< May 2 May 4 >

May 3

Category:African-American brass musicians

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 members moved to Category:Brass musicians and Category:African-American musicians.--Salix (talk): 18:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: last-rung-of-the-ladder again. Also, not sure if there is encyclopedic value in capturing this - we have many other super-cats of African-American + music, but down to a brass instrument, I'm not convinced. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course there are lots of African americans who play brass instruments. But is this defining? It doesn't really matter how many articles there are. the guidance at WP:EGRS is rather clear. If you can't fully diffuse, then you shouldn't create ethnic cats. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that WP:EGRS is "rather clear" on this pecise point. It's very confused on the matter. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the following guidance, at the end: "Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory." I suppose you could make the argument that Category:Brass musicians is itself fully diffusable since it contains all possible brass instruments, so maybe my issue with this cat is another one that I can't put my finger on - perhaps its the DEFINING question? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "fully" bit that is the issue and at the core of some of the disagreements that have been raging. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, now looking at Category:Brass musicians it does seem to diffuse pretty well. Ok, I will strike the guidance argument for now. Still worth discussing however, given that we have higher-level african-american + music cats, not sure if this particular one is defining. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ghettoization is undesirable but can be avoided by applying WP:EGRS -- meaning, adding in the specific topical subcategory and its non-ethnic parents. Redundant categorization. -- Lquilter
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hauptbahnhof

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Hauptbahnhof (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Hauptbahnhof in Austria
  • Propose deleting Category:Hauptbahnhof in Germany
  • Propose deleting Category:Hauptbahnhof in Switzerland
Nominator's rationale: I'm really not sure what to do with this category, but I'm leaning towards deletion. No other countries seem to have their central railway stations categorized apart from other railway stations. And the names of this category and its subcats are off—"Hauptbanhof" should really be replaced with "Hauptbanhofs," "Hauptbahnhöfe," or "Central stations," per the Hauptbahnhof redirect. We could go with the latter if we want to start separating central stations in their own category, but I think the simplest solution would be to delete the categories in question. BDD (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering putting the ostensible main article up for deletion, as it says little more than "a lot of places have a central station, whatever that is." Mangoe (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to properly nominate it for AfD, but you would have my !vote to at least replace all the meaningless text in that article with a disambiguation page which lists stations called "foo central station". - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orthodox Jews in London

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jews in Jerusalem

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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or based on the rhetoric we have had on some other discussions "no reason for the JEws to be ghettoized in their own category". Orf couse this just points out that the same thing can be a distinction or a marginzalization based on how you look at it. And yes, I do know that talking of Jews being "ghetoized" is probably invoking bad images, but it should with any other place as well, so maybe we should stop saying categories ghetoize people, becaue they clearly do not penialize people for being outside the gates after dark.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the argument about ghetoizing in categories. I see every separate category as a mark of distinction for the subject, group, or even individual covered. If they don't have a category, someone didn't think them interesting/worthwhile enough to have one. I just don's see the point of splitting categories on the historical population of a city by religious affiliation. Dimadick (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Jerusalem is also part of Category:Israeli people. In general we put lots of people in the people from x city cat who do not belong in the related nationality category, I am sure some in Category:People from Paris would not qualify as being French. We have long accepted this situation with Category:People from Gdansk which has both Polish and German parents. Realistically, there were no Palestinian people as such before 1900 (or maybe even later), but we have people from long before that in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sound of Contact

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. Neutralitytalk 14:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is way premature. This band has not even released its debut album yet. The category consists only of two articles on the band members and the albums subcategory. There's no reason to expect that it will grow beyond that for the foreseeable future. Pichpich (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, way premature. The band is new, their first album isn't released yet, they've never had a hit single. The only claim to fame they currently have is that two of the band members have extensive professional musician history/experience and one of them is Phil Collins' son. Band members aren't the band and on its own, the band hasn't really done anything notable yet except make an album. A lot of bands make one album, that doesn't make them more special than others. I certainly don't think it makes them special enough to have their own Wikipedia category. Winkelvi (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cuisine of Dayton, Ohio

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. Neutralitytalk 14:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. After removing the 3 restaurant chains/companies we are left with two articles. Follows similar nomination for Cuisine of Cleveland, Cuisine of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Cuisine of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, on second thought, that category does not exist, so I think we should delete this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Unreleased music videos

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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't think that a song with a video that was never released is a defining aspect of that song. Looking at the contents of the category, some of the videos may or may not exist, may or may not be authorized, are tangential to the history of the song (an interesting tidbit, but again not defining), and/or are not well sourced. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:John G. Clark Award recipients

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by award. The award is described as: "The John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies, is an award created by the American Family Foundation, in honor of noted Harvard psychiatrist, John Gordon Clark, M.D." Award recipients include various academics who are no doubt pleased and honored by the award, but the award serves to recognize their notable achievements, not confer a separate axis of notability. Non-defining and better handled as a list in the award page, where discussion of the reason why they won the award can be included. I've gone ahead and added the current members of the category to the article, but more information would probably be helpful. I also note that in a "cultic studies" field it's probably especially helpful to have references, which articles can accommodate but categories cannot. -- Lquilter (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're all in the article in the award section. With the sole exception of the named honoree, and I haven't been able to find any documentation that he was actually awarded the award itself. --Lquilter (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:James Madison Freedom of Information Award recipients

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. Neutralitytalk 14:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:James Madison Freedom of Information Award recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#Award. Overcategorization by award. The EFF, Daniel Ellsberg, and Lawrence Ferlinghetti were all properly recognized and honored by this Bay Area-based award, but the award itself does not define an activist organization, a whistleblower/First Amendment litigant, and a poet/bookstore founder. Award-winners should be (and are) listed at the James Madison Freedom of Information Award, where some context and information about the reason for their award can be given. --Lquilter (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Adams Prize recipients

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by award. This is an annual prize for early career work in mathematics. It recognizes good work & the potential for more good work, but while it is an honor to receive it and on Wikipedia offers evidence of notability of the award-winners, it is not by itself a defining attribute of these mathematicians. Award-winners should be (and are) included as lists on the Adams Prize page. Lquilter (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ability to make category intersections is currently being discussed at WP:Category intersection -- hope you join us. I agree that being able to pull up intersections of a lot of attributes will be very helpful. But categories as they currently are, IMO, are not well-suited for capturing intersectional information, unless it's highly notable/defining; and the "defining" attribute has to be very limiting in order for the category clump at the bottom of the page to be remotely navigable, and to be able to remotely police inclusion/exclusion. It's all quite unfortunate because, as you say, it would be great to be able to have a system to navigate a much wider variety of attributes. I really hope the software can be fixed to permit something more workable that meets this needs. Maybe Wikidata is the answer? ... anyway until then my own position is that we have to be quite restrictive on categories. --Lquilter (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rachel Carson Award laureates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OVERCAT#Award. The Rachel Carson Prize (environmentalist award) is a significant honor for environmental activists, such as Lester Brown and Maria Rodale, but it serves as a recognition of an achievement, rather than defining an additional axis of notability. These activists are better listed on the award page, as they already are. (I also note that there are several Rachel Carson environment-related prizes, and this causes some confusion; the category already needs to be purged of recipients of the other prizes, like Sigourney Weaver & the founder of the Aveda Corporation). -- Lquilter (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rožanc Award laureates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization by award. This annual award for best Romanian essay collection is notable but not defining, and is more appropriately treated as a list within the Rolf Schock Prizes entry. Lquilter (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Registered Banks of New Zealand

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. (I'm assuming that the comment by Peterkingiron was misplaced.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Registered Banks of New Zealand to Category:Registered banks of New Zealand
Nominator's rationale: Rename. According to both the Reserve Bank of New Zealand[1] and New Zealand Government[2] capitalisation (no pun intended) of the word "banks" is unnecessary. Both Television New Zealand [3] and the country's biggest newspaper[4] seem to agree. Grutness...wha? 12:48, 3 May 2013 (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.

Films based on comics characters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Not renamed --Salix (talk): 09:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match parent Category:Films based on comics, and the corresponding categories for each character within Category:Video games based on comics. This follows prededents for Doctor Who here and others listed in that discussion. WikiProject Comics did not object to these proposals here. – Fayenatic London 12:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a video game specifically based on the film "Superman Returns". So would that go in Category:Video games based on films based on Superman. I think the reality of how these things are viewed and interacted with goes against using the "based on" form here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no need for small intersection categories; Superman Returns (video game) would stay in Category:Video games based on Legendary Pictures films as well as Category:Superman arcade and video games. Sometimes sub-cats are justified, e.g. Category:Video games based on Star Trek (film franchise) helps to divide the many games within Category:Video games based on Star Trek. – Fayenatic London 19:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Public holidays named after countries

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: Speedy delete. Green Giant (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This appears to me to be a categorization by shared naming characteristic. I get the idea—these are holidays to celebrate the foundation of the entity—but if it's not named after the entity, it can't go in the category, so it's not categorizing by what the holiday is for, it's categorizing by the type of name the holiday is given. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Founding Fathers

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. The multiple lists within the article Founding Fathers of the United States are more useful than this could be. – Fayenatic London 20:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Presumably this is a category for the Founding Father of the United States. The problem is—this isn't a group with a well-accepted definition, as the article discusses. We are much better off just with the list in the article and with categorizing these people using more objective definitions, such as the signers of the US Declaration of the Independence, the US Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, it's true that every category has potential ambiguity and shades of gray. But this category has, in the lede, multiple overlapping definitions:
"The Founding Fathers of the United States of America were political leaders and statesmen who participated in the American Revolution by signing the United States Declaration of Independence, taking part in the American Revolutionary War, and establishing the United States Constitution. Within the large group known as the "Founding Fathers", there are two key subsets: the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (who signed the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776) and the Framers of the Constitution (who were delegates to the Constitutional Convention and took part in framing or drafting the proposed Constitution of the United States). A further subset is the group that signed the Articles of Confederation.[2]" ... and
"Some historians define the "Founding Fathers" to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians, jurists, statesmen, soldiers, diplomats, or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America.[4] Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.[5]"
That's a bit more than the ordinary "shades of gray" issue with most categories. Given that any of these definitions might be applicable and all have current recognition in scholarly and public discourse, it would seem completely arbitrary for Wikipedia to just pick one and run with it. Which definition do you, Alansohn, favor, and why is that the best definition for the category, and how can we reasonably ensure that it is maintained? (Remember it's difficult to "follow" a category in the same way that you can follow a page.) --Lquilter (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it's possible to agree on a robust definition? Even in serious history literature, there's no agreement whatsoever on a definition, let alone a robust one. This is almost as bad as finding a robust definition of "superstar", "American hero" or "serious illness". Pichpich (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Native American children's writers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep but with ((distinguished subcategory))--Salix (talk): 19:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Last rung of the latter - shunts these off from the main tree - per WP:EGRS. The Native American writers head cat is sufficient here - a sub-slice like this only serves to separate. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've pasted the relevant guidance here:

Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory. For instance: if Category:American poets is not realistically dividable on other grounds, then do not create a subcategory for "African-American poets", as this will only serve to isolate these poets from the main category. Instead, simply apply "African-American writers" (presuming Category:Writers is the parent of Category:Poets) and "American poets" as two distinct categories.

This guidance exists to prevent exactly the sort of ghettoization everyone is up in arms about. If there were other ways to diffuse Category:American children's writers, then ethnic/gendered/etc cats could be created. However, if the *only* way it can be divided is on ethnic/gender lines, then the natural tendency, in spite of all of our rules, will be for white males to congregate in the head category, and everyone else is shunted to the sub-categories. I've looked at dozens of examples, and the result is always the same - that's why the last-rung-of-the-ladder rule was created. If you look at Category:American politicians, that is the opposite case - since you have so many sub-cats to diffuse into, there is no-one in the head cat, and there is less of a chance that women in Category:American women in politics would nonetheless not end up in non-gendered subcats of the politicians. You are right though, that in the Category:Native American writers tree, childrens writing is a valid sub-category that further specifies - the problem is, this is also in a non-ethnic tree (Category:American children's writers, and in that tree, it violates the guidance, which again, says never. If you have a proposal on how to diffuse the childrens writers (by century?), I'm all ears. Also take a look at Category:Singaporean poets for another way - shall we pilot that here in this tree - to do category intersection with Category:American children's writers and Category:Native American writers? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I DO see your point of the danger of "white males here and everyone else to the back of the bus" problem. I guess I'm surprised that American children's writers is not already diffused...seems pretty vast; should contain hundreds of authors, surely they can be broken down by genre, centure, something? Sometimes too, there is a place (as I commented at your talk on a different issue) for the "allinclude" template allowing both a mass parent cat AND as many subcats as people desire... I guess WP:IAR suggests "never say never." Montanabw(talk) 21:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ((distinguished subcategory)) can be used instead of allinclude (which allows for diffusing and non-diffusing sub-cats). In the case of childrens writers, one could for example separate them by century, if you think we have people from 18th/19th/20th centuries - I'm not sure - and there are 1200 writers, so it could be workable. If we did that, and diffused on century, then we could keep ethnic cats like this one, as there'd be another way to divide.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-division and diffusion by century/era and/or by genre would be very appropriate. --Lquilter (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American children's novelists

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:American children's writers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Anyone who writes a novel for a child is likely going to write other things as well - so I'm not sure its worth distinguishing childrens novelists from childrens writers. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Young adult literature is often considered to be quite distinct from children's literature, wherein the former is aimed at teenagers later in their teens and the latter is aimed at actual young children. SilverserenC 01:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true - but do we need to separately categorize the writers of children's literature from children's novelists? I can't imagine there are many who wrote a children's novel who didn't also write things that weren't novels, and thus they would always belong in the parent too.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these people are identified as novelists, so why not merge it to Category:American novelists as well?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chemical compounds found in Theobroma

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 13:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unnecessary layer in category tree. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Awake (TV series) characters

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 16:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:SMALLCAT this is a cancelled TV series that lasted one season. Highly unlikely to gain any more character articles, the main category Category:Awake (TV series) can carry the characters without need for subcategorization. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nuxálk

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 There was general consensus for the name without accents. The head article change midway meant Category:Nuxalk Nation was no longer a suitable title. --Salix (talk): 10:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Though not as arcane a usage as the St'at'imc and Sto:lo categories, this category name still requires the use of copy-paste and cannot by typed easily. Normal usage in British Columbia omits the accent-a, it's not standard in the (now common) English adapation of this name. Skookum1 (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sťáťimc

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:St'at'imc to match main article after the RFD there.--Salix (talk): 10:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As wit the Sto:lo category, this category name requires copy-pasting to be able to use. Most modern sources including media regularly use this in the form "St'at'imc", as does the St'at'imc Nation tribal council (aka Lillooet Tribal Council) in its media releases, if not maybe on its own site where the native-correct diacritical version may be used; arguments about using the native orthography have been made before re the article, though that is now titled St'at'imc and hm now may be a redirect to normal-English "Lillooet people". The /t'/ remaining is still a diacritical with non-English meaning, i.e. [lh] or [tlh] but the "St'at'imc" usage is now current and most common. And easy to type. Skookum1 (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JPL here - there is a reason we try to match category names to article names, and one of them is that article RMs usually have different (and sometimes more informed) participation from subject matter experts, and article names are what are seen by google and by readers vs category names which are very rarely seen at all. Thus, getting article names correct is a tricky business. I would suggest putting this particular CFD (and any others) on temporary hold, pending completion of any RMs that have been initiated - then come back here and report the results of those RMs. If for example, the article already *had* the name you wanted,you could rename the category to it with a speedy. Also another point - per your nomination, "As with the Sto:lo category, this category name requires copy-pasting to be able to use." - my understanding is, this is not true - apparently there is a bot, so if you put it in a non-diacritics version, the bot will move it. You can test this yourself - move a few articles into the category without diacritics and see if the bot moves them. That doesn't mean you should have the cat with or without diacritics - but I do think the cat should match the article name - if the article name has the diacritics, the cat should have them too (and let the box fix the naming)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's that damned unconsulted and arrogant speedy at the main article that "Lillooet people" has come up; this CfD I started before trying to get that "reverted" to the non-diacritical form, which is the English version of the name which in St'at'imcets has those diacriticals; when it occurs in English-use sources, it's in the non-diacritical form. All these CfDs appear to have been pending the results of those RMs. But please tell me where the "rule" is that article name and category name MUST match, as noted over time I've heard lots that they don't have to.Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few places where this is discussed. First, at WP:Categorization: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "Civilization", "George W. Bush"." - when these sorts of things do correspond, they are called eponymous categories - special rules around them are here WP:EPON. You'll also notice here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Speedy_criteria that one of the speedy criteria is to match an article name - that implies that matching a cat to an article name is so common that we allow it without any discussion at all, so that to me is an implied consensus that they should match. In any case, you'll note I never said they "must", I just said we "try" to match them. I'm not sure of the logic, but I think it's probably because it's felt that the article name carries more weight, and the category should follow that. If you want these to be on hold until the RMs finish, I'd state that explicitly in the title to a wandering admin doesn't come by and close them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
also please note the contents/subcats of Category:First Nations people and, by implication, how many of those would have to change to who-knows-what if "Foo people} became a standard for aboriginal ethno categories......and re your suggestion, should that be added to the "lede" for each of these CfDs? And doesn't that put the onus on the RMs to even more than they have been doing (which is zilch zip nada) acknowledging the problems for category-names that may result (which is counter-advised on the usual "move page" page); note that in all of t hose cases, only the title was changed, no effort at all was made to change even so much as the lede in those articles.Skookum1 (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated elsewhere, this 'people' issue is due to a namespace collision. We have on one hand, categories called X people. On the other hand, we have articles that are broadly about a given indigenous group, but they have the word 'people' appended - and this causes confusion, as there are now two categories X and X people, but the head article about X is actually called X people. So I think the solution is to come up with a better name for the articles - instead of Lillooet people, we should have Lillooet tribe or something similar.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That won't work at all; "FOO tribe" is used for federally-recognized tribes in the United States and though you do see it in Canada, it's not standard usage and has loaded meanings, or band-specific names like Cowichan Tribes. Note that a lot of those "FOO people" articles, when indigenous in content, were changed for the most part from their original stand-alone versions, and the categories followed suit as they so (often and annoyingly) do, without stopping to think of the complications, or t he impact on articles mentioning all the peoples in question. It'd be interesting to see a compared list of the two types of "FOO people" categories and how many there are of each.....and how many indigenous articles and categories don't have "people" on them.Skookum1 (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum, I know you mean well, but I feel like you're not listening to what people are telling you, and then responding with walls of text. I am trying to help you, and I have no beef with the arguments you've made and I'm sympathetic to your POV. However, most people voting here swing by, see a matching head article, and vote to rename to match the head article - it's just the way things go here - like it or not. I didn't say we had to use the word tribe, that was an example, an opening, to provide a better term. If you think the head article should just be called St'at'imc, then rename it first, then come back here. If tribe doesn't work, rename it as St'at'imc peoples) or St'at'imc ethnicity or find a better name, then once you get the article renamed, the category will follow.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's "Skookum1", not "Skookum" btw.....like a CB handle. You are aware of the RM at Talk:Lillooet people, aren't you? Last night the Thompson/Nlaka'pamux, Chilcotin/Tsilhqot'in and Shuswap/Secwepemc ones were resolved in favour of the endonyms, I don't know why the same admin (User:David Jonathan I think) didn't also resolve the Lillooet/St'at'imc RM and the Kutenai/Ktunaxa ones also I don't know, I've asked him, perhaps just an oversight. As you noted elsewhere about another item, maybe the Tsilhqot'in one, not sure, you recommended "without 'people'", there is no need for +peoples or +ethnicity here....nor on any other endonym where "+ people" has been added unnecessarily. That's just not the way these terms are used, or have to be used. "Ethnicity" is an awkward term for FN peoples, also, IMO, at least for use in titles.Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is offtopic for here - if you want to heed to an international standard re: naming of ethnic groups / indigenous peoples, even if consensus is that common usage in sources points another way, then you need to change the guidance on article names - so bring your ideas to that forum.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As we know, orthography is a system used to standardize how a particular language is written. The problem with aboriginal languages has a lot to do with three things. The first is that the aboriginal peoples did not have a written language, it was all oral and their history was passed down through their stories. The second point is missionaries were the ones to write down the language. They created the written form while sitting there and listening, and applied this method to all aboriginal languages . While this is not entirely accurate, I would suggest that phonetics sometimes had their place, as has Anglicization of words. The third point is that though some have adopted the international phonetic alphabet, there are many in British Columbia that have their own orthographies. There is an interesting description of “current” versus “other” names at this page: http://maps.fphlcc.ca/language_index_other
The B.C. Government, through the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the Ministry of Education, has recognized the rights of First Nations to develop and educate their children in traditional languages. A common goal in B.C. and other jurisdictions is promote self-government. Of interest to this issue would be these pages—
In addition, when my office is working with aboriginal names and naming, it is necessary to have the orthographic character as used by that aboriginal peoples. While my office works with Queen’s Printer for this, we do often refer to sites like this one to find what we need: http://www.languagegeek.com/index.html The purpose, of course, is respect for the First Nations peoples language and sensitivities. This is often a negotiated thing, particularly with parks, conservancies and reserves.
There is a statute that guides British Columbia: First Peoples’ Heritage, Language and Culture Act, see section 6. Under this Act is the establishment of the First Peoples’ Cultural Council. The website for the Crown Corporation: http://www.fpcc.ca/, I think you will find this page most interesting: http://www.fpcc.ca/about-us/Publications/
And if you’re looking for examples of usage of regionalism, go to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, where you will find names that identify parks, conservancies and reserves that are in both regional and aboriginal references.

From that point on she lists park names that exist either in both languages (whichever language it is), legally and formally, and some that have only native names; it's a set of HTML boxes, most reflected already in Category:Provincial parks of British Columbias many titles. If anyone needs "proof" of this email or thinks I fictionalized it, "email this user" and I will gladly forward it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of current usage, and I didn't listen closely enough to see if they speaker says "St'at'imc" (ambient yard-noise around me right now, i.e. lawnmower) but note that the "Lillooet Declaration" of 1913, which this is the centenary celebration of, is now referred to as the "St'at'imc Declaration", this video was posted by the Bridge River-Lillooet News today (on FB) and NB the signs in English using "St'at'imc".Skookum1 (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2013 (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.

Sto:lo categories

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 both per nom.--Salix (talk): 11:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stó:lō people to Category:Sto:lo people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The use of the diacriticals is only favoured by one tribal council, not both. Common usage in media sources and most other publications is to use simply "Sto:lo" without diacriticals. Changing this to an easier-to-type version also means that it is easier to add this category, vs having to copy-paste the diacriticals.Skookum1 (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the main article for both is Sto:lo people, which already is diacritical-free, as are other subcategories.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/clarification per my most recent comment in reply to Obi Wan Kenobi, below, the main article was changed by a certain rogue-like editor without discussion and should have remained at Sto:lo, which is also where the parent category here should be (without the diacriticals, which are not universal and rarely used in English, other than by the one tribal council and by academic circles (where they have the font faces capable of doing so).Skookum1 (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I'm confused. Did you or did you not nominate a rename of ::Category:Stó:lō people to Category:Sto:lo people? (as well as the parent)? I don't think you can argue that "X people" is a bad framing, when such cats exist and you are proposing to continue having them - so your argument is confusing here (JPL may have been confused as well, and not realized there was a subcat in play with that name already) In any case, if you look at Category:Ethnic_groups_in_Africa_by_country, the norm is just to have the name of the group as the topic category, even if the article itself has "people" in the name. This is probably an artifact of a namespace collision: we normally use "X people" as a category for people who are X, but we also use "X people" as an article name to describe certain ethnic groups, their practices, politics, religion, dress, culture, etc - this namespace collision leads to the results as noted above. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's try this explanation again; the subcategory "Sto:lo people" like the one it's meant to replace, with the diacritical form, is for the people who belong to the Sto:lo, it is NOT meant as the article-name for the people. The addition of people was not done by RM, it was an across-the-board without speedy, and not announced so far as I know in ((NorthAmNative)) ([[WP:IPNA))) who obviously should have been consulted. The main category should be, as with others in Category:First Nations in British Columbia, simply the endonym without "people" (as the main article title is now), and the "FOO people" construction is for "people from the FOO" where "FOO"=[endonym]. I.e. "people who belong to the [endonym)". Seems pretty clear to me what I'm asking and also what the bad problems are with "FOO people" having been made an across-the-board without any speedy; if that's a WP:WikiProject Ethnic Groups guideline, it's clearly in conflict with the Canadian and NorthAmNative conventions, which were derived by necessity exactly because of these compications caused by what you call a "namespace collision". ALL of them should be reverted back to plain old "[endonym]" from "[endonym] people", and any affected categories also reverted, if changed. There are special cases like Mohawk people (read the talkpage there) but that's not an endonym anyway, but an English word. In that case, as with Norwegians, "Mohawks" is preferable and more functional. Or maybe "Mohawk peoples" ...what the category there is I'm not certain, but that may have imposed political complications in the Mohawk world and may not be suitable. In this case, however, this is not one people, but a group of peoples....some divided into groups of bands, some distinct unto themselves (e.g. the Katzie. This CfR has now gone on for six weeks.....and shouldn't have gotten bogged down like this; the reasons, to me, as someone who has lived alongside this group/these groups his whole life, and seen how the terms are used in modern English, the case is clear. I can't close do a non-admin closure here, or for the even-better argued/justified/cited case of the St'at'imc, also started on this same day, where at least the article is simply "St'at'imc" and not "St'at'imc people" (which is redundant)...and looking back I see it was Kwami, who caused all the other endonym CfDs because of a similar undiscussed speedies on all of those, also without RMs, and the current Sto:lo people title should be reverted to Sto:lo, and then this protracted category rename can be simplified. Clusterfracking of important endonym-names and, in the Skwxwu7mesh/"Squamish people" case, also still unresolved since the speedy article rename followed by speedy cat rename, by someone doing things unilaterally, by reference only to his own talkpage (see the edit comment on that link) should not be tolerated, and the confusing consequences reverted, and these CfRs closed.Skookum1 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, I did ask for that rename, but not as the parent category, but for "people who belong to" as is also what you'll find at, I believe, Category:Cree people or Category:Mi'kmaq people or Category:Tsuu T'ina people or Category:Dakelh people or various others (I could make a fairly long list). That should not be the form for the main category title. Some standard within indigenous-peoples categories needs to be set, and IMO the "people" rider should be used for "people from/belonging to" rather than as an unnecessary name-dab for what are commonly in use as stand-alone names for the peoples. And just to note that the "Sto:lo people" category is rather underpopulated, not sure why as there are various people who should be in it, though I suppose many of their prominent writers and artists and politicians and stuff may not yet have bios....I've been meaning for a while to do one on Whattlekainum, the mid-19th C chief of the Kwantlen, also connected to the Katzie and Tsawwassen, whose name is spelled variously but who is also the namesake of Whatcom County. Largely it's a lack of modern bios that's the issue with that; I'll look around and see who does have articles, or should....for such an important and populous and influential group of peoples it's strange that there's not more. And note "Sto:lo peoples" is my suggestion as an alternative to the confusions of "Sto:lo people". The existing standard is for "FOO people" in Canadian categories as per the examples given, and in most Native American ones, when it's "people from" not as meaning "FOO people" when "FOO" suffices just fine in all cases, though there may be exceptions to that, I'll look around. Appending "people" to native-name articles has been going on for a while; Tlingit is still I think stand-alone, I haven't looked lately. Haida people now is what Haida used to be, that may be a dab now, but Category:Haida people is decidedly for people who are Haida. Then there's Category:Chilcotin people, who are people who are connected with or from the Chilcotin region, vs Category:Tsilhqot'in people for people who are Tsilhqotin. You see the problem? Skookum1 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note re the Chilcotin/Tsilhqot'in categories, there's a CfD re Category:Chilcotin (region) to amend that simply to either Category:Chilcotin, to match Category:Cariboo and Category:Okanagan and the like, or to "Chilcotin region" but then that implies those others need changing the same way; the move to Category:Chilcotin (region) was my own request, trying to fix Category:Chilcotin District which had been another based-on-main-article move, but that was unsuitable because capital-D "District" in BC has implications/connotations; it had been at Category:Chilcotin Country which is what I originally established it as; but again, the capital-C "Country" is problematic and hard to cite, though easily citable in lower-case forms. Some capital-C forms like Category:Bridge River Country are citable though I've never dug those cites up; it's a common usage and is in teh same ilk as writing "Fraser Canyon" rather than "Fraser canyon".Skookum1 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the subcat names at Category:First Nations in British Columbia and also in the various subcats at Category:First Nations by province or territory (NB in Alberta, "Blackfoot tribe" cat started out stateside not Canuck-made and should probably be changed because of the governmental meaning of "tribe" in the US). The old consensus about not using "people" on any of these is why they were made the way they are; in some cases it's linguistically redundant, which was the opinion shared by those participating in those deliberations, not sure which talkpage or where in teh NorthAmNative archives that might be...it's been a long time since then. Some - many - of the main articles have been changed to "FOO people" but so far, at least, the cat names haven't changed; partly because of the existence of subcats within them such as Category:Gitxsan people and the like. Others in one of these RMs or CfDs have insisted on the irrelevance of the native names containing "people" within their meaning, but I have yet to see a guideline mandating/ordering that and the complications posed by how to change Category:Sto:lo people (needs diacriticals for that to work...) and Category:Secwepemc people and more like that are very problematic. There is no reason to object to the stand-alone forms IMO. No valid one, that is. Noting also US-side categories such as Category:Native American tribes in Washington (state) where e.g. Category:Klallam and others exist, and that in American usage/categories the meaning of "tribe" in some is that of a federally registered tribe, vs others were an ethnic group is meant....that's a somewhat different issue but points to the governments/ethnic groups/reserves-reservations separation that was another concern of the long-ago deliberations on how to organize NA/FN articles and categories.Skookum1 (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
also please note the contents/subcats of Category:First Nations people and, by implication, how many of those would have to change to who-knows-what if "Foo people} became a standard for aboriginal ethno categories......Skookum1 (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education

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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify. Overcategorization by award. This is a fine award to receive, but Paolo Freire, the World Organization of the Scout Movement, and Mother Theresa are not defined by having received this award; rather, this award serves as well-deserved recognition of their accomplishments. A list is the most appropriate way to collect this information (and indeed the category is described as "A list of recipients of the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education", suggesting some confusion in the category creator between lists and categories). Lquilter (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Filipino victims of crime

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep --Salix (talk): 19:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A sole container for the Filipino murder victim cat. Do we need this layer of categorization (several other cats suffer the same problem but we'll test this first - if your objection is why just one, nominate the rest and spare us the drama). Being a crime victim (generally) is not notable, and probably would include nearly every person in many countries. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to misunderstand - I intend to get all the series deleted; please read the nomination. Your argument is a straw man. Most people notable or not have been victims of some crime or another, it's trivial that someone had their wallet pickpocketed, or were overcharged in a market or were victims in the Enron collapse or of Madoff's doings. Pure trivia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you intend to delete the lot, then nominate the lot so that we can have a discussion about them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Jerusalem

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not split. As for WP:SUBCAT, it is a general guideline which needs exceptions in practice, and this one should remain within both the Israeli and Palestinian parent cats. – Fayenatic London 20:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split the current parenting of the everyone from Jerusalem is problematic in that it puts Palestinians from Jerusalem into the Israeli people by city tree which leads to Israeli people, etc. Similarly, the Israeli people from Jerusalem puts them in the Palestinian tree. The current "Jews from Jerusalem" doesn't solve matters because Israelis need not be Jew nor are all Palestinians Muslim or Non-Jewish - it's nationality not religion here. After the split, the Israeli people can be parented in the Israel tree and the Palestinian people cat can be parented in the Palestinian tree. The current cat can be kept as a container cat, but not parented in either the Israel or Palestinian tree so as to avoid the inaccuracies mentioned above. A third category Category:People from Pre-Partition Jerusalem can also be created for the various people who are from Jerusalem but are neither Israeli nor Palestinian (like Ottomans, Kurds, Canaanites, Bible folks, etc.) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede to Mubarak Awad calls him Palestinian-American not Jordanian-American, so you ought fix that. In any event, the status quo shows he's Israeli because he's in a daughter category of Israeli people by city. Clearly inaccurate in a BLP to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are also lots of expatriates from various countries in Jerusalem. Many non-Jewish Americans (I make this distinction, because if they were Jewish they would probably be considered Israelis) have spent large amounts of time there, some of whom might qualify as being from there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2013 (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.
More