Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 14 August 16 >

August 15[edit]

Category:African-American people and subcats with dash[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) 19:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These can be speedily renamed - I've done some in the past, and will chip away at this some at some time in the future. Mayumashu (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I agree that it is the ones immediately above that should renamed, to use the adjective 'African-American'. (But I am not going to take these to cfd.) Occuli (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be nice if people would at least weigh in on renaming Category:African Americans in science to Category:African American scientists or even if you want Category:African-American scientists. Also the adding of people and professions to some of these cats. The problem with CfD is if you do it peicemeal people complain, but if you do it all together people just ignore most of your points.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a suggestion, to help keep this all focused: It wouldn't be difficult and would only take a few seconds to go up to the list and correct the grammatical error throughout. That would help the category names read more clearly and precisely. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per the above opposes. I would hope that nom will pay heed to the overwhelming community rejection of his approach.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - hyphens are OK when its a compound modifier. Neutralitytalk 19:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless someone can show that African American scientists act differently than their non-African American counterparts, it's a trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If African American is the proper noun form, than we should rename the category to Category:African Americans in law or rename it in some way. The reasons given by most of those opposed to this nomination actually support some sort of rename for that category and Category:African Americans in the media. That one I think clearly needs a rename, because the current name does not seem to imply at all it is for bio articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 19 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:African-American Jews[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) 19:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and repurpose Category:African-American Jews to Category:African American Jews
  • Nominators rationale My main reasoning is explained above with the massive nomination of the other cats to no longer have a dash. However this category in its heading says "This page lists African Americans who practice Judaism". There is no other subcat of Jews that is limited to those who actually practice Judaism. Do we want to limit this category in that way. If we are I strongly suspect we will have to remove some of the people for not meeting the general inclusion criteria for religious categorization. However before I try to apply the relevant rules here, I want to see if there really is consensus that this category should be used differently than every other Jew cat. Currently if a guy has a Irish father and a jewish mother, he never has to have been to synagouge to be catted as a Jew, but if his father is African-American instead of Irish he has to "prpactice Judiasm". Although I guess maybe he could be categorized under Category:American Jews and just not this category, but that presents the oddity of accepting someone is a Jew, and accepting they are not African American, but not allowing them in this category. It may actually make sense, but I want to see that this is what people actually want to do. In consdering this people need to bear in mind we have Category:Black hebrew Israelites for those Afircan Americans who claim to practice Judism or be Jews in ways not recognized by most other Jews, this category we are discussing here seems to be for African Americans who are recognized as Jews by other Jews, and so I fail to see why they should have to be Jews in a different way then Jews who have fathers who are gentiles from Europe instead of Africa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Black Jews and Category:American Jews. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Black Jews is already up for deletion because it violates the guidelines, "Categorize by ethnicity, not by race". Black Jews is categorizing by race, this is categorizing by ethnicity. We should keep this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Compound modifiers are hyphenated in standard English. We cannot simply change the rules of English grammar. Someone is "an African American." And that someone could be "an African-American history scholar" — as opposed to an "African American-history scholar": an African who is a scholar of American history. So: What, then, is "an African American history scholar"? Changing Category:African-American Jews to Category:African American Jews introduces a grammatical error here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Upmerge I'm not entirely understanding what's going on here. I think what Johpacklambert is getting at is that there is no Category:Irish American Jews. As such, African American should not be sui generis.Curb Chain (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am getting at the exceptionally limiting criteria for inclusion in this category. We do have cats like Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent and we have Category:American Jews by national origin which has this as a natural sub-cat. The categorizing of Jews by ethnic/national origin within the American Jews cat is well supported. My point is that the creteria for being a Jew everywhere else allows non-observant Jews, atheist Jews, Jews who last went inside a synagogue in 1974, but this category for who knows what reason does not allow such. I do not see a need to upmerge it, I see a need to discuss whether we really want the limiting rules that currently exist for it to be in force. Why does this one category have a different standard for measuing that someone is a Jew than every single other Jewish category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason is probably that somebody wanted to be sure that Black Hebrew Israelites and other people-who-consider-themselves-Jewish-but-are-not-considered-Jewish-by-Semitic-Jews were barred from the category. The criteria for inclusion is easy enough to fix. Any editor can change it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That I think is one of the flaws of criteria for inclusion. They should be agreed upon, not just haphazardly instituted with no agreement. The change in a category's rules for inclusion can have major effect on which articles are included. Such changes should not be done lightly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of Category:American Jews by national origin tree. If your problem is with the statement of inclusion criteria, that should be changed rather than the category deleted. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a compound modifer. Neutralitytalk 19:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rosceles, did you even read my initial post? I never suggested that we delete the category. What I would like is for people to say whether they think the current criteria for inclusion works or we should go to the same as for all other Jew categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 19 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:Jewish American baseball players[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) 14:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Jewish Major League Baseball players to Category:Jewish American baseball players
  • Nominator's rationale First off, I know we will in theory have to remove some people with the name change (but from reviwing about half the category, I only found one who might not fit the new name, so I would be surprised if it goes above three people who no longer fit). On the other hand there are in theory notable Jewish Ameircans who played baseball who were not in the major league, and so it would make sense to include them. As it is this category is already a subcat of Category:Jewish American sportspeople and I see no particular reason why we can not subdivide that category by sport, which this name change would clearly indicate we should do. We do not just group all African Americans under Category:African-American sportspeople but have subcats like Category:African American basketball players. I see no reason why at least baseball can not have the same done for Jewish Americans. We would not need to seperate out any other sport at the present, but could if there were a lot of Jews in that sport and their presence there was noted. There have been lists compiled of the best Jewish players of baseball, and baseball card series issued just of the Jewish players, so the intersection of Jews and baseball is clearly enough to justify the category. Whether the same is true for any other specific sports field in American sports I do not know, so this would only be a specific issue. However considering how many baseball players are already in 5+ cats just from the teams they played on, it seems excessive to have them in two Jew cats (or in many cases 3, because they are in Jew MLB players, Jew sportspeople, and American Jews) just from their playing baseball. If they were also writers, rabbis, actors or the like I see no problem with also having them in that Jew cat, and they can be put in the various subcats of Category:American Jews by national origin or in cats from being reformed or orthodox (or if people create them other religious sub-divisions of Judaism, like Am. Conservative Jews, which is not currently a cat). However as it is many of these people are in three cats just because they were a Jew who played baseball in the US, and that seems to be the classic example of overcat when you have 3 cats based on the exact same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead merge to Category:Jewish baseball players, as per other subcats of Category:Jewish sportspeople, such as Category:Jewish tennis players. We shouldn't further encourage subcategorizing people by ethnicity or ancestry and occupation by starting subdividing Category:Jewish American sportspeople. This rationale henges on the argument that African American is its own ethnicity (and not just about having some black African ancestry) while being Jewish American is not (that being Jewish is the ethnicity, regardless of whether you are American, Canadian, Russian, etc.) - of course, its about degrees of ethnicity on a continuum and where one draws a line (- not every American of some degree of black African ancestry is, prototypically (or stereotypically) African-American; and there is Jewish-American culture distinct from Jewish Canadian, or would it be Jewish New Yorker, or Jewish Mid-Atlantic??) Mayumashu (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Any change needs a hyphen: "Jewish-American baseball players". Compound modifiers are hyphenated in standard English. We cannot simply change the rules of English grammar. Someone is "a Jewish American." And that someone could be "a Jewish-American football player" — as opposed to "a Jewish American-football player": A Jew who plays American football (not football as in soccer). There could be a British Jew in the London Knights American-football team, for example. Changing Category:Jewish Major League Baseball players to Category:Jewish American baseball players introduces a grammatical error here.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Being a Major League baseball player is more than merely being a baseball player. If the subcategorization of this under Category:Jewish American sportspeople is an issue, that should be changed, but that can be addressed without renaming this cat. Rlendog (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tenebrae may or may not have a point, but The whole Category:American Jewish people by occupation set of categories does not use hyphens, so he should take up the issue with that whole jmass of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right: I or someone else. Like each of us, I can only do so much, and I've worked diligently in the realm of African-American list-articles. This is the first I'm hearing of the Jewish-American list-articles. I'm afraid I can't be everywhere. But you're right: Those articles defy grammar and should be corrected. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The suggestion is non-sensical, as the cat is not co-extensive. Not all baseball players are American.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Major League Baseball is an American organization, so we can argue that all participants are at some level American. Anyway, I openly admit that they are not quite the same, but an actual review of the categories contents revels well over 95% of the category is made up of Americans. As it is we currently have a system that leads to unneccessarily large number of categories for some baseball players. it is not helpful to have five lines of categories assigned to an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's absurd. "Major League Baseball is an American organization, so we can argue that all participants are at some level American." Is this a joke?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JPL has deleted my further explanation on his talk page of my above point, so as he suggests is more appropriate I'll re-post it here.

...Working for an American company does not make a person an American. It has no effect, in and of itself, on the citizenship of the person.

As far as your "95% test" is concerned, similarly -- being a basketball player in the NBA would not make one a Black person. Even if 95% of the NBA were Black.

I'm not sure if these come as a surprise, but if you doubt me still I suggest that we seek further community input on these two points.

--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the 95% number is correct (or even close) for Americans in the Major Leagues over the course of history, I would think that over time that number will continue to fall, as more and more "foreign" players make their debuts: in recent years the number of non-American players has been in the 25-30% range and I suspect that over time the numbers will continue their trend as the sport becomes more popular around the world and while MLB continues to be seen as the pinnacle of professional baseball.
Besides, the real point is that playing for a particular team in any sport does not have any impact on someone's nationality. There are any number of examples that show how strange that concept is, before you even begin to consider other sports, particularly association football where the top national leagues around the world seemingly all feature players from other nations who still only qualify for their home nation not their "residential" or "work" nation. Sure, there are cases where someone has made a permanent move and applied for citizenship, but that's because it isn't automatic when you start playing for a sporting team.  Afaber012  (talk)  09:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this move, but support upmerge to Jewish baseball players per Mayumashu. -Dewelar (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the only ethnic sub-category of Major League Baseball players. I think this is strong indication we need to merge this category somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never said 95% of the league was Americans. I said 95% of the Jewish players were Americans. It is actually closer to 98%. However there is no precedent for creating league-specifc ethnic categories. We do not even have Category:African American major league baseball players and there is significantly more coverage on African Americans in major league baseball than of Jews in major league baseball. However since we already have Category:Jewish American sportspeople I do not see any reason why we can not subdivide it by specific sport where there is a sizeable number of people in that sport, as is done in other subcategories of Category:American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to either alternate name. Categorizing by religion/ethnicity and league is overcategorization.--TM 01:41, 26 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:Works inspired by characters from TV or movies[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 to Category:Works based on television series. This category has been created since the discussion was started, and seems a good home for these categories. All are based on TV series, except one which I moved to Category:Works based on films. I've struck out my vote below because it was based on an outdated premise.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Works inspired by characters from TV or movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As we set about -- directly below -- merging and renaming the contents of Category:Works based on works, it seems to me that this category needs attention. A look at its contents reveals that much of it is not so much based on a character in a TV or movie, but on the works themselves. And even if it is one character from a TV or film work that has inspired a work, that's not a meaningful difference, it seems to me. Stefanomione will be replacing Category:Media based on films and Category:Media based on television series with the equivalent "works" cats in the coming days. When that happens, that's where the contents of this category should go, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial (intersection)Curb Chain (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an overly narrow interesction. Plus "inspired" is a fuzzy word and probably should generally be avoided in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created that category simply because the "works based on works" cat was already in existence and was quite messy. Since so many other related cats were divided between works based on literature and works based on "media" (and I don't like that term either for these cats), I created the TV/movies cat for the sake of organization. I don't particularly care if it gets moved into other categories, BUT I will point out that the whole "works by source" tree currently has several overlapping spokes: the genre of the source, the genre of the derivative work, and the specific source material, which is sometimes duplicated between author and work. So there's a cat tree for "works inspired by Homer" as well as one for "adaptations of the Odyssey", since one cat focuses on authors and the other on the specific works. That's the setup that seemed most logical to me in order to make the tree easy to follow. So I would expect some things to be duplicated. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Category:Works based on television series and Category:Works based on films. This entire section of the tree could use a cleanup, I think.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:58, 18 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:Media based on 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: merge (renamed by creator).--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Media based on media to Category:Works based on works
Propose merging Category:Works based on media to Category:Works based on works
Nominator's rationale: We all agree that individual creative works are not to be categorized as mass media, including User:Stefanomione. So I propose we merge into the target Category:Works based on works. Stefanomione, if you again agree, perhaps you could replace all the "Media based on foo" subcats with "Works based on foo," and speedy delete the old ones? That would be a big help. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me three eight days and it will be done. Stefanomione (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all They are all the same thing, just using synonyms, which makes not difference in the semantic organization of contents.Curb Chain (talk) 20:49, 15 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:Corporate wikis[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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Corporate wikis to Category:Enterprise wikis
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Enterprise wikis" is the more general term, and the one for which there's a Wikipedia article. And in fact, of the wikis currently in the category, none are for a corporation. Yaron K. (talk) 10:35, 15 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:Americans of Black African 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: Delete. I'll upmerge the contents to Category:African-American people to catch any articles that would otherwise be lost. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Americans of Black African descent
  • Nominators rationale 1- This looks like cat by race not ethnicity. Its heading basically says "but people in here who we can prove had genetic ancestry from African but never identified with it". Well that is categorizing by race, not by ethnicity, and we are supposed to cat by ethnicity. 2- We deleted the British Black-Af cat, and in Britain they use this term. No form I have ever seen in the US used this term. If we are going to be true to the terms used when most of these people lived we would use the term "Americans of Negro descent" and that will never fly. However, it is beyond the point. This is a cat by race, not by ethnicity, and should not be. The question is not was someone's grandfather "black", but did they identify as such. I have friends who look ttoally white but carry their birth certificate to prove they are black, and they would belong here. The people in this category did not openly identify as black. It is cat by race and we should not do this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom.Curb Chain (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:African-American people. By definition in the States, one is considered 'African American' (according to those who self-identity as African American, and much of greater American society) if one has (or appears to have) any Black African ancestry (regardless of one's own self-identity). (Comment: We maintain Category:African-American people as a non-race category by arguing that 'African American' is its own ethnicity (as the line is drawn on the continuum between ethnicity and non-ethnic group), but, as said, the (self-determined) definition of 'African American' is a racial one that is then presumed too to be an ethncity one - between that and there being no sources for ethnicity/ancestry claims for 99.99% of WP bios that link to Category:African-American people, I don't see, going forward, how we can maintain this tree; and any ancestry/ethnicity cat trees on WP, without sources.) Mayumashu (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An ethnic group has it own culture, heritage, etc. There are some ethnicities that fall in double areas, like African American, Judaism, etc.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely untrue: African American does not fall into more than one area, and is not an ethnicity; and Judaism is a religoethnicity.Curb Chain (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only reason for categories to exist is if there ARE sources for their ethnicity. It must be sourced. If not, the category may be removed. That definition actually simply is not true, because it is unsourced. For example, when people call me chinese, I call them racist.Curb Chain (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mayumashu is ignoring that many of these people did not in any way appear to be African American. I assume there is sufficiaent evidence that they had an ancestor who was African, but my guess is all these people spent their lives passing as white. So they were not in any way African-American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Passing oneself off as white, when you have Black African ancestry, doesn't make you not African American. According to the definition of 'African American', based on one drop, someone known to have passed themselves off is African-American. This isn't to say that some Americans don't consider being African American to mean self-identifying with one's Black African roots, but clearly a large number of Americans define this category according to the one drop idea. Mayumashu (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no definite criteria here.Curb Chain (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this follows the selective deletion of Category:British people of Black African descent at CFD August 5 and the nomination of Category:Black British musicians on August 10. If these two are carried, will you nominate the whole trees, i.e. Category:People of Black African descent and all its descendant categories with the word "Black", and most or all of Category:Black British people? - Fayenatic (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no vote on this, but I will say I think this category means black people who are directly from Africa and have immigrated to the United States. Not people who are "African American," or, born in the US. But I don't think it's really clear from the name since several people are confused by it.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category heading very clearly explains what the category means. I would suggest people read the category heading before giving their opinion on what it means. If you think the category name implies something other than what the heading says it is for, than a rename might be in order. Category heading are there for a reason, and so I would urge people to read them, instead of acting as if the categories exist without any direction. Anyway, people from African who are in the US should be in the appropriate X emigrants to the United States category, that is the system for people born one place who now are nationals of another place (and if they are not nationals of the US, they should not be called American, although they could be of American descent).John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If 2 people from Ireland get American citizenship, do their offspring get American descent?Curb Chain (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP implicit use of the word 'descent'? Yes. And Irish descent too. I created (i.e. suggested it here and it got supported) this WP cat naming three or four years back because then there were separate cat trees for national origin and ethnic descent (i.e. ancestry), with bios quite randomly put under either. I figured why not just put them together under one and reduce monitoring, fine combing, etc. - hence the two new cats Category:People by ethnic or national origin and Category:People by ethnic or national descent. These should actually probably be, for clarity, Category:People by ethnic or national origin or descent by nationality and Category:People by ethnic or national origin or descent by origin or descent respectively, but these names are obviously wordy. Since then having sources has become the WP onus and there none virtually none for ancestry (or for ethnicity or citizenship, for that matter) - the ones there are, like People magazine or whathaveyou, would base their stating one's ancestry on what that person being interviewd says, correctly or otherwise. I now think ancestry cats should therefore be done away with. Perhaps we should have cats like Category:People who are likely citizens of the United States etc. (being only half-serious) Mayumashu (talk) 13:11, 18 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:People with asthma[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) 08:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with asthma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not really comparable to the other subcategories of Category:People by medical or psychological condition. These are supposed to be limited to conditions that are defining. While asthma can be very serious, it can also be quite benign and relatively unimportant. I would say Category:Deaths from asthma is sufficient—it would only really become defining for the person if it resulted in their death. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having asthma is not defining. Many cases are extremely mild. In fact I have known people who thought they suffered from asthma growing up, but it was never diagnosed so they really did not know. That just goes to show it is often an ignorable condition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - delete. Many people have mild asthma. Agree to that deaths by should be kept. Mayumashu (talk) 19:11, 15 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:Kung Fu Records soundtracks[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) 08:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kung Fu Records soundtracks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This hosts one album, and is completely unnecessary. Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:56, 15 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:Disco revival songs[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) 23:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Disco revival songs to Category:Nu-disco songs
Nominator's rationale: Since there is no article concerning Disco revival, "Disco revival songs" can be absolutely everything. I propose renaming this category to "Nu-disco songs" which is a more specific name and also more corresponds with Category:Nu-disco musicians. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:09, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_15&oldid=1138394796"