Category: Hong Kong people of Chaoshanese 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:no consensus. This discussion was a mess to read through, and I don't see any proposal in which there's enough agreement to action. --Tavix(talk) 19:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: more common name. Prisencolin (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined several items as they all raise the same issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally did not bundle these, but I'll let your action stand. They should be seen as separate since different regions may have a different name for the same group.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Reverse merge -- The articles on the people and dialect indicate that Teochew is the preferred form, but I am not sure by whom. I wonder whether this is a question of the same written Chinese word, being read very differently in two different dialects. Since both forms appear to be current, leave redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A basic google search suggests that "Teochew" is more common than "Chaozhounese" in in English.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what exactly a reverse merge means in this case?--Prisencolin (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal. Teochew people are Chinese people in the region of Chaozhou who speak a specific dialect of Chinese. We normally do not categorize descent by dialect and I don't see a reason to start this here. Therefore alternatively propose the following:
There is no such policy or precedent against categorizing "descent by dialect". In any case this subset of people is distinguished not by linguistically but culturally and politically as well.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It took me a bit to figure out the mess here, but our article on Teochew people refers to them as Chaoshanese first, suggesting that this is the current stardard use. Knowing as much as I do about Chinese, I have come to realize that "dialect" is a problematic term, ignoring that these are often as uninteligible from eachother as English and German. Add to this that the official "ethnic groups" in China are more like racial groups, and there are deep and long-standing ethnic divisions in China. These are deeper and more clear than the Yankee/Hillbillie divide in the US. So I think that there is strong enough evidence to argue these categories cover real self-identifications. Like all descent categories we need to demand that A-it is mentioned in the text and B-supported by reliable sources and C-demonstrated that the subject actually knew and was willing to publicly identify as such. We should not categorize as African-American a 19th-century Catholic Priesthood who deliberately only acknowledged his father's Irish ancestry, and never let on that his mother was of partial African descent, I bring this up because we have an article her in Wikipedia on just such a person. There are some industries (ahem, Pronography, ahem), where there is promotionalism done to make some people seem more exotic than they really are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the lead sentence at Teochew people, it should probably be changed in accordance to the MOS.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2016 (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:keep. --Tavix(talk) 19:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- North Africa is a rather different place from sub-Saharan Africa. Christianity in North Africa partly relates to the period before Arab conquest. St Augustine of Hippo was not an Arab! Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of (historical) content, but a matter of WP category structure. Both in the African and in the North African categories the content is organized by current country, there is no difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly useful, sufficiently distinct and technically correct (not at all overlapping with Category:Religion in Africa). --PanchoS (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep St. Augustine of Hippo not being an Arab would not disprove he lived in the Arab World. Today there are thousands of Berbers in Algeria, and Copts in Egypt, neither of whom would say they are Arab, but they are by most definitions part of the Arab World. However at the time of St. Augustine the Arabs primarily lived in Arabia and in some areas going into Syria, Iraq and Palestine. There was nothing Arab about the part of Africa he lived in, but it was more distinct from Africa south of the Sahara than it is today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2016 (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:Christianity in the former Soviet Union[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. --Tavix(talk) 18:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, redundant category since Category:Christianity in the Soviet Union already exists, and on top of that the content of this category is not limited to the Soviet Union because it includes countries that still exist today. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom: they are the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, because the nominated category also contains pre- and post-Soviet content, e.g. one of the grandchild categories is Category:Paulicianism which is medieval. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because a time-transcendent topic such as the history of Christianity really doesn't need to be categorised on supernational or former-national lines. For example, Herman of Alaska is a member of a grandchild category of this one (Christianity in the FSU — Christianity in Russia — Starets); does he really belong in a geography-based category with the Paulicians? Both of them predate the USSR by a long time, and they're together in this tree merely because Russia and Armenia were together in the USSR. Keep Christianization of Kievan Rus' in the tree together with St. Herman, since they both go with Russia, and St Joseph Church, Dushanbe should be with Protestantism in Tajikistan because they're both in Tajikistan, but the Estonians and the Kyrgyz really don't need to be in a tree together just because both were once part of the USSR. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Peterkingiron.GreyShark (dibra) 21:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about the problem that the nominated category also contains pre- and post-Soviet content? E.g. one of the grandchild categories is Category:Paulicianism which is medieval. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To try and arrange the modern world by imposing political lines abandoned over 25 years ago is just not reasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2016 (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: Single member with deeply unclear criterion, given that peniaphobia is more or less a made up thing. I'm thinking that the one member is just someone's opinion. Mangoe (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename culture and society; no consensus for people. --Tavix(talk) 19:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the standard demonym used by almost all Wikipedia articles See also Category:Somalian cuisine below. — AjaxSmack 05:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Somali people: "This category is not in use because it has an ambiguous title. For people who are ethnic Somalis, see Category:Ethnic Somali people. For people who are nationals of Somalia, see Category:Somalian people." This was decided by cfd in 2010, and mentioned again at cfd in 2013. As mentioned below, the other 2 (society and culture) do not seem to suffer from the same ambiguity and so I see no objection to the rename. Oculi (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the Somali/Somalian distinction is something largely within the world of Wikipedia. And what of the Somalilanders? Are they Somalis or Somalians? See, for example, Category:German people. There is room in its subcategories for both non-ethnic-Germans from Germany as well as ethnic Germans who are not from Germany without creating new terminology. — AjaxSmack 03:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Somaliland people fits the bill. In the UK Somalian is certainly in use (eg BBC) so the adjective is hardly an invention of Wikipedia. Oculi (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most Somalilanders are ethnically Somali and, based on official international recognition of somalia's de jure boundaries, all Somalilanders are Somalians. And that doesn't throw in historical people from French Somaliland or Italian Somaliland. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever, but I thought we worked this out years ago for categories, as cited above. (As I recall, it was prompted by several users removing nationals of Somalia from "Somali FOOs" categories because they were not ethnic Somalis. There was confusion over whether the categories referred to nationality or ethnicity, or both.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The problem with imposing a "nationals vs. ethnics" distinction on the matter of which demonym is used to describe and categorize a person is that a lot of countries could split the exact same hair: are all citizens of France "French", all citizens of Germany "German", all citizens of Italy "Italian", all citizens of England "English", etc., or are the demonyms reserved for people who actually have the corresponding ethnic background, while immigrants and children of immigrants are something else? Any demonym that can refer to both an ethnicity and a national citizenry is subject to this quibble; Somalia is not unique in that regard and thus doesn't require special treatment different from what we do for the French or the Germans or the British. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is along the lines of our decisions on Azeri v. Azerbaijani. The problem here as there is that there are thousands of ethnic Somalis, like Ethnic Azeris, who live fully within the culture, but who also have no connection to the identified nation. Azeris in Iran are fully Azeri, and they do not need to have any desire to connect in any way to the government in Baku to be such. The same is true of Somalis in Ethiopia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2016 (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: Category contains nothing but a single article primarily about the topic of the category. If kept, the category should be renamed to match this article - Category:Modern Hebrew. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've added three more items. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Modern Hebrew. Until forms of modern Hedrew that are distinct from the form of Modern Hebrew in Israel merit their own articles, there is no need for this level of precision in article naming.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative to rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. I also note the category is currently empty. --Tavix(talk) 18:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category which was created specifically to contain radio stations that have been licensed, but are not yet actually broadcasting -- however, WP:NMEDIA doesn't actually grant notability to a radio station until it is actually broadcasting, because it's not exactly rare for a radio station to fail to launch in time and thus have its license to launch expire (which is exactly what happened to more than half of the stations now listed in this category.) But if we apply NMEDIA to radio stations properly then this category becomes unnecessary, because radio stations that have launched are no longer "proposed", while radio stations that are still merely "proposed", or were proposed but then failed to become reality, don't qualify for articles at all. With the result that after the category was pruned by a full third for leftovers that are active but hadn't been removed from this for some reason, all of the radio stations still listed in this category are now up for deletion, either as aren't-yets or as never-wases, meaning that in addition to not being useful it will soon be empty. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Radio stations if the category still contains articles at the time of closure of this discussion. Otherwise delete, obviously. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)see further comment below[reply]
All of the four articles left here as of now are already more specifically subcategorized as "Radio stations in (Specific Geographic Entity)", so upmerging them directly to Category:Radio stations would be unnecessary duplicate categorization. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile the category is down to one article. Even if, just hypothetically, the article stays alive the category fails WP:SMALLCAT so agree on delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the last remaining entry in this category has now also been removed, so it's now an entirely empty category. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an empty category that yells at people "create articles to fit here" even though such an article will only in very rare occasions be notable. There could be a radio station creation plan that receives so much widespread attention that even though it never happens and never exists outside of a few invesors minds (or a few investors attempts to defaud others), it is still notable. I do not know of such a station, but it is believable it could exist. However we do not need categories for everything that might be, and even if we had one clearly notable article on something that would fit this description, it would not follow we would need a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2016 (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: To use the correct adjective and match the article Somali cuisine. Target is currently a redirect to this cat. — AjaxSmack 00:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Comment The category should blindly follow the main article, Somali cuisine, which has had its current name for years. I'll note though that the parent category is Category:Somalian culture and the parent category of that is Category:Somalian society, so there does not seem to be a clear naming convention. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's great grounds for an oppose, since taken to its logical conclusion that rationale would force us to use nonsense constructions like "Britishian", "Danishian" or "Spanishian". The convention of the tree is "standard demonym", not anything that requires an -ian suffix. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The categories in question do not have main articles using "Somalian" and there are almost no articles named "Somalian XXX" (versus hundreds of "Somali XXX"). I have also nominated these cats for moves above so that consistency won't be a hangup. — AjaxSmack 04:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I doubt that User:Oculi means literally that the adjective used in the cuisine categories all need to end in "-ian". I think he's saying that in categories, the adjective used in front of "cuisine" should be the same adjective that is used of other categories that use a so-called "FOOian" form. That is, since the other categories use "Somalian" (Category:Somalian people, Category:Somalian culture, etc.), then so too should the cuisine category. It's Category:British people, not "Britishian people", and thus Category:British cuisine. "British" is therefore referred to colloquially as the FOOian form for that nationality. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although certainly "Somalian" exists in English usage, the correct demonym for people and things from Somalia is "Somali" — if there are any other categories that are still using "Somalian", they should be listed and changed over too. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I not the issue of the distinction between the country and the ethnic group raised in discussions further up this page, but I guess this is ethnic (rather than national) cuisine. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We should go with it since the article Somali cuisine is the article that defines the category. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:58, 14 August 2016 (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.
