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 clean up. the wub"?!" 11:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete a grouping based on conincidence of name as the British National Party and other fringe groups have virtually nothing in common with the African National Congress (the governing party in South Africa) or the Maltese Nationalist Party (the governing party in an EU member state). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Saying that all "National parties" are nationalist is like saying that in the US the Democrats oppose the US being a republic and the Republicans oppose it being a democracy. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may be exceptions, but most parties in the category seem to belong there, and some srt of category like this is needed - just deleting would leave a big hole in the structure. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm leaning to delete per nom and Grutness. I'm concerned that even with a main article, the inclusion criteria is ambiguous and arbitrary. Don't know how to fix that. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they are a very varied crew, but nationalism is a very wide concept. I'm open to rename, but I don't think they should just drop off the chart. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is not about parties with 'national', 'nationalism' or 'nationalist' in their name; this is about parties that follow a nationalist ideology. This is very clear and certainly defining since pushing nationalist politics is the main purpose for such parties. Hmains (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ANC's main purpose was nationalism? Hmmm, some others thought it had something to do with ending apartheid, and who really considers Nelson Mandela a nationalist in the same vein as the British National Party folks? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all parties subscribe to at least some nationalism... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up I can see the category being relevant, and many of the parties in it belong there. On the other hand, many of them clearly don't. Not all parties with "national" in the name are nationalist by definition. JdeJ (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but watch Yes Mandela was a nationalist, as are the BNP. Nationalism is probably the largest and most influential ideology in the world today surpassing liberalism or socialism easily. It is also extremely broad and by its very nature highly particular. It does exist and I suggest reading some Ernest Gellner or Anthony D. Smith to understand how such diverse parties can all be nationalist. In any event the category should be for parties that are primarily nationalist, not liberal or conservative, or social democratic, or christian democratic parties that occationally exhibit nationalism because that would be all parties since 1789. Kevlar67 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2008 (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:reverse merge. the wub"?!" 12:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge per vegas. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2008 (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:merge. the wub"?!" 12:03, 18 March 2008 (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:merge. the wub"?!" 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge - two small categories, neither of which is likely to expand. No point to having them both. Otto4711 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (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 keep. We have many, many precedents on this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2008 (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:no consensus. Kbdank71 14:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not actually a recognised class of medical conditions, certainly not helpful above the parent categories. JFW | T@lk 12:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it would be helpful to have the category creator's input on this. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep The main article justifies the category. Hmains (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2008 (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. the wub"?!" 12:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I believe that the use of the singular as adjective is more correct grammatically. --Nlu (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Creator was perhaps confused by the main article on the people being Jurchens by convention. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, perhaps speedy? 70.51.8.110 (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2008 (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:withdrawn. the wub"?!" 12:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, Both categories cover the same topic and contain many of the same articles. No need for two categories. See discussion atWikiProject Stagecraft. -JWGreen (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge - I certainly agree that there's no need for two categories here, but "occupations" is the broader of the two terms, as well being the term that's used for the whole category tree. Notified both creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagree. I am the creator of Category:Theatrical professions. A simple perusal of those categories will reveal that 'occupations' is part of a much bigger hierarchy of 'occupation' categories, which *only* contains articles about named people; whereas 'professions' *only* contains articles about job descriptions and related subjects. It is useful to keep them separate, because otherwise the categories become overrun with articles about every semi-well-known person and their dog, and it becomes difficult to find useful information. Also, if you merge them, you should propose the same for 100s of other related 'ocupation' categories. It is possible that there is another big hierarchy which contains only job descriptions, into which 'professions' can be linked - but I haven't found it yet, and I have wondered about creating it. I believe the existing structure is fine; but really, the 'occupations' (and 100s of similar categories in that hierarchy) should be renamed as 'people' or similar. Bards (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The distinction that Bards describes is important and editors are beginning to try to make it throughout those category trees. However, making that distinction on the terms "professions" and "occupations" is ill-advised to say the least. The terms are synonymous in some instances, and in other instances professions has a very specific usage. And, grammatically, there's absolutely no reason to have "professions" be people and "occupations" be jobs, or vice versa. Maybe "professionals" .... My recommendation: It would be better to go with "Theatrical occupations" as the broader and more generic term for the topic that includes articles about the occupations, and create a subcategory "People in theatrical occupations" (other suggestions welcome too) to be the container / parent category for people in theatrical occupations. --Lquilter (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The distinction noted by Bards is apparent in the majority of the articles in these two trees. I have a question, however, as to a very few articles under Category:Theatrical occupations. Specifically Theatre consultant and Theatre practitioner. These articles do not list specific individuals (Note: Category:Theatre practitionersdoes), but rather the profession generally. Should these articles therefore be moved from the "people-centric" occupations to the "job-centric" professions? As for significant re-naming of whole categories - that's significantly above my pay grade. DJSparky (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see the distinction in practice at all. Both contain Category:Actors etc, and are subs of Category:Occupations. I half agree with LQ, but the whole tree needs sorting - the Biography Project should be involved. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree we should be consistent with the whole tree before doing just one of them. It would be nice to get this cleared up. --Lquilter (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - I would like to withdraw my nomination based in favor of the re-orginization proposed above and discussion on WikiProject Stagecraft. -JWGreen (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2008 (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. the wub"?!" 12:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No definition of what constitutes a "false culture", sole constituent article is in the userspace. I can't see how having this category improves the encyclopedia. скоморохъ 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Useless category. Otto4711 (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were useful, it couldn't possibly be neutral. — CharlotteWebb 17:12, 17 March 2008 (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:nomination withdrawn in favor of compromise below. --jonny-mt 06:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is currently the only one not to match the convention set in Category:Flora of the United States by state. A rename will make categorization of flora by state that much more intuitive. jonny-mt 02:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that suggestion was literally just raised on my talk page. My full response is here--the short version is that I'm not tremendously opposed to it, but my understanding of the "Flora of state" categories is that they describe the plants endemic to or closely associated with a given state already, and that Hawaiʻi's geographic isolation means that such a solution would reasonably result in an underpopulated parent category. --jonny-mt 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the "Flora of state" categories describe plants that occur in a given state, whether endemic or not. That's certainly what we do in the subcategories of Category:Flora of Australia by state or territory. The breakdown of Hawaiian flora is 1188 endemic, 153 indigenous but not endemic, 1241 naturalised. Leaving aside naturalised species for the moment, there is still the capacity for the parent category to contain 153 entries, which is a reasonable size in absolute terms. Hesperian 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with making the endemic category a subcategory of the main one. I don't agree that existing Flora of X categories are mostly endemics. I looked at Category:Flora of Maryland and Category:Flora_of_California and I saw tons of non-endemics. Kingdon (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has been an ongoing problem with Category:Flora_of_California. Every such category could have (at least) four successively more inclusive interpretations: endemics, natives, all plant species that grow wild regardless of their origin, and all plant species that grow in the region, wild or cultivated. I've long though that "Flora of X" was an uninformative name, and that the categories should be more along the lines of "Native flora of X", "Endemic flora of X" (included in Native flora), and perhaps other well-specified categories.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Something like
--Flora of Hawaii
|--Indigenous flora of Hawaii / Native flora of Hawaii
| |--Endemic flora of Hawaii
|
|--Naturalised flora of Hawaii
would seem to do the trick. Hesperian 04:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps ideally Flora of Hawaii would contain only the two categories, and no articles, since every plant in the flora would be either indigenous or naturalized.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no articles except the as-yet unwritten Flora of Hawaii article, and perhaps some others like it. But I'm splitting hairs here; clearly we're in the same camp. How shall we proceed? I'm inclined to nicely ask jonny to withdraw this nomination, so that we can take the broader issue to WP:PLANTS. Hesperian 05:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to withdraw the nomination--particularly after such a great discussion--but if it's all right I'd like to let it run for about a day before doing so. I've left a note on WT:PLANTS about this CfD, so I figure it wouldn't hurt to allow a day for contributors in the various time zones to take a look. If they agree, then we'll benefit from having a rough consensus going forward that will make it easier to implement the changes on a larger scale down the road. If they don't, then we have this discussion time to talk about the finer points and hopefully hammer out a basic compromise. --jonny-mt 05:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Hesperian 05:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hawaii is a particularly unusual case, because it is an isolated island. There is the pre-Polynesian "endemic" flora, the flora brought by the Polynesians, and the flora brought in subsequently by (primarily) people of European descent. In this case, having a separate subcategory for the endemic flora make sense in addition to the state flora itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2008 (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:Transgender and transsexual actors from the United States[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. the wub"?!" 12:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge - the parent category has fewer than 30 articles. Splitting by country is unwarranted and unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would have supported merging, but I was really surprised and frankly dubious that only three out of all those actors were American, so I decided to take a closer look. And lo and behold, it turns out that 13 of the 28 are, in fact, from the United States. (I've already moved all of them.) So this is a perfectly valid category in my estimation, useful to readers not only because it identifies who's American, but also and equally because it identifies who isn't American. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cgingold. Category is useful for reasons stated above from other users. Highly agree with keeping it. Jacrio (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (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:merge. the wub"?!" 12:20, 18 March 2008 (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. the wub"?!" 12:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - categorizing real species by their presence in a book or film series is non-defining and overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2008 (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.
