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:containerize. This means that it may contain subcategories (and perhaps list articles of the proper type), but not individual bio articles. For administrative simplicity, category will be deleted and then re-created as a container category.Good Ol’factory(talk)02:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Containerize. For example we know from Welsh-language writers and Welsh-language poets that they are Welsh-speaking and so these are decent subcategories, and we may well add e.g. Welsh-language singers and actors in Welsh-language television as other child categories with people of whom we are sure that they spoke Welsh. But for all people that can't be put in child categories, basically because we do not know if/how/when/why these people were speaking Welsh, this category is just a matter of OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nom and we have the additional problem that we are to categorize people by what makes them notable, are ALL of these folks notable for their Welsh language skills, despite not being in the writers, poets, etc., subcats? Just imagine having a slew of these cats for each language. And these we have to what degree do these folks speak Welsh, can they hold their own in a technical debate in Welsh or are the Welsh equivalents of "hello" "goodbye" "thank you" and "where's the loo" the extent of it as many a tourist might learn and use Welsh. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if not OR (as for many historical people), this should only be for people who speak/spoke Welsh "professionally" as it were, tied to a job or activity. The other categories of Category:people by language seem done on this basis. And such categories should be treated very cautiously indeed for the most-spoken languages. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. E.g. for Scott Davies (cyclist) it's not a defining characteristic (it's not even mentioned in the article, but can be inferred from the school he attended). Note: The category text should be amended (as well as adding the containercat tag). Note: Hopefully an admin will be able to use a bot to depopulate this category. DexDor(talk)05:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, though I agree that if there is no proof that someone is a Welsh-speaker then their article shouldn't be in the category. I've only added articles when there is definite evidence the subject is a fluent Welsh-speaker. The Welsh language is always a very hot topic in Wales (though I appreciate people in England might be unaware of this), is definitely a defining characteristic of the country and often a defining characteristic of Welsh speaking people. Evidently is someone knows only a few words of the language they are not a 'speaker' of it. Sionk (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question is more like, isn't the definitive "evidence" coming from a limited set of possibilities? As mentioned in the rationale, with Welsh-speaking writers, poets, singers and actors it is obvious (and I may have forgotten a few potential child categories), but other than that? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and I'm pretty sure this has been unsuccessfully proposed for deletion previously, though probably less formally. "Welsh-speaking" has completely different connotations from "English-speaking" or "French-speaking" because people who speak Welsh have seldom learned it as a foreign language and the majority have it as their first language. It is a minority language and Welsh-language culture is still very distinct from Anglo-Welsh culture. I'm afraid that a statement such as "what languages a person speaks is trivial" indicates a complete lack of understanding, possibly because of a lack of awareness of cultures other than the writer's own. Deb (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone suggest that it was unreasonable to bring it back? No. But those contributing to this discussion should be made aware of the previous discussion and have the opportunity to view it. Deb (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Club category has only two links (one of which is already in the club article and the other that could be put there easily) with few if any genuine articles that could be added in the future, serves no navigational purpose. ArmstrongJulian (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2015 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is useful categorization, as most architects design all kind of buildings. Probably no architect starts with a skyscraper and there is no such specialization. Most skyscrapers are built by large firms with teams of architects and engineers working on theproject. ELEKHHT08:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and most of the enties are such large firms. Most architects and firms never do a skyscraper, so I can't really see the problem, except that there are some very obvious gaps here. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well, as the creator of the category I would say that! The category was created as a container for architects (and architecture firms) well-known for designing skyscrapers and very high-rise buildings, for example César Pelli and Ken Yeang (and James K. M. Cheng who I think was the initiator of the idea of creating the category). Admittedly there wil be far less articles suitable for this category because skyscrapers are less common that churches or theatres. But it's still a building typology that has become the primary concern of a handful of architects. Sionk (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2015 (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.
