The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
United States places with Orthodox Jewish communities[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 Close - Even if this wasn't looking like WP:SNOW, these topics (PRoC/China and RoC/Taiwan) have recently undergone some major discussions, and discussion is still ongoing on how to sort it out. Having cydebot (The helpful category bot) arbitrarily move things around would hinder rather than help the editorial process in this case. - jc37 22:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Why are we having two categories on the same thing? It's stupid and illogical. The previous CFDs on March 23 2010, October 1 2011 and February 13 this year were plain wrong and ridiculous. Let's fold it and all its children categories. 1.65.152.67 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose as ambiguous -- There are two polities that call themselves "China". PRC and Republic of China (commonly called Taiwan. WE are in the course of moving RoC articles to Taiwan, but this requires the manual removal of material relating to the pre-1949 mainland republic (which should be in Category:China). That category may be appropriate for articles that refer to the mainland without being time-specific, but until we have sorted out all RoC articles, it is highly undesirable to make changes relating to PRC. A merge may be possible in due course - perhaps three months, but not now. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As some other editors and I myself have pointed out elsewhere it is neither possible nor desirable to split the ROC ones. Jeffrey (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 'People's Republic of China' is natural disambiguation for China, and for some topics separate categories are required, one each for the PRC and China. All PRC-specific categories should be named 'People's Republic of China' for the sake of consistency and easier navigation, and to avoid miscategorisation. Jeffrey (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does this nomination affect all subcategories under Cat:PRC? Jeffrey (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there may be cases where the articles would be better categorized under China, but to get rid of all the PRC categories and put everything into the China categories is too hasty a move. A better plan is to decide the issue on a case by case basis, and put articles where they actually work the best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Mergeall children categories under Category:ROC to their cousins under Category:Taiwan. Why are we having two categories on the same thing? It's stupid, illogical and ridiculous. DON'T waste webspaces on Wikipedia. 1.65.152.67 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Republic of China is ambiguous: it refers to Taiwan 1945-present AND to the mainland 1912-49. Please be patient until we can get all RoC categories emptied into categories for Taiwan or RoC 1912-49. However the best solution in the longterm will probably be for RoC to be a dab-category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not all Taiwanese topics are relevant to the ROC, and not all ROC topics are relevant to Taiwan. The two sets of categories should co-exist. Categories named 'Taiwan' should perhaps be renamed 'Taiwan (island)' to make them look less ambiguous. Kingdom of Middag, Taiwan under Dutch rule and Japanese rule in Taiwan, e.g., are only relevant to Taiwan as a group of islands but not the rest of the ROC (i.e. Kinmen, Pratas, Itu Aba, etc.). Jeffrey (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does this nomination affect all subcategories under Cat:ROC? Jeffrey (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we can not do this merge while there are still pre-1949 articles in these categories. Also the category has not been properly tagged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Canada places with Pakistani communities[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.
Nominator's rationale: What constitutes a significant "community" for inclusion in this list is too subjective for an encyclopedia. I suggest either making the inclusion criteria objective, and rename this category accordingly, or else delete this category. e.g. as an objective example, but not one that I am advocating, "Canadian cities with Pakistani populations over 100,000" would be a category that could have verifiable membership Ds13 (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur with the nominator's rationale. PKT(alk) 11:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A category that requires an answer to a POV issue cannot be allowed. The category is in eny evetn empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Potentially there could be many dozens of similar categories for other ethnic groups and nationalities. A case could be made for a category called "places with significant <ethnic/linguistic-group> communities", where the term "significant" could be defined in the category page itself to mean "more than X%" of the population, which would represent some figure well above average. Using a word like "significant" would be preferable to hard-coding some actual number into the category title. However, such a category would have to add information; if it contains nothing but, say, Toronto and other big cities which are known to attract large immigrant communities, then it isn't telling us anything we didn't already know. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: yes, at least some of the contents were removed by UrbanNerd here, a couple of days after it was created and shortly before this nomination. – Fayenatic L(talk) 21:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category does very little in aiding readers in finding important information. Mkdwtalk 16:54, 14 April 2012 (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 The new name emphasizes that this is for people connected with Texas while it was under Spanish control. The current name was so vague people had put the category for the governors of Mexican Texas under it, which lead to the extreme point of view assertion that Texas was a colony as a state of Mexico, but no longer is a colony. The new name also makes it clear that these people are connected with the Spanish domain of Texas, and that this category excludes people who lived in what is now Texas, but was in Nuevo Santander, Coahuila, Chihuahua or New Mexico during Spanish control, as well as making it even more clear that residents of Comancheria do not belong in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, although to an alternative name. "Spanish Texas" implies that the territory was called Spanish Texas, but I'm not sure what alternative name to use... - The BushrangerOne ping only 19:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we at times use names that reflect how things are understood now, as opposed to then. Common name means we use the prevailing name now to descibe the place. The fact that the name may be a latter creation is irrelevant. I guess another name might be Category:People of Texas during Spanish rule or even Category:People of Texas during Spanish rule of Texas but both those names seem unneccesarily wordy to achieve the same goal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2012 (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:LGBT American people of Mexican 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.
Nominators rationale intersections of sexuality and ethnicity are supposed to be built around pertinent intersections of the two topics. There is no special reason to seperate out these group. Upmerging is not needed because theser entries are in other daughter categories within both trees.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- An unnecessary triple intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing wrong with using 2 categories on articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can argue notability of the intersection. LeSnail (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who ever suggested we would upmerge this to a Mexican category at all. That would just be plain absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge (ditto with other LGBT-country-descent subcats) - Hispanic-LGBT intersection and Mexican-American intersections are relevant, but I don't see the encyclopedic value in splitting the Hispanic LGBT category by country. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 16 April 2012 (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 places with Pakistani communities[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:listify and delete. However, the category is currently empty, so as closing admin all I can do is to delete it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a place has a "Pakistani community" is not a defining characteristic. In the U.S., I'd imagine there's at least a small Pakistani community in almost every mid-sized to major city. It's also vague; how many Pakistani Americans make a "community"? This is a recently created cat that has been removed from most of the articles it has been added to (not by me). szyslak (t) 02:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's Comment. This was my criteria for a community: Places where Pakistanis live in significant communities. These are areas that have within them a Pakistani community in which there is a sizable population, which has its own community organizations, businesses, schools, places of worship that serve the members of the local community. As John Pack Lambert said this is a direct parallel of Category:United States places with Orthodox Jewish communitiesThe Determinatorptc 03:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's absolutely ridiculous to add a racial category to city and region articles. Many cities could gather hundreds of these ethnic categories. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Wouldn't this be a multi-ethnic nationality category (which happens to be racially Asian)? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This would be my 2nd choice to putting a plurality/majority requirement. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is a variety of categories within Category:Ethnic enclaves in the United States, but most have lead articles, and the relevant populations should be documented and cited in the populated-place articles that are categorised. Was there any such documentation for the places that were added to this category? (Note: at least some of them were removed by UrbanNerd here.) – Fayenatic L(talk) 13:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- What constitutes a community is a POV issue. The Jewish equivalent might be permissible, as it refers to a religion. It would probably be better to have Category:Populated places in the United States with a synagogue as Jewish tradion requires a quorum for the men to meet together to worship. Nevertheless, that should be covered adequately by a synagogues category (except that we treat most places of worship as NN). On the whole, I think this is far too like a Performance by performer category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I suppose, in the long view, all enclaves are temporary since there are no Visigoth communities left in Spain. But aren't the 4 or 5 generations of Italian immigrants and Italian Americans in Italian Harlem properly categorized in Category:Little Italys in the United States? Sure it was "temporary," but it seems like more than a performance. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unlike Vietnamese and Japanese populations, Pakistani is not one of the reported racial groups on the census. They are either shunted under "other Asian" or some of them may mark themselves as "Asian Indian". In 1970 they were all white, along with Asian Indians, but I digress. Thus Pakistani percentages are going to come from estimates that are harder to find at the local level and tend to not be very accurate. I think the best move for now would be to start an article/list on this subject. Most places that have Pakistani plurality populations will be sub-city level areas that it would take a lot of census tract hunting to peace together even for a reported racial group like the Vietnamese.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Per JPL's background on available data. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Italian Harlem issue, it is a specific community being designated. Most ethnic enclaves can not only be created, but they can be destroyed, as was Detroit's Poletown. If a community really does go from being one thing to another and we have adequate evidence of this, than putting it in conflicting categories will work. It should also be noted that since "Hispanics may be of any race" it is possible for a place to simultaneously be in Category:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic majority populations and Category:Populated places in the United States with African American majority populations. I would argue if we have evidence for one classification in 1990 or 2000 and a different one in 2010, we should have both categories. Categories reflect deep traits of what they categorize. Just because a place goes from being 70% African American to being 70% Mexican American, does not mean we should end all references to the old condition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or Delete. What constitutes a community? One person? Ten? One Hundred? One percent? Ten percent? Way too ambiguous to categorize. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2012 (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.
