< May 27	May 29 >

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 to Fooian sports coaches. Wikipedia tends to use "sports" in the plural e.g. Category:Sport is a redirect to Category:Sports. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Coaches to Category:Coaches (sport)

Category:Coaches by nationality to Category:Coaches (sport) by nationality

Category:American coaches to Category:American coaches (sports)

Category:Australian coaches to Category:Australian coaches (sport)

Category:Belgian coaches to Category:Belgian coaches (sport)

Category:British coaches to Category:British coaches (sport)

Category:Croatian coaches to Category:Croatian coaches (sport)

Category:Danish coaches to Category:Danish coaches (sport)

Category:Dutch coaches to Category:Dutch coaches (sport)

Category:English coaches to Category:English coaches (sport)

Category:Fictional coaches to Category:Fictional coaches (sport)

Category:Finnish coaches to Category:Finnish coaches (sport)

Category:French coaches to Category:French coaches (sport)

Category:German coaches to Category:German coaches (sport)

Category:Hungarian coaches to Category:Hungarian coaches (sport)

Category:Indian coaches to Category:Indian coaches (sport)

Category:Italian coaches to Category:Italian coaches (sport)

Category:Norwegian coaches to Category:Norwegian coaches (sport)

Category:Polish coaches to Category:Polish coaches (sport)

Category:Russian coaches to Category:Russian coaches (sport)

Category:Scottish coaches to Category:Scottish coaches (sport)

Nominator's rationale: Rename all. Add disambiguating term when it is not otherwise clear that a sport coach is being referred to. Coach has other meanings — a horse-drawn carriage, a bus, a type of rail car. The main article for sport coaches is at Coach (sport). I've not nominated the categories where specific sports are mentioned in the category name or where it's otherwise relatively clear it's a sports coaches category, e.g., Category:Olympic coaches. I decided against adding Category:African American coaches since I didn't think "coaches" as modes of transport could be "African American", but it could be renamed to Category:African American coaches (sports) if desired. Notified creators with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also "life coaches" or "personal coaches", which are somewhat related to sports coaches, but are categorized separately. Cgingold (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REname all but suggest "Sports Coaches". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: would prefer Category:Foobarian sporting coaches if this change is deemed necessary, which I'm not sure it is. Is there really any confusion? Should the transport cats really be Category:Foobarian transportation coaches instead? The-Pope (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on the idea that category names tend to reflect the article name in most cases. If the word for an article is disambiguated, chances are it's also a good idea to disambiguate the corresponding category names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But most of the disambiguation is between Coach (sport) and Coach ([some specific sport]), which might be necessary for articles but in the categories is taken care of by the parent-child category structure. --Paul A (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are suggesting is that sport coaches should be the primary usage of the word "coach" for categories. Such an argument would be more convincing if it was the primary usage in the article space. A casual glance at Coach demonstrates that there are other common uses, especially more common in non-American English. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On the whole, I would rather see these renamed to "Sport (or Sports) coaches by nationality". Category:Belgian sport coaches just strikes me as preferable to Category:Belgian coaches (sport). Question - I notice that you left out Category:College coaches. What was your reasoning there? Cgingold (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unsure about the college coaches one, because I couldn't think of any non-sports coaches "things" that might be called "college coaches". (I was focused more on the non-person usages of the term as alternatives.) Academic tutors, perhaps? If a rename goes through, perhaps we should consider it as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator). As others have suggested, I'm also OK with using "Fooian sport coaches" or "Fooian sporting coaches" or any variation thereof. I'm not psychologically attached to the proposed format I set out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree in principle. "Fooian sport coaches" would be preferable, although I think perhaps it should be sports coaches as it's referring more than one sport; but not sporting, that could imply they are good natured coaches who play fairly - I'm sure it's not the case for all of them! Thaf (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Fooian sports coaches. Sports coaches is more common than sport coaches on the web. gidonb (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume we're all in agreement as there have been no further comments, if there are no objections I shall go ahead and start renaming all to Fooian sports coaches. Thaf (talk) 15:15, 12 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: merge as nominated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Bus transit in the United States to Category:Bus transportation in the United States

Category:Bus transit in Canada to Category:Bus transport in Canada

Category:Bus transit to Category:Bus transport

Split out images in Category:Bus transit to Category:Bus route maps

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Neither of these categories has an introduction and both seems to be covering bus transportation in the US. I don't see how splitting this helps in understanding or organization. With an upmerge, it is likely that this would allow for a logical classification of by state which already has been started in the parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar arguments apply to the other two categories. Most of the articles in the parent were for Australian buses and they are already included in a better country structure and were removed from this cat along with some other cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why would you choose transport over transit. It seems that transit is the proper word for it. 70.55.85.51 (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transport is the parent category and the more heavily populated and I think the one that has been around for longer and Category:Bus transportation in the United States survived a rename attempt to a different choice in June of 2007 which indicates some level of support for this name. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What does Canadian English use more? 70.55.85.131 (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The same as the British, Category:Bus transport in the United Kingdom? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Either one would be OK, I think. We're bilingual, after all :) PKT (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think in actual usage, no one would say "bus transit". They may say "transit", but that includes more than just busses. However, "bus transportation" would be used. Support upmerge DigitalC (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, per nomination. I agree, I think the current situation leads to confusion that can be avoided. PKT (talk) 12:49, 30 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 on American category~~, rename Category:Japanese baseball managers to Category:Managers of Japanese baseball teams. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the American category is empty, so that'll be a delete however we slice it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose ~~renaming~~ deleting Category:American baseball managers ~~to Category:Managers of American baseball teams~~

Propose renaming Category:Japanese baseball managers to Category:Managers of Japanese baseball teams

Nominator's rationale: Rename. If I am understanding the intended purpose of these categories, they are to identify the country in which the managed team is located, not the nationality of the managers. The current names are ambiguous. Otto4711 (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the Japanese category (especially given the presence of Bobby Valentine and Trey Hillman in the cat), which I started; the American category (which I didn't start) seems to be superfluous due to the various subcats of Category:Baseball managers. If nationality is the point of that one, then it should be left as is and populated. MisfitToys (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with deleting the American category if it's deemed redundant to other categories. Otto4711 (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the first one to Category:Managers of Major League Baseball teams to cull the Expos and Blue Jays out is not meaningful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The cat Category:Major league baseball managers by team already exists. I'd recommend just deleting the first cat. MisfitToys (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both categories ~~per the nomination~~(revised -- see below). I oppose deleting the American cat, because it can hold Negro League managers like Buck O'Neil and managers of other leagues. Given the existence of Category:Baseball coaches along with its subcats Category:American baseball coaches and Category:Major League Baseball coaches, I also suggest to rename Category:American baseball coaches similarly to whatever this nom decides about Category:American baseball managers. Neier (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you advocating that all Negro league managers (who already have a separate category) be included under American baseball managers? The issue is whether we're talking only about managers who were American (e.g. O'Neil) or also non-American managers who managed American teams (e.g. José Méndez). As I noted, if the American cat is kept, it should be based on the subject's nationality and be populated. MisfitToys (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm advocating that Category:Baseball managers (and Category:Baseball coaches) be structured similarly to Category:Football (soccer) managers, with categorization by individual nationality, league, and team location, even though the latter two are slightly redundant as Category:Major league baseball managers by team (which has capitalization issues) would be in both Category:Baseball managers by league and Category:Managers of baseball teams in the United States.
  - I'm also striking my rename per nom, and recommend to rename to Category:Managers of baseball teams in Japan and Category:Managers of baseball teams in the United States per the naming convention of sports teams in general, and Category:Baseball teams in specific. Neier (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course, one problem with that is the fact that we can't just make the cat for MLB managers a subcat, due to the Blue Jays and Expos (as well as Negro league teams outside the U.S.). I tend to think the catsegories would be so similar (yet not quite identical) that the duplication would be problematic. There are a lot more countries covered under football managers, which makes it a somewhat different situation. MisfitToys (talk) 00:14, 1 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: merge Category:Round Rock Express managers to Category:Minor league baseball managers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Round Rock Express managers to Category:Minor league baseball managers

Nominator's rationale: Merge - another small category with little or no apparent growth potential. Again no prejudice to re-creation should a slew of managerial articles appear for the team but it's not currently warranted. Otto4711 (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It's a category with 1 article because there has been only 1 manager to date. There will be others, no doubt, as time passes. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having said this, I see that Category:Minor league baseball managers is not subcategorised at all (apart from one team) so merge would seem the way to go. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:37, 1 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: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little to no apparent growth potential. No prejudice to re-creation should there me a sudden explosion of Round Rock Express-related articles but for now it's unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Keep~~' There is Category:Round Rock Express players (which was adrift of its obvious parent). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is already parented in its obvious parent, Category:Minor league baseball players by team. The existence of the players subcat doesn't mandate the existence of the overall team category. Most of the teams in the same league don't (and shouldn't) have their own subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief foray into Category:Minor league baseball I can find no other eponymous categories for teams. So delete it is. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of full disclosure there is Category:Nashville Sounds which is in the same league as the Express, but the category is much more substantive. Otto4711 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Otto4711. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:04, 2 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: withdrawn. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Category:People from Round Rock, Texas~~

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Round Rock, Texas. small category with little or no growth potential.
Upmerge Category:People from Round Rock, Texas to Category:People from Williamson County, Texas. Another small category with little likely potential for growth. Otto4711 (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - since the CFD was listed both categories have been expanded, so the rationale for deletion no longer applies. Otto4711 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Round Rock, Texas as the category is underpopulated but not for a lack of available articles nor a potential for growth. City has grown 30% since the 2000 census, is home to Dell Inc., and has 150 years of history to draw on. Upmerge Category:People from Round Rock, Texas as it's far less likely to be immediately useful. - Dravecky (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. There is no minimum size for a category and 8 entries for a category that is part of a series is more then ample. Not being immediately useful is not a deletion criteria and who would determine if a category is useful? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:54, 2 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: merge Category:Hebrew University to Category:Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. Suggesting the merger of Category:Hebrew University into Category:Hebrew University of Jerusalem, as Hebrew University of Jerusalem is the complete name of the school and the name of the main article. gidonb (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Full name of teh school should be used, and the HUofJ cat is properly populated. Alansohn (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.Bless sins (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to proper name, but keep a soft redirect. The full name is not well-known. --Eliyak T·C 22:45, 6 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: merge into category:Templates for redirects from subtopic of target page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Templates for redirects to sections -- Category:Templates for redirects to sections

Overcatting in spades; ... for A WHOLE TWO templates (One already reverted) // FrankB 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I'm the category creator, you can go ahead and delete (if there's no disagreement). However, I'm now going to put the "already reverted" one (((R to section))) back into the parent category Templates for redirects from subtopic of target page, unless someone has a problem with that. While I won't bother to tag them myself, anyone who is interested can go ahead and tag the similarly underpopulated categories Templates for redirects to talk pages, Templates for redirects from a longer name, and Templates for redirects from different spellings, reinserting their few members into the parent categories whenever it makes sense to do so. If any others are tagged for this, though, I'd like to be alerted. Thanks! $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 23:46, 28 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There is only one xenogears article left, the main one, no need for category Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I've removed most of the self-links in the character list, to limit the possibility of re-creation.

\sim

Lenoxus " * " 16:53, 30 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 Category:Rebellions in Australasia to Category:Rebellions in Australia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Rebellions in Australia. First, all of the articles in the category are about "Rebellions in Australia". In addition, Australasia is not a very useful geographic basis for categories of this sort. The category is part of the category tree, Category:Rebellions by continent -- so Australia qualifies in that regard. I would not object, though, to the creation of a broader Category:Rebellions in Oceania if there are articles to support that. Cgingold (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename and please not oceania Satu Suro 01:56, 29 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 Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia to Category:Ethnic groups in Australia; reorganisation as proposed by Cgingold and Matilda can be done without a CfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia to Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Both appear to serve the same purpose. There are some articles listed under one that could be listed under the other, no clear rationale for having both. see below that I support alternate proposal Has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Demographics of Australia#category rationalisation ? Matilda ^talk 19:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Matilda ^talk 19:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal: Rename to Category:Ethnic groups in Australia - All of the arguments I laid out above in the CFD for Category:Rebellions in Australasia apply here, as well. It wouldn't make sense to merge this to Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin, as that is for articles about individuals, whereas these articles are about the various ethnic groups. Cgingold (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this category (properly renamed) can serve as a parent cat for Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin. Cgingold (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as one cat is for individuals identified belonging to the groups, the other for the groups themselves. Support rename to Category:Ethnic groups in Australia Paul foord (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate proposal - ie rename to Category:Ethnic groups in Australia and that renamed cat to serve as a parent cat for Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin --Matilda ^talk 00:28, 1 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: rename all except Chicago and Philadelphia cats. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Austin‎ to Category:Geography of Austin‎, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Chicago‎ to Category:Geography of Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Detroit‎ to Category:Geography of Detroit‎, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Geography of El Paso‎ to Category:Geography of El Paso‎, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Louisville‎ to Category:Geography of Louisville‎, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Minneapolis‎ to Category:Geography of Minneapolis‎, Minnesota

Propose renaming Category:Geography of New Orleans to Category:Geography of New Orleans‎, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Philadelphia‎ to Category:Geography of Philadelphia‎, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Geography of San Diego to Category:Geography of San Diego‎, California

Propose renaming Category:Geography of San Francisco‎ to Category:Geography of San Francisco‎, California

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Seattle‎ to Category:Geography of Seattle‎, Washington

Propose renaming Category:Geography of Tulsa‎ to Category:Geography of Tulsa‎, Oklahoma

Nominator's rationale: Standardization of category names. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom, and to match each city's category name. Neier (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Steam5 (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all except Category:Geography of Chicago‎ and Category:Geography of Philadelphia‎. Consensus does not seem to have been reached on those category trees. The articles currently appear at Chicago and Philadelphia. --Eliyak T·C 22:49, 6 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: rename all except Chicago, Philadelphia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in San Francisco‎ to Category:Transportation in San Francisco‎, California

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in San Diego‎ to Category:Transportation in San Diego‎, California

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

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

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

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in New Orleans‎ to Category:Transportation in New Orleans‎, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Minneapolis‎ to Category:Transportation in Minneapolis‎, Minnesota

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Miami‎ to Category:Transportation in Miami‎, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Louisville‎ to Category:Transportation in Louisville‎, Kentucky

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

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Indianapolis‎ to Category:Transportation in Indianapolis‎, Indiana

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Honolulu‎ to Category:Transportation in Honolulu‎, Hawaii

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Fresno‎ to Category:Transportation in Fresno‎, California

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in El Paso‎ to Category:Transportation in El Paso‎, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Detroit‎ to Category:Transportation in Detroit‎, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Denver‎ to Category:Transportation in Denver‎, Colorado

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Cleveland‎ to Category:Transportation in Cleveland‎, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Transport in Cincinnati‎ to Category:Transportation in Cincinnati‎, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Chicago‎ to Category:Transportation in Chicago‎, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Charlotte‎ to Category:Transportation in Charlotte‎, North Carolina

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

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Austin‎ to Category:Transportation in Austin‎, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Atlanta‎ to Category:Transportation in Atlanta‎, Georgia

Nominator's rationale: Standardization of category names. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom, and to match each city's category name. Neier (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Steam5 (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all except Category:Transportation in Chicago‎ and Category:Transportation in Philadelphia. Consensus does not seem to have been reached on those category trees. The articles currently appear at Chicago and Philadelphia. --Eliyak T·C 22:50, 6 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: no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NPOV. Damiens.rf 17:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / tentative keep. This is currently a subcategory of Category:Terrorism deaths in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which below I've nominated to rename Category:Terrorism deaths in the Palestinian territories. Assuming my rename is accepted, I see no problem breaking the category down into subcategories for deaths in the West Bank and deaths in the Gaza Strip. I'm not sure what the NPOV issue the nominator suggests is, exactly. And why is this category nominated but the parallel Category:Terrorism deaths in the Gaza Strip is not? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NPOV issue, as Peterkingiro put below, is that we can't neutrally classify something as "terrorism". And regarding your second question, the parallel category wasn't nominated because I wasn't aware of its existence (I've made no research). Now that you point it, I think it suffers from the same problem as this one. --Damiens.rf 13:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And what of Category:Terrorism deaths in Palestine and Category:Palestinian terrorism victims? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this not a hoary perennial? One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. I am not sure how the problem has been resolved in terms of articles. There is probably an irresolvable POV conflict here. I am not sure how we find a NPOV name. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. I must be somewhat dense: we were just to assume that labeling something a "terrorism death" was the NPOV issue? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have thought hard about another name for such a category and can't come up with a compromise solution which would satisfy both sides (much like the reality for others I guess). The category name as it stands now is inherently NPOV, firstly it is classing Palestinian actions as terrorism, which we are not in a position to do. Secondly, it appears that the category is only for Israelis killed by Palestinians; would Palestinians killed in the West Bank by Israelis also be eligible for placement in this category, seeing that one POV views Israeli actions as terrorism. The category is too problematic. --Россавиа ^Диалог 20:48, 11 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: no change. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: category contains only one article, with three redirects. emerson7 13:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The "lead article" for the category is a redirect. There is certainly no need for a category in this instance. Otto4711 (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer - all these ballet cats use the catmore template instead of links. Otherwise I don't see the objection; this, like the albums cat mentioned by roundhouse is surely a "wider scheme" case? Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I have fixed the ((catmore)) to point directly to Susan Stroman and removed the redirect Ballets by Susan Stroman from the category. The two remaining redirects, Makin' Whoopee and The Blue Necklace are the two halves of Double Feature. There will, however, be more entries to this category as Stroman is very much alive and active. — Robert Greer 18:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So we have three items in the cat that all point to the same article? Umm... no. Except in very limited circumstances (which this does not fit), redirects are not supposed to have article categories on them anyway, so they really should not be in the category. As for her still being alive and active, if/when she has more relevant articles this could/should be re-examined, but for now, not useful. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is this not analogous to albums by artist, where 1 album suffices for a category? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, Double Feature is a ballet in two acts, each of which uses a different libretto (the underlying work for the Makin' Whoopee "book" is important enough to have its own entry on Wikipedia; see Seven Chances) and each has music from a different composer, Irving Berlin and Walter Donaldson. The two redirects point to sections 1 and 2 of the Double Feature entry; this seemed more economical than to create three seperate entries, one each for Double Feature, The Blue Necklace and Makin' Whoopee. A parallel situation is with George Balanchine's Jewels, which has three sections that are usually performed together but sometimes performed individually; Emeralds, Rubies and Diamonds; again, each has a different composer. But if having seperate articles for Double Feature, The Blue Necklace and Makin' Whoopee makes folks happier than one article and two redirects, I'm ready, able and willing to split it up so there are three articles and no redirects in Category:Ballets by Susan Stroman. — Robert Greer 22:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per roundhouse - part of wider scheme. I think you could fix the 3/1 situation better by tinkering with the category sort so all 3 names appear. Don't split the article. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Apropos wider scheme: I am documenting New York City Ballet's rep. as it's being danced, and Double Feature is one of their major hits (that word sounds crass, but even the ballet has to pay the electric bill.) — Robert Greer (talk) 19:12, 29 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. Angus McLellan (Talk)

Propose Renaming:

Category:Adelaide Crows players to Category:Adelaide Football Club players
Category:Carlton Blues players to Category:Carlton Football Club players
Category:Collingwood Magpies players to Category:Collingwood Football Club players
Category:Essendon Bombers players to Category:Essendon Football Club players
Category:Fitzroy Lions players to Category:Fitzroy Football Club players
Category:Fremantle Dockers players to Category:Fremantle Football Club players
Category:Geelong Cats players to Category:Geelong Football Club players
Category:Hawthorn Hawks players to Category:Hawthorn Football Club players
Category:Melbourne Demons players to Category:Melbourne Football Club players
Category:North Melbourne Kangaroos players to Category:North Melbourne Football Club players
Category:Port Adelaide Power players to Category:Port Adelaide Football Club players
Category:Richmond Tigers players to Category:Richmond Football Club players
Category:St Kilda Saints players to Category:St Kilda Football Club players

Nominator's rationale:In each case these nicknames are normally used separately to the team name... ie "The Saints" or "St Kilda", not "St Kilda Saints". Please note that this is the complete list of proposed changes. The other teams in Category:VFL/AFL_players are already appropriately named... Category:Brisbane Bears etc are correct as they are and should not be changed. The-Pope (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Only one of those which I'd suggest we keep as it is is Category:Port Adelaide Power players. The name Port Adelaide Football Club is ambiguous and could also refer to the SANFL club's players. Crickettragic (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your exception, there is already a Category:Port Adelaide Magpies players for the SANFL players and Port specifically avoid using the phrase Port Adelaide Power, it's either Port Adelaide or Power.The-Pope (talk) 15:04, 2 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: no consensus. The "compromise" solution offered, Category:Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige/South Tyrol, is quite monstrous. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:South Tyrol to Category:Province of Bolzano-Bozen

Nominator's rationale: Rename (or redirect). South Tyrol was moved to Province of Bolzano-Bozen 9 months ago. There hasn't been disagreement about the name of the article since 4 months. (link to the previous nomination). Suppar luca 12:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The province has three official languages: Italian, German and Ladin, therefore three different original names . Both the German [[1]] and the Italian [[2]] wikipedia offer the names: "Provincia autonoma di Bolzano – Alto Adige" (Italian), "Autonome Provinz Bozen – Südtirol" (German) and Provinzia Autonòma de Bulsan – Südtirol (Ladin with the German name appended). I don't know why the English article Province of Bolzano-Bozen uses "Bolzano-Bozen" (Bolzano/Bozen = Capital of the province) without any reference to "Alto Adige"/"South Tyrol". If it is really a naming convention, as it is stated in the article, then I would also propose to rename the category, but to keep "South Tyrol" as a redirect. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No. 2: "South Tyrol" is more probably referring to the region, "Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige/South Tyrol" and the other variants to the political entity. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Supparluca seems to be permeating en.wiki with Bolzano-Bozen regardless of the fact that in many cases the WP:COMMONNAME in WP:ENGLISH is nothing to do with Bolzano-Bozen, it's either Alto Adige or South Tyrol, with the former somewhat more common IME. I've no problem with PoBB as a political and administrative entity - for instance the comuni belong under that name, and official titles such as Landeshauptmann. But English simply doesn't use PoBB when talking about the region as a cultural or historical entity, regardless of whether Italian nationalists might wish otherwise. The region has a distinct identity that goes back much further than the creation of the province of modern Italy. FlagSteward (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I didn't get your point; are you saying that you would prefer the name "Alto Adige"? Because some people think that "Alto Adige" is an Italian nationalistic name, and others that "South Tyrol" is a German nationalistic name. When you say "regardless of wether Italian nationalists might wish otherwise" are you opposing the name "Alto Adige" or what? Anyway, we are just deciding whether the name of a category should match the name of its article or not (for example, if the category about France should be called Category:French Republic instead of Category:France).--Suppar luca 15:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if "Alto Adige" is considered as nationalistic by "some people". My impression is, that it is a geographical term used as a name for the new province in 1919 to avoid any usage of "Tyrol" or "South Tyrol". But it has probably been used for many decades by Italian and Italian-speaking people and is also known by many English speakers besides the name "South Tyrol". The name "Südtirol" (South Tyrol) on the other hand is probably used by every German, Austrian, Swiss-German and also by German-speaking people from South Tyrol itself (who form a majority of the population) and is not considered nationalistic or separatistic at all. Of course the name of the category should match the name of the article (and vice versa!), but there is still no consensus about it, as you can see.--Wulf Isebrand (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No. 3: I would propose to use the category name Category:Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige/South Tyrol as a compromise, because it integrates both aspects. The political entity (Italian province) and the region (former part of the County of Tyrol until 1919, predominantly German-speaking, distinct identity and cultural features etc.) are coextensive in area, so they should not be separated in two different categories. "South Tyrol" is furthermore also used as a part of the official German and Ladin name of the polical entity. The category for the larger Italian (political) region is also named Category:Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Province of Bolzano-Alto Adige/South Tyrol per Wolf Isebrand. The nomination proposes using the least well-known in English of the three possibilities. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 30 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 Category:Turkish communities to Category:Turkish communities outside Turkey, preferable to "diaspora" because it covers a wider range. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Whatever sounds best - This clearly needs renaming since it has nothing to do with communities in Turkey, which is what it sounds like it's for. In actuality, it's about the Turkish diaspora -- so one possibility might be Category:Communities in the Turkish diaspora. Other suggestions are welcome and invited. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These sort of categories have been regarded with disfavour in the past, and I think deleted - a remember a Jewish equivalent. I live a few miles from Peckham, but would not associate it with Turks at all; as its article says: "A traditional London working class community now coexists with communities that have their origins in Bangladesh, the Caribbean, China, India, Ireland, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey, Eastern Europe and Vietnam" - do they all need categorising? The Turks come 8th on the list. Resen (town) gives undated figures of 1,018 "Turks". The former of these is examples is recent immigration, the latter a community centuries old, who may not actually speak much Turkish I think. Perhaps these two sorts need distinguishing? If kept, rename - Category:Turkish communities outside Turkey perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly listify - the ethnic makeup of a neighborhood or area is fluid and changes over time. Categorizing such areas on the basis of each ethnic group that may have set up residence there for some period of time is in the long run untenable, as it will lead to a proliferation of categories on place articles as more and more Fooian communities trees are planted. There are also serious definitional issues. What percentage of the population of a given area or region need to be Fooian for it to be a "Fooian community" and what objective standard do we use to determine it? A sourced list of ethnic communities, or perhaps a sourced list of the sequential occupancies by different ethnicities in articles for the area, or both, is a better way to present this information. Otto4711 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as per Cgingold's suggestion - As the creator of this category, I must say that I totally agree with Cgingold's name-change suggestion in order to clarify things. However, no matter how biased I may be, I totally disagree with deletion. There are some areas (for example, Kreuzberg and Edmonton, London, where I, myself, was born and raised) in which the Turkish population is substantial and where the Turkish community have laid their foundations. The ethnic makeup of a neighbourhood or area IS fluid, BUT it is extremely unlikely that all of the Turks in a particular area are all just suddenly going to disappear, and I doubt that any significant changes in ethnic makeup would happen for a very long time. And in the unlikely event that that does happen to a particular area, then it is very simple to deal with the situation: just remove the appropriate article from the category. Johnbod, in that list that you gave from the Peckham article, did you not notice that all of those places (except for Eastern Europe) were written in alphabetical order? Just because Turkey was written eighth, that doesn't mean that they're the 8th biggest ethnic minority in Peckham. The Turkish British article states that Peckham is an area with a significant Turkish population. As for Resen, coincidentally my maternal grandparents just so happen to be ethnic Turks from Macedonia, and from what I know, after having visited relatives there, there are certain areas where almost the entire population is Turkish, and that the Turks there do, in fact, speak Turkish. I must admit that a couple of the areas in this category are worth removing, but apart from that, I think the category is just fine. In my opinion, all that needs to be done is a little renaming. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hadn't noticed, but they are certainly not the largest minority in Peckham, & I doubt if they are in the top five of those listed. Nor, whatever the ranking, do we want 8 such categories there. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I sort of agree with you. As a British Turk, myself, I wouldn't really associate Peckham with Turks, either. I'm not the one who added Peckham to the category. Like I said before, "I must admit that a couple of the areas in this category are worth removing...". However, for the reasons which I stated before, the category shouldn't be deleted. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Turks no doubt live all over: Amsterdam and Vienna are no more Turkish than Istanbul is Greek, Armenian, or Russian on account of what diaspora is found there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, like I said, some of the areas in the category are worth removing (I'm not the one who added Amsterdam or Vienna, by the way). However, there are definitely some areas where the Turkish population is substantial and where the Turkish community have laid their foundations. The existence of certain articles in the category is an awfully weak reason for its deletion. Apart from Amsterdam, Baku and Vienna, I would associate all of those areas with Turks. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a large Turkish community in a place should be in the article it is not the basis of categorization; I'm sure that you wouldn't want all large Turkish cities which have/had a substantial Greek populations being placed in a category Category:Greek communities, remembering that sauce for the goose... Best not to categorize places by who inhabits them or inhabited them: if there were encyclopedic articles such as Turkish community in Vienna, Turkish community in XYZ perhaps such a category would be called for and those articles be included therein; not the way it is at present. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't I want that? Are you insinuating that I'm a racist or something? I know there are Greeks living in Turkey, do you really think I care? Anyway, stop twisting the argument. The point is, all of the areas in the category (excluding Amsterdam etc.) would be associated with their respective Turkish communities because they are areas in which not only the Turkish population is substantial, but also where the Turkish community have laid their foundations and are important to the area. These sorts of communities include some areas in the Balkans, Greece, Iraq, and certain areas elsewhere such as Kreuzberg, for example (every German that I've met associates the area with Turks). For these reasons, it is worth keeping the category. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the basic problem is that in most cases an article like Peckham is not about an ethnic community, so it doesn't belong in an ethnic community category - it belongs in Boroughs of London or some such. There will be a small number of articles that belong in this category, but they will be specific ones such as Turks of the Dodecanese or Turks of Western Thrace. Those are articles about "Turkish communities" outside Turkey. I guess there will be a few cases where a settlement is defined by the ethnicity of its inhabitants, but they will be relatively uncommon - I guess the Warsaw Ghetto and perhaps some of the Amish townships would be examples of that kind of thing. But in general I would oppose "community" categories being applied to any geographical articles such as Peckham or Kreuzberg. FlagSteward (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If renamed, then we need to look at Category:Ethnic enclaves since this form is common in there. If this category needs renaming, then others may also. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Communities of the Turkish Diaspora".Bless sins (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename i agree rename it to 'communities in the Turkish Diaspora'Thetruthonly (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. this is not a discussion on where greeks or armenians live, this is about turkish people; lets not get political here. lets just simply change the name to 'communities in the Turkish Diaspora' but Turks who live in places like Cyprus, Bulgaria and Kosovo are not part of the diaspora they are ETHNIC turks in these countries Justinz84 (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with that name. If the category only involved diaspora communities, then there wouldn't be much left there. I think it should be renamed as follows: "Category:Turkish communities outside of Turkey" Runningfridgesrule (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the turks in cyprus, bulgaria etc are not of the diasopra they are native turks so your suggesion is better suited agree to 'Category:Turkish communities outside of Turkey' Thetruthonly (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 'Category:Turkish communities outside of Turkey' - Best fitting to encompass articles centered on Turkish communites, not articles about cities/villages with Turk people in them. The "outside" distinction helps focus that the community might have cultural differences which derive from their location. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:09, 19 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: delete per WP:SNOW and WP:BAN. This may be a little on the WP:IAR side, but seeing as how the sole comment supporting keeping this category comes from an indefinitely blocked sock of an indefinitely blocked/banned user, I am going ahead and deleting this category and closing this CfD. --jonny-m t 03:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A subjective/POV categorization scheme that is best handled as a subcat of Category:Ethnic enclaves, i.e. Category:African American neighborhoods, etc. According to African_American_neighborhood#Ghettos, "The use of this term is controversial and, depending on the context, potentially offensive. Despite mainstream America's use of the term "ghetto" to signify a poor black urban area, those living in the area often used it to signify something positive." The criteria on the category page does not seem to be supported by any reliable source that I can find. Disclosure: CfD notices were posted on the creator's talk page, and three related project pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject African diaspora and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups‎, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, where appropriate, to Category:United States communities with African American majority populations, though I see that Compton, California is in the Hispanic-majority equivalent. A dubious category - is Harlem really the only US "ghetto" outside California? Apart from the POV, "ghetto" originated with Jewish communities, though I suppose the potential for confusion is small. Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see two inter-related problems with this category, basically stemming from the subjective nature of the term "ghetto". As noted, the term is somewhat provocative, and therefore problematic when used in the name of a category. However, I would be less concerned about that issue if it was possible for there to be wide enough agreement in the real world on which communities/neighborhoods are rightly considered to be "ghettos". But that's just not gonna happen, because "ghettos" are a combination of ethnic enclave and severe economic deprivation -- a complex equation that isn't easily defined. So I'm afraid I don't see any way to get around the POV issues, and I don't think renaming is an option, because it would leave the underlying issues unresolved. Cgingold (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Cgingold. Otto4711 (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Cgingold. Uucp (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ghetto is little more than a neighborhood that people don't like the inhabitants of regardless of wealth or particular (cf. Gay ghetto, Jewish ghetto) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Ghetto" is a term used very often just like "Upscale". Ghetto has nothing to do with black people. not all black people or neighborhoods are poor. perhaps we may rename the category to "Poor", "Low-Income", or "High Crime". But there should be a category as there is a direct categorical demographic in places like Hunters Point, San Francisco, California and Richmond, California. This is not a POV issue. The news reports these places as being ghettos. If we deny that we risk doing Original Research. Theres nothing offensive about being poor or "ghetto" or living in one. But poor people are segregated into ghettos and poor people acknowledge and slef-title their communities as such. Also most ghettos like most communities in the United States are not ethnic neighborhoods. They are poor neighborhoods with people of all races living together.SuperSuperBoi (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note that this is the person who created the category to start with. Uucp (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the term is POV, arbitrarily applied, and lacks the sort of rigid criteria required for a Wikipedia category. - Dravecky (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment' how bout we develop a rigid criteria?SuperSuperBoi (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Editor who created this category has just created and populated a parallel category called Category:Economically disadvantaged communities in the United States. - Dravecky (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of Category:Economically disadvantaged communities in the United States and Category:United States communities with African American majority populations. Ghetto is an imprecise term that, as this discussion illustrates, can be taken to mean either areas with residents of predominantly low socioeconomic status, or areas with high african american concentration. Steve Carlson^Talk 01:43, 5 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: rename all three. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Crime in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Category:Crime in the Palestinian territories

Rename Category:Terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Category:Terrorism in the Palestinian territories

Rename Category:Terrorism deaths in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Category:Terrorism deaths in the Palestinian territories

Nominator's rationale: Rename all 3 and make them each subcategories of the identical "Crime/Terrorism/Terrorism deaths in Palestine" categories. Background: I've been having an interesting discussion with the creator of these categories about "Palestine" vs. "Palestinian territories" vs. "West Bank and Gaza Strip" and the proper parent-daughter relationships between all these similarly named categories. There are no naming conventions on these issues, but from what I can tell, the general practice is that "the Palestinian territories" is used when referring to the post-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip areas and "Palestine" is used when referring to the historical geographical area that more or less includes these areas and modern Israel. (These name usages are not 100% consistent, but there is somewhat of a pattern.) The phrase "West Bank and Gaza Strip" are not typically used for categories when these two territories are being referred to: see Category:Palestinian territories and its subcategories. I'm proposing the following: (1) rename the categories per above, which will include post-1967 info; (2) these renamed categories will be subcategories of the broader Category:Crime in Palestine, Category:Terrorism in Palestine, and Category:Terrorism deaths in Palestine, which will include pre-1967 information; (3) Category:Palestinian crime victims, Category:Palestinian criminals, and Category:Palestinian prisoners and detainees will also be subcategories of the "Palestine" categories mentioned in (2) above since they could include pre- and -post-1967 individuals. Of course, good definitions should exist for each category after renaming and resorting. Feel free to make comments on proposals (1), (2), and/or (3). P.S.: One potential problem brought up by the creator is that "Israel" is geographically part of "Palestine" as a region, so the argument is that "Israel" categories should also be subcategories of the "Palestine" categories, which may make some uncomfortable. I think this is easily solved by having a "See also Foo of Israel" on the Palestine category pages, thus avoiding the sticky problem of making Israel a subcategory of Palestine. Notified creator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posted notice of this CFD at Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics. Cgingold (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted CfD notice at Deletion sorting of WP:Israel, WP:Palestine, and WP:Judaism for completeness. -- Avi (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per common/short name of the areas concerned. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a succinct name and thus welcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you are describing the problem of law and order you use the terms used by the authority maintaining law and order. So I don't think that this is correct. גרב (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And so your terminology would be .... ? You kind of left us hanging there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support these are not geographic/site categories; it is related to who is/was living there, or committing crimes (in this case) there, so it is in line with the compromises before. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, unless the above categories are meant to include crime in Israeli settlements in th West Bank (but that would be sort of random).Bless sins (talk) 04:36, 2 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: rename all, apart from the empty ones (deleted) as the consensus below is to keep, and to follow previous renaming decisions for consistency. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging

Argentines by ancestry / national origin[edit]

Category:Italian-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Italian descent
Category:Korean Argentines to Category:Argentines of Korean descent
Category:Latvian Argentines to Category:Argentines of Latvian descent
Category:Lebanese Argentines to Category:Argentines of Lebanese descent
Category:Lithuanian Argentines to Category:Argentines of Lithuanian descent
Category:Montenegrin-Argentinians to Category:Argentines of Montenegrin descent
Category:Peruvian-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Peruvian descent
Category:Polish Argentines to Category:Argentines of Polish descent
Category:Portuguese Argentines to Category:Argentines of Portuguese descent
Category:Romanian-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Romanian descent
Category:Russian-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Russian descent
Category:Serbian-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Serbian descent
Category:Sicilian-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Sicilian descent
Category:Spanish-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Spanish descent
Category:Swedish-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Swedish descent
Category:Swiss-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Swiss descent
Category:Syrian Argentines to Category:Argentines of Syrian descent
Category:Ukrainian-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Ukrainian descent
Category:Welsh-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Welsh descent
Category:Hungarian-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Hungarian descent
Category:French-Argentines to Category:Argentines of French descent
Category:Irish Argentineans to Category:Argentines of Irish descent
Category:Greek-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Greek descent
Category:German-Argentines to Category:Argentines of German descent
Category:Czech-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Czech descent
Category:Croatian-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Croatian descent
Category:American-Argentines to Category:Argentines of American descent
Category:Anglo-Argentines to Category:Argentines of British descent
Category:Armenian-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Armenian descent
Category:Austrian-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Austrian descent
Category:Basque Argentines to Category:Argentines of Basque descent
Category:Brazilian-Argentines to Category:Argentines of Brazilian descent

Czechs by ancestry / national origin[edit]

Category:German-Czech people to Category:Czechs of German descent
Category:Greek-Czechs to Category:Czechs of Greek descent
Category:Macedonian Czechs to Category:Czechs of Macedonian descent

Danes by ancestry / national origin[edit]

Category:Afro-Danish people to Category:Danes of Black African descent
Category:Albanian-Danish people to Category:Danes of Albanian descent
Category:Danish Arabs to Category:Danes of Arab descent
Category:Italian-Danish people to Category:Danes of Italian descent
Category:Pakistani-Danish people to Category:Danes of Pakistani descent
Category:Polish-Danish people to Category:Danes of Polish descent
Category:Spanish-Danish people to Category:Danes of Spanish descent
Category:Turkish Danish people to Category:Danes of Turkish descent

French by ancestry / national origin[edit]

Category:Algerian-French people to Category:French people of Algerian descent (left off recent nomination)

East Timorese by ancestry / national origin[edit]

Category:Arab-East Timorese to Category:East Timorese of Arab descent
Category:Portuguese East Timorese to Category:East Timorese of Portuguese descent

Ecuadorians by ancestry / national origin[edit]

Category:Afro-Ecuadorians to Category:Ecuadorians of Black African descent
Category:Catalan-Ecuadorians to Category:Ecuadorians of Catalan descent
Category:Greek-Ecuadorians to Category:Ecuadorians of Greek descent
Category:Italian-Ecuadorians to Category:Ecuadorians of Italian descent
Category:Spanish-Ecuadorians to Category:Ecuadorians of Spanish descent

Propose deletion[edit]

and deleting

Category:Iraqi Czechs (empty)
Category:Dutch Danes (empty pending Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Danes)
Category:Iraqi-Danish people (empty)
Category:Italian-Czechs (empty) - closer's note: not empty at time of closing, so renamed to Category:Czechs of Italian descent Bencherlite ^Talk 16:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(all tagged)

Nomination and discussion re Argentines, Czechs, East Timorese, Ecuadorians, and Danes by ancestry / national origin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: continuation of series of recent nominations made to rename 'Cats:Booian(-)Fooians' to 'Cats:Fooians of Booian descent' Mayumashu (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Please: I want to request as forcefully as possible that these mass nominations not lump together category groups from different countries. Doing so makes the assumption that all countries are interchangeable, with no significant differences that may need to be considered. Please split this up into separate nominations for each of the nationalities. Cgingold (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - So many categories are being thrown together here that it's starting to remind me of one of those monstrously-huge pieces of legislation that get hustled through the US Congress with few if any legislators knowing the details of what they're voting on. :)Cgingold (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

will oblige if you would please provide first an illustration of how countries differ with respect to this particular nomination. One point implicit in this mass renaming is that there aren t any differences amongst countries in noting the ancestry or national origin of their citizens Mayumashu (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that what you refer to as "implicit" is, in fact, an unproven assumption. So asking me to specify in advance is putting the cart before the horse. All I'm concerned with here is proceeding on a clear and orderly basis. In any event, my thanks to whoever took the time to arrange these into sub-sections. Cgingold (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support splitting into several nominations - it would be much clearer to vote and comment on and much better to rename. - Darwinek (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Matilda ^talk 21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename all, according to recent precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"precedent" is not one of the criteria for speedy renames. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Object to rename if we believe that this will be the convention. I understand the precedent has been set. The idea of renaming 'Cats:Booian(-)Fooians' to 'Cats:Fooians of Booian descent' makes sense. I think the associated articles covering ethnicity should also be renamed. Should that debate be held elsewhere and concurrently with this one? As an example of confusion with the 'Booian Fooian' convention, see Jamaican Brazilian where the article refers to a Brazilian-born person of Jamaican descent, or a Jamaican-born person with Brazilian citizenship. The majority of the Jamaican population are located in the Southeastern region of Brazil. - no references and very ambiguous in my view. --Matilda ^talk 00:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See discussion raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#renaming 'Cats:Booian(-)Fooians' to 'Cats:Fooians of Booian descent' and also renaming articles to the same naming convention --Matilda ^talk 01:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As per comments below I have changed my support to object to rename because it would allow for the category to become too broad. For example I am of Huguenot descent. I could therefore be categorised as an Australian of Huguenot descent but not as Huguenot Australian - the descent is too far back and the latter would not be an appropriate categorisation. Renaming the categories thus does not increase precision. I would like to see a conventian applied to the format of Cats:Booian(-)Fooians . I prefer no hyphen but I don't mind which it is if it could be consistent please. I think we need to firm up the convention to reduce ambiguity on such articles as Jamaican Brazilian. I note in the case of American Australian there is the separate article Australian American and they are indeed two separate topics. --Matilda ^talk 06:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So this is still one nomination now split into sections. I like it (it saves having to make same comments six times over) and thanks from me too to whoever did the work - I will do as likewise from now on will similar nominations Mayumashu (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely happy with this, but as long as it's understood that the various countries involved can be dealt with individually, it's somewhat better than having them mixed in together. In the future, please be good enough to create separate CFDs for each country. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all trivial, POV, subjective, and ultimately useless as I've said on several other occasions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - umm I am not quite sure why they need to be subjective - I would have thought one could establish an objective fact as to whether somebody was a Fooians of Booian descent. I appreciate that it might still be a POV and trivial fact, but not necessarily subjective.--Matilda ^talk 00:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Descent by definition means anyone with any ancestor. That is an overcategorization. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Fooian(-)Booian categorically does not? Mayumashu (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wikipedia can decide how they want to define Fooian(-)Booian, but Wikipedia cannot change the English language and decide that descent doesn't really mean descent.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP can't "redefine" the word "descent", but it can certainly decide what degree of descent is required in order for the category to be applied to a person. It's just the old "apply-only-categories-that-are-defining argument" repackaged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is fundementally different then the "apply-only-categories-that-are-defining argument". The reason being that the very idea of "limiting descent" is an oxymoron. Descent by defention means as far back as it can go. Nothing limits descent. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing limits descent in the real world, which this isn't. There is absolutely no reason the standard WP rules of applying a category should not still apply. If being of a certain descent is defining, then the category can apply. Obviously, for someone who is only 1 one thousanth of something (or pick whatever ratio you're concerned about), that descent is not "defining" for them. It's a tempest in the teacup once you realise it's really not different than any other category application problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to come across a category that is defined and limited in a way that directly conflicts with the name of the category. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(frustrated head shake) To repeat, I'm not talking about the definition. I'm talking about whether the category is applied based on whether it is defining. There is a difference, and it exists for every category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a renaming discussion - a deletion discussion should be held separately as that really confuses the issue --Matilda ^talk 01:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please make clear whether your comment That is an overcategorization means the categories should not exist or does it mean that they should not be renamed because it would allow for the category to become too broad. For example I am of Huguenot descent. I could therefore be categorised as an Australian of Huguenot descent but not as Huguenot Australian - the descent is too far back and the latter would not be an appropriate categorisation.--Matilda ^talk 04:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is exactly right. Sorry if I was unclear. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per recent precedent and to clarify what exactly the categories mean, which is not self-evident. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per recent precedence and per clarity. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no precedent. These few awful mistakes have only taken place in the last couple of weeks. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar changes have been made recently, as you acknowledge. That is a precedent. The strength of the precedent is another matter, but it's still correct to say there have been precedents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per recent precedence and German phrase Ordnung muss sein. There is a large mess with these categories, "quadruple naming" is now in use throughout WP, therefore I support the unification. - Darwinek (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The future disaster of this rename is evident in the Hilary Clinton article. She is included in Category:Americans of English descent, Category:Americans of French Canadian descent, Category:Americans of Scottish descent, and Category:Americans of Welsh descent. Why do you renamers think that she isn't categorized as Category:English Americans, Category:French-Canadian Americans, Category:Scottish Americans, and Category:Welsh Americans? The answer is simple, the former is true and the latter is untrue. Hilary Clinton personifies the future of bios in Wikipedia. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More important than the naming scheme is a clear description of the purpose of the categories on the different category pages. At the moment, Category:Americans of English descent or Category:Americans of Scottish descent just list people of partial descent, so Hillary Clinton is among them. We have to clarify who should be listed and what's the meaning of those categories. We could:

1. Include every American who has (for example) some (verified) Scottish ancestors at Category:Americans of Scottish descent. But I don't see any value in listing people who have an Scottish great-great-great[...]-grandfather who immigrated decades or centuries prior to the person's birth.

2. We make some restrictions. If we do so, which restrictions? The subcats of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin use many different descriptions at the moment. For example "Category:Croatian-Americans": "The following is a list of Americans who are of Croatian heritage. This list includes both native-born Americans of Croatian heritage as well as individuals who originally hailed from Croatia but have become United States citizens." So everybody who is somehow "Croatian" is listed. Irish Americans, according to the Category:Irish Americans, are people who are "[...}American citizens of full Irish ancestry,[original research?] Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland national origin, or of partial descent but who self-identify themselves as "Irish(-)American". For those of partial descent see Category:Americans of Irish descent. Of course we usually don't know if a person identifies as Irish American, but this didn't bother the people, who put in every O'Brian or Mcwhatever they could find. Other subcats use a "of full, predominantly or half" Fooian ancestry rule, but this is quite arbitrary. So, what could we do? Maybe we should just list Fooian-Booians (or Fooians of Booian descent) of the first, second and third generation (just a proposal).

3. We delete all these categories as "POV, subjective" etc. etc. by Carlossuarez.

--Wulf Isebrand (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(again,) I favour Wulf's 1. I don t see what the big bother is in listing Hiliary CLinton's four ancestries, assuming that they are referenced - it would be clear and accurate and therefore informative. again, 'Fooian(-)Booian', can mean any of a number of things, depending on who wishes it to mean what - a dual citizen, a citizen of any country with two ethnicities, a citizen of Fooian citizenship and Booian ancestry of any generation, a citizen of Booian of Fooian ancestry, again of any generation, even a Fooian expat residing in Booia according to some. (and then there s the irresolvable issue of the hyphen.) Most importantly, how can it be decided how much ancestry and how far back is still a Fooian Booian?? Again, I assert that it s an unnecessary question to answer as Fooians of Booian descent is perfectly fine, even if a few of the really famous (therefore with sources on their ethnicity) have four links Mayumashu (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most editors agree that #1 is unacceptable as an undefining overcategorization. I also think that most editors fall somewhere in #2.
But it is the naming scheme is the biggest factor in how the cat will used and defined. If the names of the cats are "descent" every Whateveruiz will be in the Spanish descent cat and every McWhatever will be in the Irish descent cat. Even if descent cats are "defined in a limited way" it will not stop this overcategorizatoin from taking place. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 is the undefined one - c'mon. 1 is more, arguably too, inclusive and 2 undefined - let s be clear. Mayumashu (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wentworth Miller has stated that his father is of African-American, Jamaican, English, German, Jewish and Cherokee ancestry, and that his mother is of Russian, French, Dutch, Lebanese and Syrian descent." So we'll have to put him into Category:African Americans, Category:Americans of Jamaican descent, Category:Americans of English descent, Category:Americans of German descent, Category:Americans of Jewish descent, Category:Americans of Native American descent, Category:Americans of Russian descent, Category:Americans of French descent, Category:Americans of Dutch descent, Category:Americans of Dutch descent, Category:Americans of Lebanese descent and Category:Americans of Syrian descent, if there are no restrictions. Overcategorization? --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per recent precedence and per clarity. To the objectors: for the vast majority of these categories there is only one category covering all types of connection. some American, English etc categories have categories for two types, but I'm dubious how well the distinction is maintained. I am happy to support dual categories if well-maintained and a respectable size. I can't see (on a not-exhaustive-look) any such here. For examples, I don't oppose keeping Category:Sudeten Germans separate from the German/Czech categories. Category:French-Argentines contains the usual mix, including ?French-Argentine-French like Angel Rambert, who I've left as it is a French name, and Keny Arkana (removed). Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. From checking some of the Fooian-Booian article pages (take Australian American cited above by another contributor for instance), the majority of these pages seem to "define" (ie. assert a definition) that Booian-Fooian refers to someone of Booian citizenship (although some do not state this clearly) that has emigrated from Fooia, has a "significant" tie to country Fooia (POV alert), " or [who is] a descendant of people from [Boo]ia", without assertion that the relevant descendancy needs to be recent. By asserted definition therefore 'Booian(-)Fooian' is synomous with 'Fooian of Booian descent' - the argument therefore that the former by definition can limit links, that Wentworth Miller say can be linked to all nine ancestry cat links with one naming and not the other, is simply and clearly mistaken Mayumashu (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per recent precedence and per clarity. DutchDevil (talk) 19:07, 2 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.

May 28

Coaches

Category:Bus transit in the United States

Category:American baseball managers

Category:Round Rock Express managers

Category:Round Rock Express

Round Rock, Texas

Category:Hebrew University

Category:Templates for redirects to sections

Category:Xenogears

Category:Rebellions in Australasia

Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia

Category:US city geography categories

Category:US city transportation categories

Category:Terrorism deaths in the West Bank

Category:Ballets by Susan Stroman

AFL players

Category:South Tyrol

Category:Turkish communities

Category:United States ghettos

Category:Crime in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

Argentines, Czechs, East Timorese, Ecuadorians, and Danes by ancestry / national origin

Argentines by ancestry / national origin[edit]

Czechs by ancestry / national origin[edit]

Danes by ancestry / national origin[edit]

French by ancestry / national origin[edit]

East Timorese by ancestry / national origin[edit]

Ecuadorians by ancestry / national origin[edit]

Propose deletion[edit]

Nomination and discussion re Argentines, Czechs, East Timorese, Ecuadorians, and Danes by ancestry / national origin[edit]