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. Timrollpickering 23:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Transhumant ethnic groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Transhumance is part of an economic activity and has nothing to do with ethnicity. Basicaly, where there were conditions, all major ethnic groups had members who have been practicing transhumance since ancient times. It's like we should set up special categories for ethnic fishermen, agriculture, mining, etc.. Rgvis (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - never big in Britain for example. Do you really disagree that anthropologists use this as a term describing some cultures and ethnic groups and not others? The way of life is so different from a sedendist one that cultural differentation occurs and persists. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: nomadism is also part of an economic activity, even so there were many peoples which are regarded nomads. Borsoka (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• leaning delete Looking at the article on transhumance it seems possible that there might be more members, but I'm not clear on whether various tribes mentioned would count as "ethnic groups", or for that matter whether the practice would be considered defining for those groups/tribes. A category with one member, however, isn't going to fly. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently 9 members. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Perfectly valid classification in anthropology, though such groups are now under all sort of pressures. Of course not all members will now (or maybe ever) be transhumant, and not all transhumant families have ever been part of an ethnic group defined by this way of life. I have added a few more, but I am sure there are others, for example in Category:Pastoralists. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- There are certainly some ethnic groups who are nomadic pastoralists. Some of these will move between summer and winter pastures, but this is unlikely to be a notable characteristic of some of the ethnic groups categorised. Celtiberians refers to everyone in Iberia in a certain period, but some will have been settled farmers. I am faiurly certain that this also applies to Vlachs. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem much of a rationale for deletion that some articles may be included wrongly. Celtiberians absolutely does not refer "to everyone in Iberia in a certain period" - read the article. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ethnic groups, and thus all their members, don't practice any sort of agricultural technique for ever and ever. Take the Vlach for example, categorized in this cat. Is an ethnic Vlach who gets an accountancy degree and a job in the City no longer a Vlach because she doesn't practice transhumanism like Vlach people do (or according to Wikipedia are supposed to). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per the argumentation of those who oppose, furthermore such categorization is never meant for those individuals that do not practise - from a time - what the majority would still practise. Otherwise, what category would be the Vlachs put in?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

How do we make distinquish between full nomadic pastoralism groups and seasonal pastoralism (which involves permanent rural settlements, and even some forms of small agricultural practices, for those family members staying at home)? And in Europe, we talk about old Europeans practicing seasonal pastoralism, everywhere: [1]

Regarding "Vlachs", of course this categorization is inappropriate, because "Vlachs" defines, first of all, a generic term describing not only one ethnic group. Then, even members of one of the Balkan ethnic groups, such as the Aromanians, were not only shepherds but also involved in other businesses (trade, crafts, woodworking, etc.), some of them living in urban environments besides villages established by pastoral families: [2]

And if we refer to "Vlachs" as Romanians, the discussion is already superfluous. (Rgvis (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Again, that one member of a category is inappropriate is not an argument for deleting the lot. The issue should not be judged on whether 100% of the group met the definition, but on whether it is defining for the group as a whole. If you don't like "Vlachs" being in, what about Vlach (Ottoman social class)? And what about the Sarakatsani or Gaddi? Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rgvis:, on that you are right that the term "Vlach" was not used just only to designate the ancestors of Romanians, but also were referred on other ethnic, religious, lifestyle-related, etc. designations.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete, while it could be fair to designate these peoples and tribes as pastoral, it is too much detail to categorize them as transhumant, per WP:NONDEF / WP:NARROWCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2018 (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, see here. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Obscenity controversies in television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This seems like a 'scare category' where various episodes and television programs are classed without much reason beyond 'a parent's group said it was obscene' (I removed one example with no sourcing to the obscenity) or an editor's personal opinion. Some of the entries are one episode out of many in a certain piece of media, a couple are people involved in allegedly obscene shows without proof, others are just quickly-cancelled television shows (and one was a radio show), and one involves racist blackface rather than obscenity. It just feels like a 'list of obscene programs' article was deleted and various others tried to keep the info in category form inappropriately (as has been done with several 'list of' television items). Nate • (chatter) 10:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Obscenity" has a legal meaning in the US that presumably none of these articles covers - even those about profanity in the Western sense (which if we reach back far enough had folks nickers in a twist about Rhett Butler's "I don't give a damn". What they do seem to cover is self-censorship by tv broadcasters; and perhaps a rename to Category:Self-censorship incidents in television, with parents of Category:Censorship of broadcasting and Category:Television controversies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2018 (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: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Delete Category:People_from_Upper_Sandusky,_Ohio, or merge its contents into Upper_Sandusky,_Ohio.

I don't get why this needs to exist. Can't the people in this category be put into the respective page's Notable People section?

Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. DudeTheNinja (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not clear why this adequately populated category has been singled out from Category:People by city in Ohio. Oculi (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies. Alternatively, this could be mentioned in the source article. DudeTheNinja (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We have Category:People from Upper Sandusky, Ohio, subcat of Category:People from Wyandot County, Ohio, subcat of Category:People from Ohio. Do you object to all 3 of these or just the first, and if so, why? Oculi (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I screwed up. I understand why these exist. Minnow me. I'm new here, my apologies. Someone close this CfD, please. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 19:42, 14 June 2018 (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 on Category:University of Alaska System and Category:Presidents of the University of Alaska System; keep the other three. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:University of Alaska System to Category:University of Alaska system
• Propose renaming Category:University of Alaska people to Category:University of Alaska system people
• Propose renaming Category:University of Alaska alumni to Category:University of Alaska system alumni
• Propose renaming Category:University of Alaska regents to Category:University of Alaska system regents
• Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the University of Alaska System to Category:Presidents of the University of Alaska system

Nominator's rationale: Oppose speedy. The main article of the category is University of Alaska system. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time right this moment for the normal (at times lengthy) explanation. There have been multiple XFDs related to the University of Alaska already and each one seems to make matters even muddier. I've done some basic searches of news archive sites, but haven't had the time to analyze anything other than noticing that they're no more consistent than we are. The article University of Alaska system doesn't make it explicitly clear whether it's about the statewide University of Alaska as a whole or about the administrative unit known as Statewide Administration, mostly located in a single building on the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus. The home page on their website says "University of Alaska System", with a clear instance of capitalization. Further confusing matters is the fact that there are two distinct uses of "University of Alaska": one referring to what is now UAF for pretty much the entirety of the middle 20th century, and one referring to the statewide university in the years since. "S/system" is a fairly recent concoction. Confusing things even further, signage on the George Parks Highway at the Geist Road interchange refers to the "University of Alaska", not the "University of Alaska Fairbanks", even though one would suppose that should or would have been fixed years or even decades ago; control signage on the Parks has been a controversial issue in the past, though most of the controversy was in regards to other intersections. As to the specific language, is it appropriate to tack on "S/system"? I'll try and provide links later on when I have time. Right now, a NewsBank archive search of the Anchorage Daily News returns 194 hits for the term "university of alaska board of regents" versus zero for "university of alaska system board of regents", just to give one specific example. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I left a notification about this discussion at the talk page of the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename for three:
  • oppose rename for Category:University of Alaska people to Category:University of Alaska system people, because that would beg the question of what are "system people"
  • oppose rename for Category:University of Alaska alumni to Category:University of Alaska system alumni, because that would be just weird
  • oppose rename Category:University of Alaska regents to Category:University of Alaska system regents, because that would beg the question of what is a "system regents", though frankly I don't really know what a "regents" is, besides the fact that I took a regents exam once or twice long ago.

About the other two, down-casing from System to system seems relatively harmless. I found my way here by a few steps from User:RadioKAOS's Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2018 (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.