Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 7

< August 6	August 8 >

August 7[edit]

Category:Members of the Editorial Advisory Council of ''Dionysius''[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no scheme for categorizing editorial boards of particular journals, and it's probably not a good idea to start. Academics in particular often serve on editorial boards or advising councils of many academic journals and such service is generally not defining. Many of these positions (not necessarily with this particular journal) are often ex officio or merely honorary, so these especially would not make sense to categorize by. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly true that academics often serve on many such boards. My thought when I created the category was that showing the links between the people who make up this board (and others like it, if similar categories are created for other journals) could be a useful contribution to a certain kind of intellectual history, the "who knew whom" and "who taught whom" kind (to which by the way the Internet seems to me especially to lend itself), which in turn can sometimes support intellectual history of a more substantial kind. But I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and have an open mind on this question. Best regards, Tillander 00:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could make sense to include a list of past and present council members on the article about the journal, in this case Dionysius (journal). There's nothing about that in the article right now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought also, but I ran afoul of the rules that govern pages relating to scholarly journals. I did try to make the case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dionysius_(journal) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals#Editorial_board_listings.2C_again But I don't think I was very persuasive. Tillander 02:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another point occurs to me...I'm not entirely clear about why it's a problem that advisory board membership often has an honorary character. We have categories for things like Members of the Bavarian Order of Merit and Recipients of the Australian Sports Medal (and indeed lists and ordinary pages devoted to such things)...why should academic honours be any different? But as I say, I'm still new at this; I'm happy to go along with whatever consensus develops.Tillander 03:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline in question is here. I think the short answer is that many, many categories for awards that currently exist probably run afoul of the guidelines. But no category gets dealt with unless it gets nominated for discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this link. I'll take a look at this page. Best, Tillander 06:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listify. This can be useful information, but merbership on editorial advisorty boards can change too often, and someone can be on too many at once for it to be defining. Most university professors are only at any given time on one faculty (there are exceptions, esepcially among some music and other arts faculties, but they are rare) while there are many who serve on multiple editorial advitsory boards at once. A list would also have the advantage of being able to list what years the people served on the board so it would indicate who actually served with whom, while the current function would group together people who may have served 20 years apart, and you would only find out if they overlap if the articles gave a when served instead of just listing that board amont the 7 or so boards the given person was on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Good Ol'factory that for starters this should be made a list at the journal article. In some journals having it as a seperate article would probably work, but it probably can start as a list with the journal article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did in fact make a list at the journal article twice, in this version of it and later in this one. In each case the list was deleted. I also tried to argue the case here and here, but without success. I wasn't sure what to do: that's why I thought a category might be the answer. Best, Tillander 22:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went and resored the list. I would say that if the OR concerns expressed against the list in the past are valid, they apply at least as much to the contents of this category, they are just harder to voice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete the list also. Being editor in chief of a journal is notable, but not merely on the editorial board. It's not even particularly important for most journals. There is also no reason to have a list anywhere, since it's the practice not even to include this material in articles on the journals. Sometimes it's listed in the bios of academics, but usually it's considered trivial, almost like on-campus awards. For large journals, it amounts to a linkfarm. It would amount to collecting information almost indiscriminately. Many journals are even perfectly willing to add anyone of any reputation to the board as a quid pro quo for submitting an important article. I agree that lists and categories are generally both justified when either is, but the converse is also true--when there is no reason for one, there's usually no reason for the other. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG there are lots and lots of lists that work where categories do not. There are also some categories that are just not practical to turn into lists. Whatever the merit of this particular think as a category or a list, there is no reason why every list should spawn a category, and there are very, very good reasons why many lists should never be used to make a category. Lists allow for better tracking of multiple characteristics. Lists of state leaders in a given year should not get parralel cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it's not defining to be a 'Member of the Editorial Advisory Council of Dionysius' (or any other journal at all, I would have thought). It's not even the sort of factoid that would necessarily be mentioned even in a longish article on an academic. I am not surprised that the corresponding list is in difficulties. Occuli (talk) 17:26, 14 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.

Media by continent of setting[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.

Individual category list

Nominator's rationale: Delete per consensus and close remarks at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_30#Category:Media_by_setting. The pre-existing Category:Locations in fiction does an adequate job as a top-level category and container for works that are "set" in a geographical location (as opposed to produced or shot) are therefore necessarily fiction. Moreover, User:Stefanomione has acknowledged at CfD that works such as novels, plays, etc. are not "media" in our sense of the word, and so the entire category tree is also mis-named. I am not nominating specific genres such as films, plays, novels, etc. set in foo, as I believe these are or may be useful.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – here I would be in favour of upmerging Category:Media set in Nigeria (say) to Category:Nigeria in fiction (ie undoing this sort of edit by Stefanomione). So: delete all the ones above Afghanistan in the list above; upmerge Category:Media set in Foo to Category:Foo in fiction where Foo is a country ('Works in foo' ditto). Occuli (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support whatever can be done to sort this mess out. Outright deletion might be the easiest. Is it time to approach User:Stefanomione again regarding category creation? It was done before and he stated that he would start explaining his approach in CFD discussions, but he hasn't really appeared, despite being notified. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "Media set in ..." is identical to "Locations in fiction"; synonymous.Curb Chain (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a well-thought cat chain that has not really useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While we sort this out, we should also deal with :Category:Works and media by country of setting, either as a deletion or as a rename to Category:Works by country of setting, depending on what happens with its contents.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete identical; synonymous; should be consolidatedCurb Chain (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Category:Media set in Trinidad and Tobago because it got lots of contents that shows loads of Media sets made on the shore of Trinidad and Tobago--- Kylekieran (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What are "Media sets"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am not sure what they are, it might be a reference to what thinks are filmed on. Which of course is one of the confusions some people have. The setting of a ficitonal TV show or movie is indepdent of the real location at which it is filmed. They may be the same, but are other different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - This category is not about "media sets", Kylekieran. The category names mean "media that were set in Foo"; i.e. in the story the location was Foo, even though the film might have been made in another place. Films made in Trinidad are not necessarily set there. See the two cub-categories of Category:Films by city of location. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename "media" to "works". It seems to me that in most cases, categories for "media" can be renamed using "works". In a few cases, media categories also contain magazines, which don't really fit in creative works, e.g. Category:American Civil War magazines. However, I think these are rare enough that it would be fine to use "works" as the standard name in categories, replacing "media". IMHO this is clearer than the names within Category:Locations in fiction; if that really is the same thing then that tree should be nominated later, from "Foo in fiction" to "Works set in foo". - Fayenatic (talk) 23:00, 13 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:Chinese media[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. Whatever the outcome of that barely discussed RFC, most of the contents of this category have nothing to do with the People's Republic of China. So the suggested target is clearly not correct. Feel free to nominate with a different target.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Chinese media to Category:Media of the People's Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Administrative nomination. The category was tagged back on July 24 but never listed here. No reason was given. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pending RFC under way at Category talk:China. Besides, it currently contains two articles, one of which is about Republic of China not PRC, and the other is pre-1949. The sub-cat contains a PRC category and another pre-1949 article. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose contents are not PRC specific.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 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.

Types of marketing[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 the first, no consensus as to the second.. Courcelles 11:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Marketing strategies and paradigms to Category:Types of marketing

Propose merging Category:Marketing techniques to Category:Types of marketing

Nominator's rationale: Administrative nomination. The categories were tagged back on July 1 but never listed here. Reason given in one edit summary as "This is very similar to Types of marketing", none given in other. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename These categories all seem to express the same thing with no clear distinction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Marketing strategies and paradigms to Category:Marketing techniques; retain both Category:Types of marketing and Category:Marketing techniques and purge both. The distinction in the latter case is the same as the difference between "karate" and "karate chop." "Types of marketing" should be reserved for disciplines such as Global marketing, while "techniques" should be reserved for specific actions such as Loss leader and Virtual event. Hatnotes should be placed on both surviving categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Marketing strategies and paradigms to Category:Marketing techniques per Mike Selinker. After the cleanup, any additional merge that may be needed can be brought back here, if it is really needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 14 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:Marketing organizations[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 and purge. I have removed all the companies from the organizations category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Marketing organizations to Category:Marketing companies

Nominator's rationale: Administrative nomination. The category was tagged back on July 1 but never listed here. Reason given in edit summary as "seems the same as Marketing Companies". Timrollpickering (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but with caveats. Although this category should be given a once-over for accuracy, as some of the things added here do seem to be "companies" rather than "organizations", they're not actually redundant categories — frex, the American Marketing Association is not a company, but a professional trade organization for people who work in marketing. The Canadian Association of Promotional Marketing Agencies, similarly, is an industry organization which individual marketing companies are members of, but is not itself a marketing company per se. Accordingly, Category:Marketing organizations does need some cleanup to remove articles which more properly belong in Category:Marketing companies, but the categories themselves should not be merged. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as it contains cats and sub-cats for co-operatives, but tag the category as a parent category as articles on individual organisations should go down into sub-cats, except for associations as stated by Bearcat. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - These are different although I am not sure the distinction between companies and organizations is as hard and fast as some seem to think it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 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.

Radio station categories[edit]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 May 12.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per established precedent against categorization of media personalities/shows by individual radio/tv station. Each radio/tv article more than adequately serves as a "hub" to link to relevant articles.
See previous CFDs WABC-TV (12/2007) and Radio and television station categories (5/2008).
Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom and precedents. I'm especially unimpressed by the addition of Category:WMMS to individual musical recordings that the station merely happens to have been an early playlister of. Worst idea I've seen on here in at least a week! Bearcat (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete collecting things around an individual station just invites too many things that have a trivial connection to the station.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 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.

Category:Armenian writers[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split Category:Armenian writers into Category:Ethnic Armenian writers and Category:Armenian writers
Nominators rationale currently a large number of the people in this category were born in Georgia, Syria or other places and never lived in Armenia. It is also not clear that these people neccesarily wrote in Armenian, just that they were part of the Armenian diaspora (although part of the problem is that historic Armenia is much larger than modern Armenia). Armenianess has a meaning that is almsot as deeply ethno-religious as Jewishness. However it also has a meaning that is directly tied to the modern nation of the name. The Nationality category for Armenian writers should also probably be limited to post-1917 if not post-1990 writers. The writer nationality categories seem to have largely ignored the time-dependent nature of nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the larger scheme. - Darwinek (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The larger scheme is to associate writers with the nation they are nationals of. We could of course justy move this category to be a subcat of Category:Writers by ethnicity and not have any writer cat for citizens of Armenia. The problem is that this cat is currently grouping together people in ways not supported by the parent cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Category:Writers of Armenian descent as a parent of Category:Writers from Armenia. Both are distinguished from Armenian-language writers, which could probably also be justified within Category:Writers by language. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that Armenianess is an ethnicity with strong religious connections. Jews who move from Israel to New York do not stop being Jews, and Armenians did not stop being Armenians just because they had moved to Baghdad, Istanbul or Odessa. This was especially true under the Ottoman Empire's millet system where many of the Armenians lived in areas where Armenians were not the majority of the population (such as Istanbul). The problem here, and arguably with the Czech cat as well, is that a cat that today is clearly a cat for people connected with a specific country is also being used for people in the past not connected with that country. Actually I think we have this problem present with writers from every country created in the 20th century, at least where the nationality name is also used as an ethnic name. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I had covered all that. Doesn't "Armenian descent" cover the diaspora, whereas "from Armenia" is just for the nationality/territory? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -Armenian writers has several possible meanings: (1) writers who are Armenian by nationality (i.e., ethnically anything but holding a passport of the Republic of Armenia); (2) writers who are ethnically Armenian regardless of whose passport they hold, but excluding ethnically non-Armenians holding Armenian passports; and (3) writers in the Armenian language, regardless of what ethnicity or passport they have. Only (1) or (3) make sense for categorization, lest we assume some monolithic viewpoint that Armenian blood imparts in one's writing which would be inappropriate. So the split into a category for (2) is the inappropriate use of WP:OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is Category:Armenian-language writers (or at least there is precedent with things like Category:English-language writers and Category:Greek-language writers). It is standard wikipedia practive to distinguish nationality and language. If in fact we want to limit this category to nationals of the Republic of Armenia we would need to purge a large number of those in the category. I am also not sure there are any Nationals of the Republic of Armenia who are not Armenian by ethnicity. I know there are no nationals of Saudi ARabia and many other "Gulf" states who are anything other than Arab by ethnicity, but I am not sure if Armenia engages in the type of actions required to limit nationality status to people of a given ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 10 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:Czech writers[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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Czech writers to Category:Czech Republic writers
Nominators rationale This category is supposed to be for writers who were nationals of the Czech Republic. However the first person in the cat died in the 16th century, while the Czech Republic was not formed until 1992. The category with its current name is being misapplied so we should rename it for more precision. I gtuess I could just unilaterally move a bunch of people but I want some discussion on this. There is already a Category:Czech-language writers. Do we also want a cat Category:Ethnic Czech writers, or should we purge those from before 1992 to the various language/earlier nationality cats?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the category system is 'broad brush' and cannot possibly handle all changes in nations and boundaries in the last few millennia. 'Czech' is being used an approximate term and should be left as it is. Occuli (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the larger scheme Category:Czech people by occupation and per Occuli. Lugnuts (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Also "Czech writers" does not refer to the Czech Republic-based authors, but to the ethnic Czech people. - Darwinek (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So Darwinek are you saying we should relocate this from being part of Category:Writers by nationality to Category:Writers by ethnicity? Currently it is part of writers by nationality, so it whould be limited to writers connected with the Czech Republic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Central and Eastern Europe word "nationality" de facto equals "ethnicity". The current categorization scheme is clear and simple. It would be nonsensical to categorize people according to political entities. In that sense the first President of Czechoslovakia, T.G. Masaryk could be categorized as French sociologist, Austro-Hungarian sociologist and finally Czechoslovak sociologist. - Darwinek (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Nationality" categorization is based on political entity, it is not for people by ethnicity. That is why we have a serpate category for ethnicity. If Masaryk really was a national of France (as opposed to an Autro-Hungarian expatriate in France) than we should have him in all three cats. Nationality can change, therefore there is no reason a person can not be in multiple nationality cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In a black-and-white world you would be correct, but in practice this is not how the categories have been applied, especially the European ones. As Darwinek says, for European subjects these categories have been applied much more loosely to mean "nationality" and historically at least, "ethnicity". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given your statements User:Good Olfactory and User:Darwinek, could you chime in to merge the various Fooish-Jewish categories for all the Central and Eastern European Foos because Foo is Foo ethnicity, which is how the "Jewish" part is being used - i.e., devoid of religious affiliation. Or are we destined to have Fooish-Catholic, Fooish-Lutheran, Fooish-Unitarian, Fooish-Orthodox, categories for every country in which a diaspora of such folks is found??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have been confused in how those nominations have been presented—scattered, all over the place. They need to be considered as a whole, I think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are you complaining about the case-by-case nominations of writer cats? Each of the countries in question has a unique history that makes categorizing the writers of that country a unique issue. The issues of Czech are in some ways unique, and the other writer cats I have nominated have involved totally different issues. We should apply the "nationality" identifier in the proper way, and not identify people with a nation they were never in any way part of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I was referring to the various FOOian-Jewish descent categories that Carlossuarez46 was referring to in his comment which immediately preceded mine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would hardly take the current state of the writer-by-nationality cats as a good precedent for how we ought to arrange them. Up until I removed him from the cat for clearly not belonging, Johannes Gaitanides was in Category:Greek writers even though he was born, raised in and was for all his life a resident of Germany. His father was from Greece, and he did on occasion travel to Greece, but he was clearly not Greek. In the case of Czech writers in some articles one begins to wonder if Czech is just being used as a convient short form of Czechslovak.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since the various American people of FOOian-Jewish descent cats have been centralized I find the complaint about them off base. Considering any other nationalities with the American ones would just be too complexed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been quite a tortured problem getting there; there are still at least 5 different discussions open on 3 different days, so it's not exactly easy to follow what's going on with them. They should have all been withdrawn and one unified nomination started instead. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also this discussion. Lugnuts (talk) 19:54, 11 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:Modern Greek writers[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Modern Greek writers to Category:Modern Greek-language writers.
Nominators rationale The article Modern Greek is on the language. This category has incorrectly been made a sub-cat of Category:Greek writers which is not supposed to be a language cat but instead is supposed to be a nationality cat. This shows that the current name is being misinterpreted so we need a more precise name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to remove ambiguityCurb Chain (talk) 03:55, 7 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:St. Joseph's Seminary (Yonkers) alumni[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/Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rename Category:St. Joseph's Seminary (Yonkers) alumni and Category:St. Joseph's Seminary (New York) alumni into Category:St. Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie alumni
Nominator's rationale - There are a few reasons to do this. First off the people in these two cats all graduated from the same institution, although those with the St. Joseph's Seminary (New York) cat graduated from it while it was in Troy, New York while the Yonkers people graduated from it at Yonkers. The proposed name is reflective of the name of the article on the institution. There was in the past at least vone other seminary in New York named St. Joseph's Seminary, St. Joseph's Seminary (Callicoon, New York) but none of these men went to that institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – the article is St. Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie. Occuli (talk) 11:58, 7 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:Winners of beauty pageants in the Philippines[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Winners of beauty pageants in the Philippines to Category:Filipino beauty pageant winners

Nominator's rationale: I get why User:Timrollpickering closed this nomination the way he did, and also why he left the door open to immediate renomination. The format here is inconsistent with Category:Beauty pageant winners by nationality's subcategories, and also with Category:Filipino women. Some users questioned whether it meant winners in the Philippines or winners from the Philippines; I think the category is pretty clearly the latter, since Miss Universe winners are in these categories, where the contest takes place outside of their home countries.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Winners of beauty pegenats of the Phillipines. We considered in the discussion what we actually wanted the inclusion criteria for this to be. These are supposed to reflect that the pegeants have affiliaiton with a specific county, not that the winner of the pageant is affiliated with the country. This should be a sister cat to Category:Alumniu by university or college in the Philippines. However beauty pegents are less connected to a specific loaction than are colleges, so we have to allow for the theoretical Miss X pageant held in place Y because of some factor or other but consisting of contestants from Y. If someone calls their pagent "Miss Vietnam" and holds it in Louisiana because its contestants are Vietnamese-Americans living there than it is a peagent of the United States. However if the constestants are Vietnamese women who have traveled to the US because they decided to mix a tour with the beauty pegeant and the organizers are Vietnam residents than it would be "of Vietnam".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 00:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Filipino beauty pageant winners per Category:Filipino women and everything else in Category:Beauty pageant winners by nationality (and remove anyone who is not of Filipino nationality). This is not anything to do with location: it is a nationality subcat of Category:Beauty pageant winners, is entirely straightforward and has nothing to do with alumni (or even alumniu, rather a nice word, as is pegenats). Occuli (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subcats in this cat tree have categories like Category:Miss America winners and the winners of Miss America do not have to be Americans, so the subcats tell us this should be by association of the pageant won, not by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We never (?) categorise by the location of a competition: Cindy Breakspeare (who seems to be definitely Jamaican and possibly Canadian) won the Miss World title in London, but 'London' is incidental to this. If Category:Miss America winners are not necessarily American (a surprise to me) then it should be removed as a subcat of Category:American beauty pageant winners (or one could accept that category inclusions are approximations rather than robust claims to citizenship). (Most countries do require contestants in their competitions to be nationals.) Occuli (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nationals, yes; citizens, no. The problem with some editors' interpretation of the nationality categories is that they assume that nationality means "citizenship". It does not. Nationality refers to anyone in a country who has a right to remain there indefinitely (i.e., "permanent residents") as well as citizens. So you can be a citizen of Mexico but be a permanent resident in the U.S. and still participate in Miss America. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Occuli, consistent with its sister cats; the keep result on the parent shows that these were winners by said nationality not winners of contests in said nation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:38, 7 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.