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. Only the nominator commented here, and the situation is a little too confused to allow this one to slip through on the basis of silence=no opposition. If all these different names do indeed refer to the same organisation, then the articles should be merged. If that happens, feel free to renominate the category without delay ... but unless and until the articles are merged, a category renaming would be putting to cart before the horse. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. ZCBJ is an article about a defunct newspaper. These articles appear to be about the Zapandi Czechoslovakia Brakaska Jednota fraternal association. The association has been renamed to the Western Fraternal Life Association which might be an even better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination changed. In doing more digging, it seems like the Czech-Slovak Protective Society became Zapandi Czechoslovakia Brakaska Jednota which became Western Fraternal Life Association. So that appears to be the most current name. If there is no opposition, I'll add a rename/merge of Category:Czech-Slovak Protective Society based on the above. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And we also have Zapandi Czechoslovakia Brakaska Jednota which I created when I split the article on a newspaper and the society. That was how I ran into the more of the details in trying to sort inbound links. Probably best to combine the articles with the old names to a new one at Western Fraternal Life Association. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2013 (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 on merger, but speedy delete Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability as empty'. There seems to be agreement here that we have duplicate categories, and that this duplication should be removed. However, the underlying situation is more complicated than that (and would require significant changes to the {{notability}} template), so I am closing the merger proposal as "no consensus" without prejudice to a renaming if and when the underlying issues are resolved. The Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability was created on 13 Feb, and has always been empty. It will remain empty, because {{notability}} is currently incapable of populating the category. {{notability}} currently takes the following parameters:
An unnamed first parameter, which generates a link to the appropriate notability guideline. For example, {{notability|Biographies}} ensures that the template generates a link to Wikipedia:Notability (people).
So if editors want to group articles of unclear notability by topic in the proposed format, then some significant changes would need be made to the template. That is a wider issue which should be discussed at Template talk:Notability, and if there is a consensus there for any such change, then a new CFD can be opened to make any necessary category changes. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: seem to be the same and the latter is the format by convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:31, 26 February 2013 (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:Delete. This is a more specific variation of Category:Things named after Albert Einstein, which was deleted here. There are several unrelated prizes named after Einstein, and the disambiguation page is Einstein Prize. This category is grouping those unrelated prizes. See WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Categories are not intended to function as disambiguation pages. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and it is taking the category system a bit too far. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emptied out of process Please do not anticipate the outcome of discussions. I now cannot see what was in the cateogry. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should not have categories for proze winners. I observe that there is a a subcategory for "Albert Einstein medal". That should not exist: it should be listified and deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2013 (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:Delete. This is a category for people who were mentioned in John Prince's The Worthies of Devon. We generally do not categorize people for having been mentioned in a book or included in a published list. This guideline, though not exactly on point, is of the same spirit. A list already exists at List of people in John Prince's The Worthies of Devon. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, the fact that even of the people on the list who have linked articles most of those articles are not in the category suggests this is not something people think of adding as a category to such articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2013 (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: Doesn't really seem to be a defining characteristic. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most mothers in history were teenage mothers until fairly recently. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Delete as it stands. For most of human history teenage pregnancy was normal and this category has the potential to be huge. Also, in many countries marriage is legal before the age of 20 and therefore motherhood as a teenager in those countries is considered normal. I suspect that what this category is really trying to get at is girls in their mid-teens who are unmarried and have become mothers. It would be a rare woman who was notable (per WP definition rather than small-town gossip) for this reason and there are BLP issues with it for anyone else. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per Beeswaxcandle as undefining. Note that the identically-scoped Category:Teenage Pregnancy (described ungrammatically as "Women who have given birth between the age ranges of 13-19") was deleted at CfD 2010 January 15. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is another problem. Do we include in this category people who married at 18 and had a child before they turned 19. Even if we thought that being a "teenaged mother" was notable, the idea seems to be to include single, high-school aged mothers, but the case I give really does not work. In reality this category will tend to include a lot of royalty if consistently applied. It is going to group unlike things and really does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a defining characteristic, namely mother and teenager but I don't like it... The rationale at CfD 2010 January 15 is a good reason for deletion of this cat. Also the point that Good Olfactory makes means that it will be a difficult to maintain the category which is of little use to readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'd actually debate the claim that most mothers were teenagers until recently. Puberty for women actually generally happened around 17 until recent history. I'd say that most mothers have always been at least about 18-19 and generally bore children in their 20s and 30s. Not only that but being a teenage mother is indeed quite noteworthy in this day and age. Fernwood1990 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is clear is that a large percentage of pre-modern women who have articles will fit this category. From going through the list of Queens Consort of Sicily I realized that many of these were married at age 12 and often had three children by the time they turned 20. Also, I still think that the name is misleading. A lady who is married and has a 2-week-old baby on her 20th birthday is in a very different situation than a single 15-year-old mother, and so I think the attempt to scope all this in one category just does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably par for the couse of the people who will be included are Joanna of Castile. However the reason she gets included is not because she is at all notable for her age when her children were born, but as royalty, the births of her children are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand I can't put Aurelia Spencer Rogers in the category, even though she was married at age 16 and the mother of 10 children, because the dates of births of her children are not noted in the article, so while I strongly suspect she was a teenaged mother, I have no evidence for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category also makes an arbitary distinction. As it stands a women who has twins at 8 months of pregnancy 2 days before her 20th birth qualifies but a women who has a child at full term the day after her 20th birthday does not. There is no clear reason why 20 is such a major cut off.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Very difficult to define across longer periods of history and culture. Also, we don't have categories for mothers, fathers, daughters, sons. While this of course is more loaded with cultural meanings, due to problems defining such a person, I cannot really find a good reason to keep it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a category by age-bracket. Not a particularly good idea, and probably hard to source and verify. Dimadick (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The objection to "teenage pregnancy" is that girls should not be getting pregnant before the legal age for intercourse, or for marriage. This age varies from country to country. In mine, the age is 16, though subject to parental consent for marriage before 18. There is nothing remarkable about a 16-year-old getting married and giving birth at the age of 17. With increases in expected school leaving ages, the possibility of marriage and giving birth before the school leaving age may be undesirable, but that is an issue for our legislators. The issue is much more with girls giving birth before the legal age, where they must have been the victim of unlawful sexual intercourse. It may be we need a category for that, but I doubt it: it is unlikely to be this one; we need to start again, if at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2013 (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: This has essentially no content. the one "article" would be in category:unicode characters, and is up for AFD. other content can be upmerged. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the codepoints categories in the parent could conceivably be categorized in this category. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2013 (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, as nobody opposed the move on the ground that the existing term is used by the peoples in question. The objection at the end of this discussion is answered by keeping biographies in the "Foo people" sub-category of "Foo" where this exists. {{Category explanation}} templates may help. In unambiguous cases it may be appropriate to move the lead article from "Foo people" to "Foo". – FayenaticLondon 13:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match with main article, per WP:NCCAT. "Tribes" is altogether confusing, offensive and uncommon. Also considered Category:Australian Aboriginal groups, but thought that might be a bit ambiguous. Feel free to keep that option in consideration though. Osiris (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because that name already exists as the main container category for the topic. Category:Torres Strait Islanders is currently categorised separately. Could still match them up I suppose, but it would require renaming the main category and I don't have any suggestions for that. Osiris (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move: I agree that 'tribes' is not appropriate here, and some variant of 'peoples' would reflect common usage and is much more respectful. My preference would be variants of 'Indigenous peoples of X' as suggested by BrownHairedGirl. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Indigenous is a catch-all word used to avoid having to use the long form "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander". If all of the groups identify as Aboriginal, then that usage is fine. Hack (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought I'd point out that "tribes" only seems offensive to non-Aboriginals. As explained on this Aboriginal website, "tribes" are really a subset of "peoples", although it is still used in the media to represent an entire "peoples".[3] "Tribal" is used in the names of Aboriginal organisations,[4] and "tribal law" is fairly commonly referenced. I don't really see how tribes is confusing. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent point, "tribe" and "tribal" are words extensively used by Indigenous Australians themselves when referring to their culture. It might be confusing, but it's not widely considered offensive, at least by the ethnic groups we're talking about here. Lankiveil(speak to me).
Speaking as a non-non-Aboriginal person, my feelings towards the term are at odds with your statement. However non-Aboriginal people feel about the term, by using it in the names of categories, it's being used as a generalisation by applying it to each nation irrespective of their current or historical social structure. While for some cultures the application may fit perfectly, to others, it's completely inappropriate, and would be considered outdated terminology. Also keep in mind that some of us may simply use the term because of the style of education we've received. Osiris (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure "peoples" is the best renaming choice. It seems to easy to confuse with "people" and might lead to the placement of articles on individuals in the categories which we do not want. I am thinking "groups" might be a better way to word these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sounds good to me. Osiris (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, 'peoples' was preferred way back in 2005 because it differentiated from groups, as in organisations, and people as in individuals. Not sure why a reader would confuse 'peoples' versus 'people'. Paul foord (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the difference between the concepts are not deeply established in English. The fact of the matter is that categories like Category:Wyandot people have been placed in Category:Iroquoian peoples, the later being a category to hold articles on "tribes", not individuals. So it is clear that people do confuse these two concepts. It probably does not help that some categories with name "x tribe" have had bio articles placed in them, which then messes everything up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the relevance of discussing North American usage is here - 'peoples' is the relevant, and common, term used by Indigenous Australians. Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is inherently a confusing term, because the specific group is a "people" but if we use that label in a category we generally limit the category to bio articles, and using "x people" to hold general articles on the people will lead to confusion, especially when people who are not of that ethnic group get put in the category because they are somewhat connected with it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2013 (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 male categories, no consensus for the female categories. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 15:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The current names, especially danseurs, are at best jargon. Danseur redirects to Ballet dancer which says the term in the French, but does not state it is used in English. Ballerina is used in English, but whether it is synonymous with female ballet dancer, or only for lead females is unclear. It appears to be more the former, but have historically been the latter. I brought this up at the ballet wikiproject talk page, and those who commented seemed to think this was the best course of action. It makes the scope of the categories clear. There will still be two sub-cats of Category:Ballerinas using the term "ballerina", but I am not really sure if there are other terms that can be used to describe the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming the danseur categories WP:JARGON, neutral on "ballerina". -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ballet#Ballet dancers by gender cat names] support. I don't believe that the term danseur is accepted in English, though ballet, being somewhat an international community, certainly has some male ballet dancers from English speaking countries that identify with the term. A quick search of New York Times articles shows they seem to only use the term within the narrower term of "danseur noble", prefering to refer to dancers by their heirarchic title, such as "soloist" or "principal dancer", and often using the term "male ballet dancer". While I don't think the term "ballerina" is jargon, I prefer "female ballet dancer" over "ballerina" simply because the term ballerina seems to put women who are ballet dancers on a bit of a pedestal. I also agree that there are more likely to be more debates over what level of diva-ness a dancer needs to earn the term which could be avoided by using the term female ballet dancer. Dkreisst (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interesting question posed here. I'm undecided about this. My gut says support the first two as WP:JARGON and reject the remainder since they are the common name. That leaves us classifying these dances using two different terms which I'm not comfortable with. I suppose that we could go with something like Category:American ballet dancers, which if it has subcategories for males and females, then why does it have 306 articles? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is I created the sub-cats within the last week and neither I nor anyone else has bothered to move articles to sub-cats. It is the same reason why Category:American singers has 628 articles in it, while it should have no direct articles because the male and female singers cats should take in everything that does not fit in one of the 18 sub-cats of Category:American singers by genre. Well, except that there the male and female sub-cats have existed by years, and a bunch of articles are in both one of those cats and the parent for reasons that baffle me. No one else has taken up adding people to such categories as Category:American ballerinas, but it really does not make sense to have people in 2 cats when one for both works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not create a category and expect that other editors will populate it. It hardly ever happens, from what I have seen, even if it gets tagged as needing to be populated. For that reason, I think creators should populate the category they create as well as they can. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for what it is worth, there has been a large amount of transfer done by others. At present there are 138 articles in the category, 72 of which are redirects, normally to lists of dancers with given ballet companies, so in some cases it will be hard to determine gender. Ballet dancer cats have the highest percentage of redirects of any bio cats I can remember.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gulp! But clearly because no-one has been looking after it. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've never (in the UK) seen danseur used in English, & I think most females in contemporary dance/ballet don't use "ballerina". Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have just added a further 1234 categories for renaming: Category:Ballerinas by nationality and 1133 of its subcats. All of these 34 categories were created by me after this discussion opened, and I am happy for them to be renamed in accordance with the outcome of this discussion, whatever that might be. There is no point in leaving them for another discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all ballerina categories. This is the proper English word from a female ballet dancer, just as actress is the female of actor. "Danseur" is the French for dancer, and is not (or may not be) limited to ballet. I do not know of a male equivalent to ballerina and thus think we must keep "male ballet dancer". Peterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the male changes. Oppose the female changes. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2013 (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.
