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.
Nominator's rationale: Redundant and inconsistent with the hierarchical organisation of persons by municipality. Ringbang (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic, you're right: This is a convention (an alternative one) used in some countries' categories (e.g., Category:People by city or town in England), and the precedent is to delete the "by city" and "by town" categories in favour of "city or town". I don't know what discussions have taken place about this alternative hierarchy, or whether this scheme should be emulated. It bypasses the Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision level. Is there any advantage to this for a country like South Africa, which is (unless I'm mistaken) entirely subdivided into provinces? (Lesotho is irrelevant, of course.) If a country has both schemes, editors tag articles for either one or both schemes, which means that either the categories are fragmented, or there are two categories with potentially identical contents for people in each town or city. In short, I agree with Halqh: This doesn't seem to help users. On the contrary, it just creates problems. Right now, the scope of this issue is small for South Africa. I see it as a problem to eliminate (which, at present, is easy), not a solution (to a non-existent problem?) to reinforce. My vote remains delete. Ringbang (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ah, I see, Category:People by province in South Africa already provides one way to navigate to Category:People from Ventersdorp and you suggest that is enough. Looking at the 5 sub-cats of Category:English people by location in England, would you delete the lowest-level Category:People by city or town in England which has 1622 alphabetically-arranged sub-cats? If so, where would you stop -- you could also delete the national categories for district and county, permitting navigation between towns only by going up and down the categories town->district->county->region and back down region->county->district->town. You say it "bypasses" the hierarchy, but it does not detract from it, and IMHO it creates no problems to also have a category for people by town or city arranged alphabetically; and it is positively helpful for readers/editors who want to navigate to a town without first knowing where it is. I'm still strongly for merge and rename. - Fayenatic(talk) 11:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we have categories for people from specific towns, we should have a parent category to group together these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this single entry category and consider deleting the parent category at this time. We really need to think about the parent categories in this area. The 'People by city or town' naming should really be 'people by populated place' so that there is a consistent name across categories. If someone is looking for categories of people by place, are they really, really, really concerned if it is a town, village hamlet, city, metropolitan area or any other type of classification? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To disambiguate, as there are two places named Posadas, and to match the corresponding article named Posadas, Misiones. Mayumashu (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to remove ambiguityCurb Chain (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2011 (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:British people of Black African 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.
DELETE Strong Over categorization WP:OVERCAT in addition to using pejorative terminology and in conflict with WP:CATGRS. And it violates wiki rules of cat people based on ethnicity, so already we have that argument against this nonsense.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OCAT -also, the wording seems strange, is Black African descent in contradistinction to North African (mostly Arab), White South Africans and various other places in Africa where White people lived and moved to Britain? or in contradistinction to Black people from places like the Caribbean? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It means black people descending from Africa who are British. Basically people whose ancestors were part of African Diaspora.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is an old colonial term to describe people, how can they be Black and also African? If they are African Diaspora then that would be the correct term. Black British even makes more sense. If Red Indian is now degrading why would Black African not be? Very few Africans use these as a self-reference. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; see the link I have just given, or see Black British. Every form one completes in the UK invites one to fill in one's heritage, 'Black African' being one option. On what grounds is it WP:OCAT? In the US there is the comparable Category:African-American people: "citizens of the United States of black African ancestry". Occuli (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say anything in the situation but this, calling oneself or others "black" is not pejorative in any respect. It's an acceptable descriptor in the western world, anyway, and black people call themselves that--either black or African American (in the US)--whichever they identify as. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black people call themselves black, but Black African? In the UK? I dont think that is what they call themselves.If Red Indian is now degrading why would Black African not be?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, to me "Black" is offensive, and calling someone or one's self black is offensive.Curb Chain (talk)
Keep. This is accepted descent cat form. The reason why we do not give specific countries is because there are many people who do not know which country their ancestors came from. I would suggest for people whose country of ancestral origin in Africa is known, they be placed by that cat and not in this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it they are from African ancestry what is the role of the word black? Are Black people a minority group in Africa? Like saying Islamic Muslim people. Why not say Sub-Saharan African which has more meaning? but again is a colonial term which is not used by the AU.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That category Category:Black British people should be kept as it has sub-cats for Black British history & culture as well as people. I suggest that it should be pruned so that the country-of-origin categories are only within two sub-cats, viz. the nominated category and Category:British people of West Indian descent. Alternatively, make it a sub-cat of Category:Black British (which is currently a redirect) and move the non-people categories up to there. - Fayenatic(talk) 12:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: whatever the technical merits of this case, if it is OCAT then shouldn't the outcome be "upmerge to all parents" rather than "delete"? Careless hierarchy destruction is too frequent at CFD. - Fayenatic(talk) 19:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really need to be upmerged into all 4 parents? I don't disagree with the upmerge suggestion if kept. I think I have concerns about upmerging it to 4 categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think people need to pay attention to actual used terms. Black African is the accepted term in Britain, and just because people do not like it for whatever reason is not enough to just ditch the category. Anyway a large portion of those in Britain of South African descent are not in any way black, so African does not equal black, not for that matter does sub-Saharan African.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does black not equaling African mean we should delete this category? To understand why this category exists at all one must realize that in American usage African always means black, but this is not true of British usage. For even suggesting that white people from South Africa living in the US could be "African American" people have been branded racist and even suspended by some public schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is because according to the definition of most African people they are not seen as African. I dont think a group of Whites born in China since British colonialism are running around saying they are Chinese-Americans or Asians forcing all of china to say "Yellow Chinese". A absolute minority do not cause the extream majority to have to all wear Black and African together just to accomodate less than 0.1% of the people living in Africa. So no Whites in South Africa are not Africans also because African people define themselves and are not defined by White minorities. none of who were African when slavery was taking place nor during apartheid. Still never understood how Nelson Mandela could be Black when his skin is near to yellow (but that is another debate). See user Curb remarks. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this term is the correct one - not convinced of that, myself; then Category:Black British people is incorrect and should be reverse merged into this one and deleted as incorrect. If it "Black British" is the correct term, then this should go, instead. We should not have 2 categories for the same thing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Carlossuarez46, and Black is a term of culture, not of "ethnicity" (, in this case). In any case, how are we to know what usage is being used? The American or UK usage? "Black" and "African American" are fluid terms and one does not always equate to the other. This is ambiguous and we will never agree. "African American" is the correct and objective usage, and to describe someone as such is describing someone's geographical origin, not their biological origin. "Black" is not a necessary adjective. This category should go.Curb Chain (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commment re British usage: Somali people are in Africa, so what do you do with them since in the UK they have asked not to be added to the sommetimes used Black African cat. And you will notice the cat is also Black/African, which means 'Black' or 'African', not Black African so it hardly applies and it means Rageh Omaar might or might not fit in. hence why wiki says avoid ethnic based cats.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a problem here because this category is a parent of origin-specific sub-categories, not of people (articles). - Fayenatic(talk) 08:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, it is. Articles are categorized. Categories are nothing without their names.Curb Chain (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove duplicate population from its parent cats. Black British states that it "is a term used to describe British people of Black African or African-Caribbean descent." Although Afro-Caribbean people are ultimately also of African descent, this category distinguishes people of an African cultural heritage from those with a Caribbean cultural heritage. Therefore I do not support a merge with Category:Black British people in either direction. There is a whole category tree under Category:People of Black African descent with many cats for "[nationality] people of Black African descent", so the nomination calls into question that entire tree and its parent Category:Black African diaspora. I think the hierarchies are fine, but there is no need for many of this one's specific sub-cats to be in both this and its parent cats. This cat should also be removed from Category:British people by ethnic or national origin as it belongs to two intermediate head categories. - Fayenatic(talk) 08:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Caribbean-related sub-cats should be removed once this CFD is resolved. I'll do it it no-one else does. - Fayenatic(talk) 13:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New ViewDelete. Aftter thinking about this more I have decided that this is a race category, which is specifically banned by wikipedia policy. This category should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do you intend to delete the entire Category:Black African diaspora hierarchy? Also, what policy are you referring to? At Middayexpress' above link for WP:CATEGRS, it says "See Lists of ethnic groups for groups that are typically considered ethnic groups rather than races", and that currently includes Black British. Moreover you have not replied to the point that this category is not categorising individual bios directly, but only grouping various sub-cats by their heritage. - Fayenatic(talk) 12:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black is not an ethnic group, but MANY MANY people disagree with this view, but what you have to see is that Black is a term of culture and not an ethnic group because most people where forcibly removed from their geographical origin during the slave trade, so they don't know their genuine ethnic group. They intermarried because of segregatory policies on the new world, not just in the US. It's like calling White an ethnic group. Black simply isn't.Curb Chain (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually a lot of the people in this cat have ancestors who willingly left Africa. Beyond that, for British purposes, is not Barbadian or Barubian an ethnic group. It seems that identifying that their ancestors 300 years ago of so were in Africa is overcat. Anyway, there is a lot more mixture of African and European genes among these people than some people are acknowledging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have questioned the ancestry categories since it is far from clear that there is an objective way to determine how many generations must pass before that is no longer relevant. This issue is clearly more of a problem when we use race. Classifying based on skin color is full or problems and is it defining? Is being black a hindrance in basketball? Baseball? Football? This nomination is clearly going to be the tip of the iceberg if it passes. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2011 (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 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.
Delete – it is neither defined nor defining. How many words of 2 different languages are necessary to make an album bilingual? Occuli (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have the same problem with the whole family of XXXX-language films, where inclusion criteria are non-existent: Blazing Saddles is in Category:Yiddish-language films, for example. They should all go unless we define inclusion criteria that make a majority of content or use of subtitles, that is ojective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can think of an album with 1 song primarily in Hebrew, but the album is aimed at English speakers. Actually I can think of some other songs with minimual non-English wording. There is no clear point of bilingualism, and any point we were to define would just be arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the inclusion criteria is weather at least one song is in another language from the rest of the songs. I think this would be definable.Curb Chain (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree that this is undefined and undefining. Does a mix of Mandarin and Cantonese count as bilingual? Manu Chao sang in 6 languages on Próxima Estación: Esperanza, if you count Galician as separate from Spanish, so it is arguable that it is a defining characteristic of that album that it is multilingual. However, so many albums have one song in a foreign language, e.g. Chinese albums including one English song, or English with one French, that CurbChain's suggested criterion is not defining. I am therefore not recommending Category:Multilingual albums either, because I cannot offer a suitable definition of that as a defining characteristic without being arbitrary. - Fayenatic(talk) 20:50, 6 August 2011 (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.
Strike that; although it is currently under that category, the only member page Persona (marketing) does not belong there. Just Delete. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:40, 8 August 2011 (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.
