Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 13 May 15 >

May 14[edit]

Category:1972 Team Canada players[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 01:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1972 Team Canada players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Performer by performance. And while most anyone in Canada would understand what this category is referencing, the category name is vague beyond belief for anyone not familiar with the Summit Series. Resolute 23:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will have to disagree with this one. This is a very likely topic of search. -DJSasso (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. And they will search the Summit Series article that already has a list of all players long before they search for a remarkably vague category tree. Resolute 15:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We don't categorize sportspeople by team combined with year. No question that this particular one was an important team in Canadian sports history, but I don't see a reason we would make an exception to the general rule. If someone's going to search for it, why not have 1972 Team Canada players as a redirect to the list, which already exists with far more detail—i.e., the list includes positions and notes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see why Wikipedia is a bureaucracy. This is a defining characteristic in the careers of these players. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Keep & complete. If the folks in WP:HOCKEY refuse to use templates, then keeping the category is the next-best alternative. The articles for the players on the roster ought to have the category added so that the category is complete. PKT(alk) 16:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the better way to link players to a notable team like this is with a template, not a category. Apart from that, the members of the team are listed here. I also note that the category in question is incomplete. PKT(alk) 12:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(update) A template for the team might look like: User:PKT/Template:1972 Team Canada Summit Series Roster.
Love the template. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOCKEY actually has a standard to not user templates for members of a team like this as it violates wp:embed and wp:navbox. -DJSasso (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that statement. I can't find any such standard in WP:HOCKEY nor can I see where this use would violate WP:EMBED nor WP:NAVBOX. If you can point out to us where to look for the points you're claiming, please do so. Navboxes like this are used freely by other sports, there's no reason why they shouldn't be used for this team. PKT(alk) 02:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could link dozens of discussions if you like, including numerous TfDs for Stanley Cup champion roster lists. In short: players are not notable for, or defined by their teammates in a given event. We'd rather not clutter articles with such templates. Resolute 02:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, a discussion about a possible template should probably be discussed at WT:HOCKEY rather than this CfD. Resolute 03:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:EMBED "Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article.". Each player on a team would not be featured on an article of every other member on the team. -DJSasso (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next best alternative is the one that already exists in the article: the list of players is there. The decision not to clutter articles with templates does not change the issue of this being overcategorization. Resolute 23:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently user Resolute found one but not the other. My opinion would be the same as above, fer shurr. PKT(alk) 00:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I was looking over the subcats of Canadian ice hockey players and noticed this one. I didn't even think of looking for a Soviet equivalent, which should have been obvious in hindsight. I'll nominate it separately given how many comments already exist in this debate. Resolute 02:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. That it was likely the most notable performance for a 'Team Canada' internationally is a wonderful sentiment that should have no bearing upon WP catting. The/A list on an article page suffices. And definitely the template linked here about is excellent - a must for article pages on players who played in the series Mayumashu (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Numerous templates have been deleted like this for other hockey articles as the project considers this clutter. The rosters exist on the main article. Note the other template for Category:1972 Team USSR players was deleted for the exact same reasons as this article. -Pparazorback (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm and per above about USSR players.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aqidah[edit]

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, invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξxplicit 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Aqidah to Category:Islamic theology
Nominator's rationale: Merge Aqidah is a redirect to Islamic theology, and they appear to be substantially similar. There's no indication in the categories themselves how they're different from each other. Mairi (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tamil atheists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tamil atheists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We don't need to divide atheists by ethnicity, and this is the only category that attempts to do so. Mairi (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I wrongly thought this one was being made comparable to the Jew and Muslim ones. I still say keep as it is noteworthy for ethnically Tamil people to be atheist and not Hindu, and I don t oppose there being Category:Atheists by ethnicity, comparable to Category:Atheists by nationality (in part as some ethnicities don t have recognized countries, their own jurisdiction internationally). That Tamils are commonly Hindu explains why likely there isnt Category:Tamil Hindus. I d support it too though, personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayumashu (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, we don't need to categorize people by the intersection of religion and ethnicity. We already have a category structure for religion+nationality. --Alynna (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree we don't need ethnicity+atheism categories for people. Nationality+atheism is sufficient. (The Jewish and Muslim ones being kind of exceptions, since they have a clear relevance to religion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musical groups from Yukon[edit]

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 Category:Musical groups from Yukon and Category:Musical groups from the Northwest Territories as empty categories. Either could be re-created if articles are created to populate it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Musical groups from Yukon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: These 2 empty categories were created with an 'empty category - do not delete' tag back in April; I believe out of a mistaken impression that if some provinces and territories have a musical groups category, all must. I have engaged the creator on his talk page and explained that empty categories should not be created as placeholders. If there are truly no groups with which to populate, recommend deleting this until such time as there are. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Placing the {{popcat}} on the category page then nominating it four hours later hardly seems sufficient time for the category to get populated.

Doesn't this category fall under the WP:OC#SMALL in that it is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme? Argolin (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • — Note to closing admin: Argolin (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
  • I've made a good faith effort to find articles that might be placed here, and found none. OC#SMALL was me being generous: these are flat-out empty categories. I can see you're still learning how things work around here but the fact that other places have a musical groups cat is no reason to create these. If and when we have a reasonable number of musical groups in these two territories they can be recreated in just a moment: right now, they serve no useful function. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Texas Pacific Group[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Texas Pacific Group to Category:TPG Capital
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the main article which reflects the new name for the company. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American people of Latin American descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 4#Category:American people of Latin American descent. — ξxplicit 01:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American people of Latin American descent to Category:American people of Latin American descent by country of origin
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category seems incomplete as it is currently titled. --evrik (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Oil wells[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξxplicit 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Oil wells to Category:Fossil-fuel wells
Nominator's rationale: Someone tried to ask for this move like asking for an article move. See also Talk:Oil well#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Nobody uses this term. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Keep the category with the same name as the parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as no rationale has been given for the article move. (Fossil-fuel well is not even a redirect. Do we have fossil-fuel wells that are not oil? Coal-wells? Gas perhaps.) Occuli (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose obvious mis-use of the term Fossil fuel as well explained in its article. Hmains (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Oil and[/or] gas wells" would be the way to go, if a change is really needed; this works better for the category in the plural, than a singular article title. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Philosophical societies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Philosophical societies to Category:Philosophy organizations
Nominator's rationale: There is no useful distinction between a "philosophy organization" and a "philosophical society." I propose to merge into the more generally applicable "philosophy organizations." Other than wanting to portray an "uppity" image, and just having the word "society" in the title there is no reason to organize Wikipedia this way. Greg Bard 02:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and how is that a useful distinction from "philosophical organizations" exactly? Every philosophical "society" is an organization. We have a bunch of articles in each category for no good reason. We are perfectly able to place "philosophy organizations" under "learned societies" just fine. Please help eliminate useless redundancy. I also feel it is my duty to point out that the existence of "something of a history" is what is known as an appeal to tradition. That is to say that it is the same thing as saying "I don't have any reason at all." Greg Bard 21:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across this while looking for something else, but can see great logic to keeping the historical "Philosophical Societies" separate from contemporary philosophical organizations. If one of the former survives to present times, it should be listed both places. Casey (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly is there a presumption that there is a difference between these categories based on time? There were and are philosophical "societies," and there were and are philosophical "organizations." Nothing about the categories as named or comprised implies this distinction that both of you seem to presume. Perhaps we should have categories "philosophical organizations" and "former philosophical organizations" if that is the concern.Greg Bard 16:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do recommend that you look at the reference I provided you to the continuing programme of the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow and to the other pages on their site giving their annual programmes of lectures, and perhaps reflect on its nature. AllyD (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every group is an "organization", but in the History of science the old "Natural Philosophy" societies were somewhat akin to the modern National Academies of sciences and engineering (in the USA). They were pioneering technical groups not really related at all to today's organizations of genuine philosophers (which groups may or may not use the term "society" in their names). The latter might convene a meeting to talk about, say, "Truth", but leave it to the chemists to convene a meeting to talk about "Olefinic Hydrocarbon Protonation Reactions" or whatever. Casey (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly these categories are not being used this way at all, and therefore the distinction is not useful. If you and AllyD would like to go through and identify those that fit your scheme and place them properly, that, along with a cat description would be apt. However, in the absence of this. the distinction is currently all about having the word "society" in the name and nothing more. I would propose Category:Philosophical organizations and Category:Defunct philosophical organizations to keep things simple. Anything else is unnecessary confusion for people trying to organize articles into categories. It is also unnecessary confusion for people looking things up, and not finding them.Greg Bard 21:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the more important issue is distinguish between "learned societies" and just any old club with a point of view. However that distinction doesn't seem to be addressed currently. Perhaps if the category stands we need to go though and put all the legitimate academic organizations (with or without the name "society") into the philosophical societies cat. It doesn't seem that there are many left that aren't societies.Greg Bard 01:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is true in other professional areas also (e.g., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Society of Petroleum Engineers, American Chemical Society). The word "society" seems to be used just as a synomyn for "organization" or "association" rather than in the sociological sense. And I suppose there are no strictures against, say, the followers of a particular rugby club using the word "society" in its name. I agree that "learned societies" would be a good category. Good luck in sorting out the hangers-on (say, a university Dining and Drinking club that never gets beyond those activities) who might disagree with others vetting the names on the list! And you could create a "Defunct...organizations" list although the very word "defunct" seems a bit pejorative. "Historical" would be better except that such word also refers to the profession of historians, and "Ancient" would imply going back too far in time although would encompass those of the Aristotelian age. Casey (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If this goes ahead (and I hope that it does not), the resulant category ought to be pruned of the various "Lit and Phil" societies and others which still use "philosophy" in the old sense where it included "natural philosophy" (which we now call science), and is beyond the present definition of philosophy. Such societies will need to go inot a paretn (such as learned societies. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I agree with the nominator that there is little sense categorizing those organizations that happen to use the word "society" in their name into a separate category. It's overcategorization by shared name, which is discouraged by the guidelines. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. These two categories are not being used distinctly and either cover the same information in some cases or separate like groups without good reason. The Logical Positivist (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: They seem to cover different areas, as mentioned in the discussion above. ("Natural philosophy" is an antique term for "science", speaking broadly.) I'm not sure what the right course of action is: very possibly Category:Philosophical societies should be deleted (which is what this proposal amounts to, I suppose). I recommend retagging any appropriate articles with Category:Philosophical organizations, but not a wholesale move because I think there are articles which are inappropriate in that category. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, this proposal is out of hand. Is the issue:
A) we need two categories because there are defunct organizations and active ones, or
B) we need two categories because there are learned societyies and "non-learned" societies (or organizations), or
C) we need two categories because there are non-philosophical societies that have "philosophical" or "philosophy" in the title?
I think we need to clarify this before we can make any sensible counter-proposal.Greg Bard 20:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Prophets in Islam[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Prophets in Islam to Category:Prophets of Islam
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians in State College[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians in State College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Wikipedians in State College, Pennsylvania to match the article name. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who are fans of WP:BROTHER[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are fans of WP:BROTHER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Does not facilitate collaboration. Keeping sets precedent for "fan" categories of similar nature. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:French users Wikipedians[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:French users Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unclear what this category is for. Perhaps a duplicate of Category:French Wikipedians? VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that VegaDark's guess is correct rather than yours, as the one user who has this category on his userpage already has other language categories but doesn't have a location category. Regardless, delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Preservationists for an amendment to the notability rule for the historical value of things[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Preservationists for an amendment to the notability rule for the historical value of things (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Keeping these sorts of categories seems like a bad idea, unless we want to have categories for Wikipedians supporting amendments to notability requirements for whatever other exception they may wish. At minimum needs a rename, since this category has no indication it is a wikipedian category. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User:Morriswa[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Morriswa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "individual user" category, which have a unanimous precedent for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American people of Shundenese descent[edit]

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:American people of Shundenese descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent
merge Category:Canadian people of Shundense descent to Category:Canadian people of Chinese descent
merge Category:Shundenese people to Category:People from Foshan
delete Category:People of Shundenese descent.
Note that this didn't resolve what to do with Category:Hong Kong people of Shundenese descent: probably for good reasons, there is no Category:Hong Kong people of Chinese descent to merge to. This probably should be followed up on with a new nomination. For now, it is in Category:People from Foshan.
I did not create Category:People from Shunde District but this can be created if someone wants it to exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American people of Shundenese descent to Category:American people of Chinese descent
Propose merging Category:Canadian people of Shundense descent to Category:Canadian people of Chinese descent
Propose renaming Category:People of Shundenese descent to Category:People from Shunde District or Category:People from Foshan
Nominator's rationale: far too fine a distinction made here - Shunde is a district of a city in Guangdong province Mayumashu (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_14&oldid=1138394279"