Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 20 November 22 >

November 21[edit]

Category:Dinosaur Jr albums[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dinosaur Jr albums to Category:Dinosaur Jr. albums
Nominator's rationale: Category should be renamed for consistency with Dinosaur Jr., which was moved from Dinosaur Jr following discussion on article's talk page —Snigbrook 23:36, 21 November 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:My Life as a Teenage Robot[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; no opposition and buttloads of precedent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:My Life as a Teenage Robot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow, no chance of expansion beyond main page, episode/characters list and creator. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:12, 21 November 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:Albums produced by Richard Bennett[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums produced by Richard Bennett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only two of these albums were produced solely by Richard Bennett. Bennett hardly ever produces albums, and when he does it's almost always a co-production job. This is very similar to this CfD which resulted in a delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per rationale used in above-referenced CfD. If co-producer does not equal producer, this one fails. -RoBoTamice 18:09, 21 November 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:Self-identified drug addicts[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. This type of thing needs to be in a list, if at all, for proper sources re: BLP concerns. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Self-identified drug addicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category name and concept (a list of "drug addicts") is inflammatory, and a likely violation of WP:BIO by labeling persons "Self-identified drug addicts." The list is currently populated with names (articles) of individuals that have at one or more times dealt with alcohol/drug issues, yet the title clearly gives the impression that each addition to the category is currently a "drug addict." Additionally, upon inspection of the articles added to the category, few, if any, show referenced proof of their subjects "self-identifying" as an "addict." This category unnecessarily exposes Wikipedia to charges of defamation and false light, charges not likely to be resolved by a simple name change. RoBoTamice 17:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. "Once an...Always an..." is a tenet of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous and some other 12-step programs. There is robust debate on whether or not there is "no cure" for addiction as AA and NA claim (AA also originally claimed that alcoholism was an allergy), and there are medical professionals and recovery programs that reject the premise outright (see articles). -RoBoTamice 16:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible. Even if some or all of the people categorised here have identified themselves as drug addicts, I don't think this is remotely acceptable as a category - 'people by addiction' just generally seems like a terrible idea for BLP reasons. Terraxos (talk) 03:47, 22 November 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:Local school boards[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 but I need a few aspirin after reading the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Local school boards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete generic category. Most of its current entries are found in the more specific Category:School districts in Ontario. There's no need for a category with such broad coverage. Mindmatrix 14:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you take the time to look, you will see that the articles are already in those other categories. That fact in no way negates the usefullness of this category. Apples and oranges. Cgingold (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I'm sorry. This appeared obvious to me that the articles belonged in only one "school districts" category and went and removed Category:Local school boards from all the Ontario and Quebec school boards as they were all already in the more precise subcat of school districts in Canada. If I'd seen your comment first, I would have certainly waited. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief in the extreme. Doesn't anybody read what it says right there on the CFD notice: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Please be kind enough to repopulate the category -- thanks. Cgingold (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I'm sorry. It appeared blindingly obvious to me that it was a mistake to have this category on these articles. I have already reverted myself on all the cat removals. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. If I seem a bit irked it's mostly because this happens more often than it should. Plus, as I said, I had just finished adding them minutes before you removed them. All is forgiven! Cgingold (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [see below] as parent cat for School boards by country. Good grief -- what amazingly strange timing, Mindmatrix! As you can see from the edit history, just 20 minutes before you posted your CFD notice I added another parent cat for this category -- and I then spent 10 minutes finding and adding more articles, as well as the Quebec sub-cat. It then dawned on me that it would make sense to set up sub-cats for Ontario and Canada, which seem to have the lion's share of articles at the moment, as well as sub-cats for the other countries, including the United States. The mere fact that this category encompasses school boards in multiple countries is hardly a reason for deletion. I think our time (yours and mine) would be better spent setting up those sub-cats than arguing about it here at CFD. So if you agree, please consider withdrawing this nomination so we can close it out and get back to work. :) Cgingold (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's not "amazingly strange timing". You edited an article on my watchlist, I inspected the change and followed it to the category, inspected that and decided it was essentially the same as Category:School districts. Mindmatrix 16:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: The new parent cat that I just added was Category:Local government -- a category of similar breadth that encompasses Local governments in multiple countries. By the half-baked logic (sorry, no offense intended) of this CFD nomination, one could argue that Category:Local government should be deleted, too. Somehow, I doubt anybody would actually suggest doing that. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Could you please better explain how this category is different from Category:School districts? Thanks, DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely you must realize that a school district includes all sorts of things: schools and other facilities, a superintendent and other administrators, plus teachers and other personnel -- as well as the school board, whose function is to set policy for the school district. In short, they are by no means equivalent terms. Cgingold (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For starters, I can't imagine having that category. Perhaps you meant to word it a little differently? But more importantly, regardless of any quibbles we may (or may not) have over how we define what constitutes a "school district", it is nonetheless distinct from a "school board". To reiterate, the school board is the body that sets policy for the school district (as well as hiring the superintendent). So unless the terms are used radically differently in Canada than they are in the US, they refer to two very distinct -- though closely related -- things. Hope that helps! (If not, I'm afraid I'll have to continue this conversation later. Gotta run!) Cgingold (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is ambiguous, at least in south-central Ontario. School district and school board are used interchangeably, and school district may also refer to an individual school district (ie - the area from which a school draws its student body, probably better referred to as the school's district, though this point is moot since that info would surely be part of a school's article). However, you'll note that some are named as school boards for a district, such as York Region District School Board. Ontario's Education Act with respect to school board defines the terms and principles for the province. The Act uses the term district school board exclusively. I believe this is a shift from using the term school board in the past. Mindmatrix 16:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrespective of that, all the information you list is currently contained in the respective articles of each school district (ahem, school board), if at all, obviating the need for such a category. I can't imagine that individual teachers, administrators, trustees or superintendents would warrant their own article, at least not in sufficient numbers to necessitate this category hierarchy. I would much prefer creating a category such as Category:York Region District School Board, which would contain articles about everything related to the board. Mindmatrix 16:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. In Ontario, school boards = school districts and are determined and regulated by the province. I can see that other jurisdictions could have multiple school boards within school districts but would not those local board categories go within that school district cat? DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading briefly more about this, it appears that in the US, school boards are school trustees, who in Ontario are more or less a board of directors for the school board. I would still say that the board cat, if one needs to exist, would belong under the district cat. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes. No wonder we were so horrified by one another's egregious misuse of the term! It appears that what we have here is a rather jaw-dropping illustration of that famous aphorism attributed to Churchill, about "two peoples separated by a common language". Given what are, indeed, distinctly different uses of the term "school board", it clearly isn't suited for generic use in a category name. That in itself is enough for me to withdraw my support for keeping this category. Cgingold (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could possibly keep this (or an alternate wording) as a parent category, if needed, but as everything in this category is already filed in a more specific geographic category anyway, we don't really need it for its current purpose. Delete or repurpose if it would be useful in another place in the tree. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other option, given that there are few articles that would currently be categorised as such (most are school districts, which already have their own category), is to simply create category redirects for now (see {{categoryredirect}}). If and when such a category becomes viable, it will simply require a minor change. Mindmatrix 16:36, 24 November 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:United States education by state[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States education by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Rename per nom, as the ungrammatical creator thereof. Postdlf (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but isn't the phrase "ungrammatical creator" kind of, um, ungrammatical?? Oh, of course -- I get it! Cgingold (talk) 15:43, 21 November 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:60 Minutes correspondents[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 to delete. Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:60 Minutes correspondents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per WP:OCAT, no different from other cast member categories that are uniformly deleted. Already listed at 60 Minutes. Otto4711 (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorization. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I support this deletion suggestion but I wonder what is different about this kind of overcategorisation and categories by members of a band which are often 5 persons or less? DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general rule, band members don't move from band to band to band in the course of their musical career (there are those who do but they are the exception). Journalists can and frequently do move from one network to another or from one show to another within the network. Categorizing on that basis would lead to category clutter. Otto4711 (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a defining period in a journalist's career. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per extensive precedent for performers by media outlet-type categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Top journalists and distinctly notable programs do not regularly move from one network to another. The small number of categories that might result here is far more manageable than the number of categories by team for professional athletes for whom we have a well-established precedent. The "category clutter" argument might have some validity for actors, who can appear in several films and television programs each year. This is not only inapplicable here, but the proposed deletion disruptively removes a well-defined category for a strong defining characteristic for each of the individuals included in this category. Mere repetition of supposed precedent odes not explain why this category should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Top journalists"; "distinctly notable programs"—both inherently subjective standards to use, so line-drawing becomes difficult, if not impossible. It should be deleted because there has been broad support in the past that similar categories for "reporters by media outlet" is overcategorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be happy to provide sources, but there's always using common sense. I understand that many editors manufacture rules and then seek to apply them blindly, but there is no argument offered as to why this category should be deleted other than foolish adherence to a supposed precedent. How does deleting this category improve the navigation system? Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you call "common sense" is riddled with subjectivity, no doubt. Sources would be great—and that's why a list would be (is—it exists) ideal, so everyone can see those sources rather than just "blindly" trusting that they exist. As for how deleting it improves the system, sometimes you need to take a broader view. Deleting it will fail to create a precedent that could be used to justify creation and retention of countless of other "performer by performance" categories, which by consensus have been determined to be overcategorization and a recipe for category clutter. I would appreciate you not implying that I apply rules "blindly", as you have absolutely no information on how much or little I have thought about and considered any issues, including this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's an interesting discussion currently going on at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_3#Category:Ivor_Novello_Award_winners, where there is a discussion of the relative notability of an award. While I disagree with where the line has been drawn, there is a line above which almost all editors will acknowledge that an award is notable. I guess we could have a standard that says no award is notable; After, all why should we include Nobel Prize or Academy Award winners (or those recognized with the Ivor Novello Award) and not recipients of the Félix Houphouët-Boigny Peace Prize, rather than recognizing no award winners at all. We have shown that are willing to set bars, even if some us feel they are arbitrary. "What about the third-most notable news program in New Zealand? The top ten most notable news programs in Tanzania? By the way, who decides the order of notability? And where is the arbitrary cut-off line where it becomes overcategorization?" The decision to impose a complete ban on anything that sniffs of "performance-by-performer" is no less arbitrary than setting a bar for a small fraction of possible performances. Sometimes, it just might benefit Wikipedia readers if they have access to a category as a navigation tool rather than someone arbitrarily deciding that the world will end if notable individuals are associated with one of the most notable programs in United States television news history via a category. Sometimes you just have to break down and be willing to use common sense. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, did someone suggest the world would end? The only predictions of calamity I can see in this discussion is those made by you below, that if your opinion isn't adopted WP will be "a joke". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I guess, once you make up rules, they must be enforced as rigidly as possible, even where they don't apply, without exception. Apparently, I came to the wrong place for the implementation of a common sense guideline. Alansohn (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm all for common sense (I actually prefer the term "horse sense", as I think it's probably more descriptive of what is actually being referred to)—you'd be hard pressed to find someone who says that they aren't. However, the problem with common sense is it can be subjective, arbitrary, subject to biases, etc. I imagine that 100 years ago it was common sense that people with black skin were inferior to those with white skin. You may think it's common sense to keep the category; I may think it's common sense to delete it. That creates an impasse, and we have to use some other means or standard to find and implement consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep. Most notable U.S. television newsmagazine, in fact the original and defining program of its type. As such, this is the furthest thing from "overcat." Category serves to provide our users a manner in which to locate correspondents who work or have worked for this program, and thus deleting this category would be damaging to our project, and not helpful to our users. Badagnani (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone interested in locating 60 Minutes correspondents is likely to start at 60 Minutes which already contains a complete list. No information would be lost by the deletion of this category and no damage done to the project. Explain how this is any different from the hundreds of similar deleted categories that came before it. Otto4711 (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the harm by keeping the category? Per this argument, "The category can be linked as easily as the list can be, so that's no argument in favor of deletion. No one appears to be suggesting that the category is superior to the list, rather, per WP:CLN the complement each other." Alansohn (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOHARM. And again, why is this category any different than the many other categories or journalist by network or by show that have gone before it? Otto4711 (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the single most notable news program in the United States, one that has remained in the top of the rankings for four decades. Wikipedia is a joke, plain and simple, if you can't make an association between Mike Wallace (journalist), Ed bradley, Morley Safer or Andy Rooney and the one entity in the world they are most associated with. While there was some logic in actors who appear in dozens to hundreds of plays. movies television and radio programs, a small number of editors persist in abusing this by latching on to this "performer-by-performance" and now see every article for any individual as a performer and any category that associates them together as a performance. Based on an irrational fear of "overcategorization", an environment is created where the most obvious connections are deleted simply for foolish consistency of inapplicable precedents. Wikipedia is worse off by deleting this category, which directly contradicts the purpose of categories. Alansohn (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So can we then do it for what I view the "second-most notable news program in the United States"? What about the third-most notable news program in New Zealand? The top ten most notable news programs in Tanzania? By the way, who decides the order of notability? And where is the arbitrary cut-off line where it becomes overcategorization? No, sometimes, you just have to have a principle that applies to all free of any subjective and arbitrary limits. I would guess that most people looking for "60 Minutes" correspondents are going to start at 60 Minutes, not within the category tree, so there's little risk of WP becoming the joke that you fear. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Good Ol'factory; as there is no way to draw a line as to which news programs are notable enough to not only merit documentation in Wikipedia in any form, but to further merit a category, maintenance of this category would necessarily lead to other similar categories being created. Postdlf (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dreaded slippery slope is always an incredibly poor argument, which effectively supports the existence of the category as an aid to navigation, deleting it solely because of feared repercussions down the line. The consensus of those discussing the category as a category, is that the "performance-by-performer" is inapplicable here. Deletion for the sake of being "unable to draw a line" is just disruption. Alansohn (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's really only a "poor argument" if you accept the principle that you should be the person deciding where to draw the line. Personally, I don't want anyone's or any group's subjective opinion making that decision. See my comments above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Having just expressed my support in another CFD for "television journalists by network", wherein I argued that that mode of categorization was NOT analagous to "performer by performance", I think it has to be acknowledged that "television journalists by program" is more nearly a case of "performer by performance". As much as I agree with the remarks regarding the stature and notability of 60 Minutes, I don't think we can say that it is radically distinct from all other newsmagazines, and should therefore be the lone exception. Fortunately, we already have a navbox template for 60 Minutes, which is prominently featured on the bottom of each correspondent's bio page -- and spares readers the bother of clicking on a category link to find out who the other 60 Minutes correspondents are/have been. (If we didn't have such templates, I dare say I would feel obliged to argue for keeping the category.) Cgingold (talk) 00:58, 30 November 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:Television anchors who ran for election[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Television anchors who ran for election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT by intersection of unrelated occupations. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial intersection. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as categorisation by non-identifying characteristic. Terraxos (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think perhaps specifying anchors makes this a bit too narrow to serve as a category. However, cases of television journalists (a broader term) jumping into politics are highly noteworthy, not a trivial intersection nor an incidental phenomenon by any means. Cgingold (talk) 13:40, 26 November 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:Lists of cities in Italy[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of cities in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one item, and it's likely it'll never have more. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this unlikely, what makes you say that? [1] — CharlotteWebb 05:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering about that myself. Cgingold (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, other than a list of cities by population, what could possibly be added to this category?--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nevermind, guess I was wrong, I withdraw my request--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:39, 22 November 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:Bosnian and Herzegovinian emigrants[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. Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Emigrants are categorized by nationality, not ethnicity. "Bosnian" and "Herzegovinian" are (separate) ethnicities, but for the nationality of people from Bosnia and Herzegovina, WP uses "Bosnia and Herzegovina" to (muffled laughter) avoid confusion with the ethnicity. All other nationality categories in Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people use this form. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of several reasons "Immigrants from [Foo] to [Bar]" would work better across the board. — CharlotteWebb 05:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need "Emigrants from [Foo] to [Bar]", "Immigrants to [Bar] from [Foo]", "Fooian expatriates in Bar", "People of dual Fooian-Barian citizenship", "Fooians in Bar whose status cannot be established by wikipedians other than by mere guesswork" (the last being quite the largest of these). Occuli (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • all true, but Rename per nom anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I think eventually the em/immigrants cat pages should go - it s enough to categorise as an expat or a naturalised citizen without keeping subset (of the former type but not the later) Mayumashu (talk) 03:11, 22 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_21&oldid=1136103184"