair\^talk 06:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the plan to sent the articles back to the parent category Category:Australian criminals? If so, I support deletion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Longhair\^talk 03:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with prejudice - even the Australian media - notorious for picking up non Australian usage of english do not necessarily use such a term when referring to the various characters worthy of such a label SatuSuro 08:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and find an alternative word to use, if necessary. This is part of the overall classification scheme of Category:Mobsters by nationality. Not all the subcategories use "mobster": e.g., Category:French gangsters. Even if the word mobster is not used in Australia, surely the social phenomena of "mobsterism"/organized crime exists. What the Australians call it is another matter altogether, but deletion is not the solution to that issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I understand this correctly - you are answering my comment - not reading the discussion higher above - if I read it correctly myself - it is going back to australian criminals if there is sufficient support - which is what I would consider a less problematic term SatuSuro 03:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. My comment is not connected to yours. I'm saying I think the category should be kept as part of an overall classification scheme. If Australians object to the word "mobster" as being one that is not used in Australia, then I'm suggesting we find another one. "Criminal" is the general parent category, and I don't support a deletion of this category and an upmerge to the more general category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and resend articles to Category:Australian criminals. No need for a second categorisation. --VS ^talk 06:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge the articles back into Category:Australian criminals. It's not really clear what the difference is between the two, which I believe indicates overcategorisation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I agree it is not common Australian usage Matt (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish astronauts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete If "Jewish" here refers to religion, this is overcategorization by non-notable intersection because Jewish astronauts are not different from Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist astronauts in any major way. See another CFD on a Muslims astronauts category (result there was "delete and listify"). If "Jewish" here refers to nationality or ethnic identity beyond religion, it is overcategorization because all of the individuals included are of American or Israeli nationality, and astronauts are generally considered to be from a country before we think of them as being from their other ethnic or cultural groups. What would an article called "Jewish astronauts" say that would be unique from Astronaut? See also ProveIt's long list of precedents deleting occupations by ethnicity or religion. In the past, categories for Jewish mathematicians, inventors, economists, and psychologists have been deleted. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In the Muslim Cfd my comment was "Listify at least - these will be hard to find otherwise, & are certainly of interest. The trouble is only a couple were long-term astronauts, so most don't really fit in a "Muslims by occupation" category here." However, in this case the situation is different, as with the single exception of the Israeli Ilan Ramon all were or are long-term NASA astronauts, who belong in the 39-strong Category:Jews by occupation. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being "certainly of interest" seems to be a good reason to have a list, but not to have a category for which a unique article would be pointless. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Not sure you have read my comment correctly. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just unsure what your rationale for keeping this category is. What would an article called Jewish astronauts look like? People are defined by being an American astronaut, or an Israeli astronaut, but by being a Jewish astronaut? Like the Muslim one, it may be interesting, but how is it defining?

Where does this idea that every category in a tree must be capable of having an article come from? We don't have Brazilian politicians. Are you saying being Jewish is not defining? Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it had to have an article, but I was thinking of this idea that it is a non-notable intersection unless an article could be written for the intersection:

"Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one. Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career." (See WP:OCAT for this quote.)

The point is, one could write an article about Brazilian politicians. Not so much for Jewish astronauts. How does being Jewish have a "significant bearing on their career" as an astronaut? I am not saying being Jewish is not defining. Being Jewish is defining. Being an astronaut from a specific country is defining. But being a Jewish astronaut (an intersection) is not defining. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding Jewish astronauts rather easier to imagine than Brazilian politicians. When does Shabbat start in space? how to keep kosher? - all that. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at Category:Jews by occupation we have Category:Jewish scientists(1 no consensus cfd) but not Category:Jewish mathematicians (deleted at the 3rd attempt). At least upmerge to the 2 obvious parents. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. as per User:Johnbod. --Kaaveh (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Jewish people are, at least sometimes, seen as an ethno-cultural group. This accounts for a large number of the "Jews by occupation" categories. Even if one disagrees with this assessment, it is a non-trivial point of view which merits the categorization. -Eliyak T·C 13:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Sigh). To restate, I don't disagree with the view of Jews being an ethno-cultural group. What I do disagree with is that persons are notable or defined by being Jewish astronauts. They are notable or defined by being American astronauts or Israeli astronauts. There is no "Jewish" space program. Either there is a basic misunderstanding to the underlying rationale for the nomination, or people are just choosing not to address it directly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary race/religion/ethnicity cat. Do Jews in space do anything differently than their non-Jewish counterparts? Is it better or worse? Can't tell - then not defining/trivial. And how many books have been written on this subject/intersection? OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at Category:English people by occupation. Many of these occupations are not affected by nationality. Justify this. --Eliyak T·C 03:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • so when does Shabbat start in space? (See above) Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as noted, there is no "Jewish" space program. This is an instance where categorizing by religion and occupation, even though yes yes "Jewish" is considered an ethnicity for some categorization purposes, doesn't work. Otto4711 (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above, occupation by nationality, Jews are an ethno-religious group. Epson291 (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The guideline referenced is outdated, and has been misapplied and/or haphazardly applied. In fact, there has never been an actual concensus against the existence of categories like this -- which is what the guideline was supposed to reflect. These ethnicity-occupation categories are every bit as "defining" -- or non-defining -- as are (or aren't) the nationality-occupation categories -- and an awful lot of editors share that view. Cgingold (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Superheroes without aliases ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - no clear inclusion criteria for Japanese superheroes, like Son Goku and Son Gohan, who are categorized here. Unless there is a specific reason for this, I'd much rather prefer the deletion of this cat. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong listify - While I think that this is interesting, useful, valuable and valid information, a category just isn't the way to do this. Making this a list would also allow for discussions about inclusion (such as the nominator's concerns). - jc37 22:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutely cruft. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2008 (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 on may 16. Kbdank71 13:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose 'merging' Category:People from Dominica to Category:Dominican people

Nominator's rationale: to match naming convention at Category:People by nationality and to match naming used for this page's sub-category pages. there's no need to maintain this page naming to avoid a mix-up with Category:Dominican Republic people as a statement of disambiguation at the top of the nominated page can handle this perfectly well enough Mayumashu (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I can tentatively agree to this as now pretty much a housekeeping change, on the assumption that there will be a clear definition at the top of the category with a link to Category:Dominican Republic people and also at least a "see also" to Category:Dominicans for the religious group. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge - in view of the possibility of miscategorisation of members of the Dominican Order and People from the Dominican Republic. Sometimes consistency cannot be perfect. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge as above. Too many "Dominicans" around for this to be clearcut otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2008 (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. Kbdank71 13:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Brest Province to Category:Brest Voblast

Nominator's rationale: There is only Voblast in Belarus, and per the tree system. Matthew_hk tc 02:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency, and avoiding confusion with Brest, France. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2008 (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 all. Kbdank71 13:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hospitals in Baltimore to Category:Hospitals in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Hospitals in Baltimore County to Category:Hospitals in Baltimore County, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Hospitals in Clark County to Category:Hospitals in Clark County, Nevada

Propose renaming Category:Hospitals in Las Vegas to Category:Hospitals in Las Vegas, Nevada

Propose renaming Category:Hospitals in Omaha to Category:Hospitals in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Hospitals in Philadelphia to Category:Hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Hospitals in Pittsburgh to Category:Hospitals in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Hospitals in Seattle to Category:Hospitals in Seattle, Washington

Nominator's rationale: Per recent "city, state" precedents. All other categories of this type have the state listed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per precedent, although personally I feel that if the main category page (eg. Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) contains the disambiguate state name, the sub-cat pages don t need it as well and the result is unnecessary clutter Mayumashu (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Hospitals in Clark County to Category:Hospitals in Clark County, Nevada. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops. Just a cut and paste error. Made the fix.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename All - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support provided that the city cats are purged of hospitals outside their city limits. - DaronDierkes (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that apply to any of these? Is so, why not create a category for those. FYI you don't need to check Vegas as it is city only. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename with a purge, given some of the county cats this has probably occurred. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2008 (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. This seems to be a very large mess, which will require much manual work before a solution can be found. Regardless of which way this should go, deletion or renaming, or splitting, some people need to be removed based upon what descent they are from. I recommend doing this prior to a re-nomination. Kbdank71 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latin American and Iberian Britons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Nominator's rationale: almost entirely incidental combination of ethnicities/nationalities for Britons, without precedent as a category page and without corresponding article page Mayumashu (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What a mess! The lack of a corresponding article is not an issue in these categories, but this combination is far too wide. Many Gibraltarians who always lived in Gibraltar are included too, yet the Gibraltarian cats are not here as sub-cats. Dominic Miller may well be the child of expats, by the sound of it - born in Argentina, but then grew up in the US & UK. There is an exhaustive section on the "Family background" of Charles Palmer-Tomkinson which has no "Hispanic" element mentioned at all. On the other hand there are a lot of articles here, and apart from Brazil, Equador and Mexico, there is no category for the rest of the Middle and South Americans. This should be repurposed as just for them, with the existing American cats still beneath, but not the Spanish and Portuguese. But someone needs to go through removing the Europeans, Brazilians etc while checking they are in the right cats already (which most seem to be), and removing ones with no mention of Hispanicity in their articles. I would not support a straight deletion. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments A remarkable find - the collection of parent categories is particularly striking. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, yes - I forgot to mention that. But there is Category:People of Latin American descent, which is all that is needed. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• commentsLatin American is an ethnic grouping for North Americans, but I don t know about in Europe. It could be renamed to Category:British people of Latin American descent with "Iberians" removed (as there already is a by Portuguese and by Spanish descent cat pages in place. But I don t want the work (I m rather busy with following through with the list below) so someone else will need to do the salvage work Mayumashu (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (if not Delete) this very OR category to Category:Latin American Britons. As Mayumashu noted, there are categories for the Portuguese and Spanish already. Whether a delete or rename is done, many people will have to be recated anyway. SamEV (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and assign people to Category:British people of Spanish descent, Category:British people of Portuguese descent (which doesn't actually exist - Portuguese-English is not the same thing) and Category:British people of Latin American descent (or subcats) as appropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another race/ethnicity cat with no utility; what makes British people of Latin American descent distinct from those not? Ditto Iberian? And what makes the Iberians necessarily alike to the Latin Americans? Perhaps in Britain they cannot distinguish between a full-blooded Guarani and someone from Gibraltar, so we'll just lump them together because it feels good. WP shame on us. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well concensus here seems to be to separate them out of the current lump. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "full-blooded Guarani" wouldn't be of Latin American descent, now would they! The term implies at least some Spanish or Portuguese blood. Or does in Britain at least. I fail to see why you hate these ethnic categories so much. People's descent is important to them, so why not to Wikipedia? Categorising people by occupation and ethnic origin is fairly pointless, but not by nationality and ethnic origin. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that myself - I think it means anyone from Latin America, regardless of ethnicity. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends whether you're referring to a Latin American country or a Latin American person. For the former I'd agree with you, for the latter I wouldn't. This category obviously does largely refer to the former, since its subcats refer to countries, but Carlossuarez46's comment referred to the latter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2008 (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/merge all. Kbdank71 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging

• Category:British Egyptians to Category:British people of Egyptian descent
• Category:Filipino Britons to Category:British people of Filipino descent
• Category:Indian Britons to Category:British people of Indian descent
• Category:British Bengalis to Category:British people of Bengali descent
• Category:Brazilian-Britons to Category:British people of Brazilian descent
• Category:British Asians to Category:British people of South Asian descent
• Category:British Sri Lankans to Category:British people of Sri Lankan descent
• Category:British Iraqis to Category:British people of Iraqi descent
• Category:British Iranians to Category:British people of Iranian descent
• Category:British Greeks to Category:British people of Greek descent
• Category:Hong Kong British to Category:British people of Hong Kong descent
• Category:Mexican Britons to Category:British people of Mexican descent
• Category:Serbian British people to Category:British people of Serbian descent
• Category:Spanish Britons to Category:British people of Spanish descent
• Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain to Category:British people of Irish descent
• Category:Jamaican-English people to Category:English people of Jamaican descent
• Category:African-English people to Category:English people of African descent
• Category:Anglo-Cypriots to Category:English people of Cypriot descent
• Category:Barbadian-English people to Category:English people of Barbadian descent
• Category:English-Democratic Republic of the Congo people to Category:English people of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent
• Category:Anglo-Dutch people to Category:English people of Dutch descent
• Category:Anglo-French people to Category:English people of French descent
• Category:Grenadian-English people to Category:English people of Grenadian descent
• Category:Guyanese-English people to Category:English people of Guyanese descent
• Category:Anglo-Italians to Category:English people of Italian descent
• Category:Portuguese-English people to Category:English people of Portuguese descent
• Category:Romanian-English to Category:English people of Romanian descent
• Category:Saint Lucian-English people to Category:English people of Saint Lucian descent

*Category:Anglo-Scots to Category:English people of Scottish descentremoved by nominator as per comments provided - there needs to be Cat:Eng p of Scot. desc and Cat:Scot p. of Eng. desc. both set up as some point as sub-cats for this cat page Mayumashu (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:English Trinidadians to Category:English people of Trinidad and Tobago descent
• Category:Turkish-English people to Category:English people of Turkish descent
• Category:Italian-Welsh people to Category:Welsh people of Italian descent

(Scots not included in this nom. as these pages present the additional problem of deciding whether it should be 'Scots by Fooian descent' (the more concise) or 'Scottish people of Fooian descent' (matching English, French, Dutch pattern))

Nominator's rationale: what is meant by the name (British people of Fooian descent, although some cat pages listed as it stands include both Britons of Fooian descent and Fooians of British descent mixed), is more self-evident with this naming pattern, which has been becoming the conventional one on wikip. (Some people presently listed on these pages may not be citizens of the U.K. - will purge pages of expats, other non-British citizens should the nomination go through) Mayumashu (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Those "Fooian Booians" names for nationalities/descent are abominable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and per GoodOlf; and make sure that no Booian Fooians have infiltrated the Fooian Booians. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge per nom, except for Category:English people of Scottish descent (see way below), and Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain which should be kept, per many precedents, as many keep Irish citizenship and identity, and for the historical ones it was the same citizenship anyway. Also with Roundhouse's qualification. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why have this exception? those who have kept Irish citizenship and have British citizenship too would, where warranted, listed both as Irish (of British descent) and British of Irish descent. on the other hand, Irish in Britain w/o British citizenship are listed at Category:Irish expatriates in the United Kingdom. Agree fully though that pre-1923 people native to Ireland were (many to their chagrin, be that as it was) British Mayumashu (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read some of the articles relating to Northern Ireland for a start. Identification as British is objectionable to many of these people, and there is no obligation or advantage in them taking British citizenship. Category:Irish expatriates in the United Kingdom has precisely 4 members. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a problem as someone from NI who takes Irish citizenship and not British and resides in NI is then an Irish expat in the UK. Mayumashu (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not, or at least that is an unacceptably POV way of putting it. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These proposed changes are problematic as quite a few of the people in these categories were actually born in these countries so to describe them as being of x descent is somewhat misleading. Also with the Category:Anglo-French people category, I limited it to people with at least a French grandparent. If we use the "descent" naming, this could encourage people of very distant descent to be added making the categories overly large and of little use. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it s a valid point. immigrants should have their own cat pages (some have been started up). I think though that there needs to some link and that making immigrant cat page links to descent ones is one answer. another one could be to collect immigrants, people of descent and expats under umbrella diaspora cat page like is in place now for Indians, Category:Indian diaspora by country. and to the other point you ve raised, I state above that I will purge non British citizens from these lists (I ll also start up Fooian of British or English descent where the need arises) Mayumashu (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you limit the distance of the ancestor in these descent categories? If this proposal goes through the French category should be changed to Category:British people of French descent not just English. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as an issue myself. The proposed treatment follows that throughout the tree. first-generation immigrants can have their own sub-cats if necessary. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Let's get a bit of consistency here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have changed a lot of the Anglo-x to British not English as it would not be practical to have separate Welsh categories, also corrected Hong Kong> Hong Kongese and Trinidad and Tobago>Trinidadian and Tobagan. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Trinidadian and Tobagan' would mean from both constitute parts of the country, not just either one. perhaps 'Category:Hong Kong people should be Category:Hong Kongese people but until that page is changed, I disagree that this one should be different Mayumashu (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mayumushu. Is "Hong Kongese" ever used? I've certainly never heard it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Please change them back; noms should not be altered on a whim in the middle of the process like this. Have you checked if the ones you changed to "English" have Scottish cats? Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was a good reason for changing to British not English, firstly since we need to include people from Wales and a Welsh category for each of these ethnicities would be too small, as well as the fact that many people in Ireland also used to be considered British. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Category:Welsh people by ethnic or national origin and subs contains just 15 people (Jews and Italians). I imagine that in practice "England" here is taken to mean "England and Wales", or Welsh people are put in British categories. To say "many people in Ireland also used to be considered British" suggests you are not exactly up to speed with the complexities in this area. Category:Anglo-Italians does in fact have Scottish and Welsh sub-cats, but renaming it to British is not the way to go; it should be renamed to English, and a new British parent added above all 3 sub-cats (since the Anglo category does appear to be all-English. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh people should not be put into English categories, but neither should all English categories be renamed to include non-English people. Think how the Scots and Welsh would react if their categories were so renamed! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. 18:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The proposition of Category:Anglo-Scots seems misplaced: if you look at the main article Anglo-Scot referenced from the category, it includes those "born in Scotland with English ancestry" contradicting the recategorisation to Category:English people of Scottish descent. The multiple usage of the term is to blame, but there is no virtue in renaming to make matters worse? AllyD (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - that one should be kept, as it seems to be a complete mixture, and for the moment ambiguity/having it both ways is the only accurate name. A new Category:English people of Scottish descent should be set up, in the hope someone feels like sorting them correctly. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. They should probably be better sorted into Category:English people of Scottish descent and Category:Scottish people of English descent, but for now the category should be left as is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete useless racial/ethnic categories; per my other comments on the racial/ethnic categories all up for debate here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these were truly defining someone would add Scottish, German, Greek, Danish, Dutch, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, French, Norse, and no doubt a bunch more to various members of the royal family whose descent from various people from those countries (whether ethnically or politically) is fairly well documented - presuming legitimacy, which we do for all the less well-born biographies in matters racial, ethnic, and religious.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of them have these. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, if their ancestry is recent then there's no reason not to include them in the categories. Is anyone saying there is? These categories seem to assume that at least one grandparent should be of that ethnicity/nationality for a person to qualify, which would make some royals eligible, but not all by any means. I think that's a fairly good qualifying standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename All the articles English people of.....descent should be renamed British people of......descent, for simplicity. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2008 (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: procedural close; 1) a change this major needs more than the nom and one comment. 2) what categories, exactly, are being nominated here? I'm not about to go check everything that starts with "Category:Disambig-Class" and ends in "articles". And from the lack of discussion, neither is anyone else. If relisting is desired, please list all of the categories you want renamed. If you don't know how, ask me. 3) Due to #2, I can't tell if any of the categories have been tagged. . Kbdank71 13:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming all of the Disambig-Class articles categories to pages:

Nominator's rationale: Disambig pages are not articles, as WP:WPDAB has stated, and many major projects have used the pages convention. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - virtually all of these categories are populated by templates, so whoever closes this nomination (if the renaming is approved) needs to ensure that all of the templates in question are updated. --Russ (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2008 (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.