Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 31 January 2 >

January 1[edit]

Category:Omega-level mutants[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 objection to listifying i.e. adding the remaining 4 to the 7 already listed in the main article. – Fayenatic London 19:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The article this is based on was long ago merged to Mutant (Marvel Comics) as a plot only fork that relied on reader interpretation. The section that resulted is limited to a handful of examples to prevent the OR from creeping back in. This category is based on the same type of OR, so listifying is not an option. Additionally, the "mini-article" appended atop the category only served to avoid the merge and preserve to original article. J Greb (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "category description" is an article in Categoryspace. So this is a list article masquerading as a category. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- largely an article in category space. I presume the articles categorised are already adequate categorised, so that it is not necessary to merge. Hope some one will check. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete articles should not be in category space.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Marvel Comics Omega-level mutants and move article-like information (sources, ectera) to Mutant (Marvel Comics)#Omega-level mutants, or listify. The inclusions in this category are all referenced in their articles, in addition to the non-standard use of referencing within article space. This suggests that this is not WP:original research, but a problem in need of some Wikifying. I am happy to perform the edit if needs be.
That said, I recommend renaming the category to avoid any chance of WP:INUNIVERSE confusion. Andrewaskew (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is that "Omega-level mutant" is in-story jargon. Full stop. Listing or categorizing each that is explicitly stated in an issue of the comics is exceedingly short and trivial. Above that there has been varying degrees of fan-wonk to add characters - either base line assumptions/OR or relying on fan sites or blogs. - J Greb (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Brief description of a category's purpose is fine. This amounts to an article. --Marco (talk) 19:10, 8 January 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.

Category:Herbal Remedies[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) 08:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This would appear to duplicate Category:Herbalism (to whose main article Herbal remedies redirects). SuperMarioMan 14:19, 1 January 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.

Category:Jewish footballers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per WP:OC#EGRS. Completely unconnected cross-categorization. The fact they are Jewish is irrelevant to their careers as professional footballers. TonyStarks (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of the history of Jews in football is something actually academic. Not just the history of Hakoah Vienna, but the history of Jews in the sport of football and whether or not a specific style exists. It makes them eligible for the Maccabiah Games as well as the Israeli national football team via the Law of Return. [1][2][3][4]. -NYC2TLV (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is overcategorization by a trial intersection of being Jewish and doing something. We do not have Jewish footballers or Jews in football as an article, and I doubt we could write one that is more than just a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Religion is irrelevant to the career of a professional footballer. We might as well have categories for Scientologist footballers, Mormon footballers and Taoist footballers at this rate. – PeeJay 16:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Being Jewish is ethnic, not just religious. We have 567 articles (including a list). It is certainly not a triple intersection - only dual. Even if it were a triple intersection, we should be keeping it, because it is such a large one. I suspect this nom is a reaction to the deletion of "Muslim footballers", but Islam is a religion with littel ethnic basis. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their ethnicity is still irrelevant to their careers as professional footballers. Besides, if ethnicity was important, you could then argue for categories for white footballers, black footballers, Asian footballers, Polynesian footballers, supra-Saharan African footballers, Scandinavian footballers, etc. Ridiculous. – PeeJay 16:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please unconfuse me. If I convert and become a Jew, how does this affect my ethnicity? If Jew is used for both, then to justify the category don't you need a name that makes the ethnicity the defining characteristic and not the religion? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Black, White, and "Asian" (as it refers to 'Mongoloid') are not ethnicities, but "racial" (phenotypic) characteristics. (Race impacts upon ethnicity, but "are" not of "themselves" ethnicities.) Ethnicities are Basque, Tatar, Maori, Berber, Armenian, etc., (incl. nationalities too). Mayumashu (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. – Michael (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A strong defining characteristic that is used to identify football / soccer players worldwide, that is the subject of newspaper and magazine articles, as well as books on the topic that cover individual athletes and such Jewish football teams as Hakoah Vienna in Austria and Brooklyn Hakoah in the U.S., among the dozens of other entries in Category:Jewish football clubs. This real-world support for such categorization trumps any and all hypotheticals, and the construction of a hypothetical means absolutely nothing to the category here where is clear evidence of real-world use. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is strong consensus here that religious categories for footballers are not notable. This is a BLP nightmare; the categories are unreferenced and seem to assume that 'Israeli = Jewish' which is clearly not the case. 566 Jewish players in the category but under 80 referenced on the relevant list? GiantSnowman 09:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. This conversation should be for a nomination of Category:Jews by occupation if not Category:People by ethnicity and occupation and not just one sub-subcategory. As it stands there is the alike Category:Basque footballers, but there isn't Category:Association footballers by ethnicity. There is as wellCategory:Sportspeople by ethnicity. I think it depends on the ethnicity and the occupation in question; not (necessarily) whether there is a connection between the occupation and the ethnicity but to reduce very long lists - there are thousands of notable Jewish people, so it makes sense to sub-categorize by occupation; there are a few thousand notable Jewish sportspeople, so if there are 20 (or whatever arbitrary number) in a particular sport, sub-divide there, and if not, leave that sportspeople under Category:Jewish sportspeople. Mayumashu (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The formation of the Jewish footballer article does not actually change anything. Since it is just a list, it seems to more prove we should not have the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:CLN, John. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religion (or even ethnicity) has nothing to do with how they play football. Next we'll have Category:Levantine Greek Orthodox Christian footballers as some have asserted that that's an ethnicity, not a religious affiliation too. Geez - Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while there is strong consensus that religious categories for footballers should be deleted, there is no consensus regarding ethnic categories for footballers. And that's what this is, a category for ethnic jews. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is, as per WP:OC#EGRS, which states "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist." Jewish is not an ethnicity, as some would like us to believe, it's a religion. A Russian Jew and Spanish Jew are .. Russian and Spanish, not Jewish. The guidelines clearly state that we shouldn't categorize based on religion. TonyStarks (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the problem here is the ambiguous word "jewish". If I wanted, I could convert to the religion Judaism, but I will never be able to be a Jew. Afaik, this category is about the latter, and if you want this category to be deleted you should move the discussion from "categories about footballers by religion is against consensus" to "categories about footballers by ethnicity is against consensus". Mentoz86 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an ethnic category: we use "of Jewish descent", or "of Foo-Jewish descent" for ethnicity. If there is to be a distinction between these "descent" categories and the "Jewish" categories - it must be religion. Best still, would be deleting them all because frankly they're not too meaningful and few people can articulate this distinction. As it is, regulars here seem to have the same confusion as any of our readers; so why not remove to avoid the confusion?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; there is no particular Jewish way of being a footballer. Unless someone can point me to rules for making kosher balls. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Jewish Olympics. Nom might wish to consider attending the Maccabiah Games -- the Jewish Olympics. You qualify for this decades-old, 50-plus country event by inter alia being within precisely the intersection we are discussing; e.g., a Jewish footballer (if you are good enough).

The Jewish Nation. The Jews are not only a religion, but also an ethnicity and a nation. The three are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3] And, of course, we have many categories of "sportsman from nation x" -- the test there is not whether the intersection influences the way they play the sport.

Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. Thus, in the unusual case of Jews, a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely {though now not wholly} in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are different for the most part -- there is not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se.

RS Coverage. The notability of this intersection--as measured by Wikipedia standards--is reflected in the below books. All of which focus elements of the category that nom is suggesting be deleted. If he reads one every other day, it might tide him over for the winter:

Jewish Athlete Halls of Fame. Should nom find the reading to be too solitary, and wish to move around a bit more this winter, I suggest that he might consider visiting the following, the existence of which also suggests the notability of the intersection:

  1. International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  2. Jewish Canadian Athletes Hall of Fame
  3. U.S. National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame and Museum
  4. Michigan Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  5. Jewish Sports Hall of Fame of Western Pennsylvania
  6. Jewish Sports Hall of Fame of Northern California
  7. Southern California Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  8. Orange County Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  9. Philadelphia Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  10. Rochester Jewish Sports Hall of Fame
  1. ^ "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  2. ^ Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  3. ^ The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years, Albert Einstein, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on November 30, 2010

Epeefleche (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, user Epeefleche has provided me with clear evidence to suggest that this category should be kept. There is clear evidence that category can be recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. So if possible, I withdraw my deletion request. Nevertheless, despite all the books that have been written on the topic, I still personally do not agree with the fact that Jewish is an ethnicity. That is just my opinion though, it has no bearing to the delete discussion! TonyStarks (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find the whole idea of "the Jewish Nation" quite distasteful. Every other nationality/ethnicity/culture has the right to the same treatment, but for some reason, Judaism gets special treatment because some people have gone to exceptional lengths to acknowledge it as such. TonyStarks, you may not wish to carry on this CfD, but I do. – PeeJay 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but user Epeefleche has provided more than enough reliable resources to justify the existence of a Jewish Footballers category. Whether we agree or not, it's clearly a topic that is a "distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" and as per WP:OC#EGRS that justifies having the category. Like I said, I don't agree with the existence of a Jewish ethnicity either but as long as there is enough reliable sources on the topic there's really not much that can be done when it comes to these sorts of categories. TonyStarks (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several peculiar points in our treatment of this and similar topics:
1. That to say an athlete or any one of any profession is of a particular ethnic/etc. group is a negative statement. (For some groups, it can be true in some places, but not in the present world in general) For any one person, it may of course be controversial.
2. That the fact that almost all ethnic/etc groups can be defined in several different ways makes dealing with topics about individuals of that group impossible.
3. That a person's membership in such a group is usually irrelevant to their life and career.
4. That the public in general is not interested in what ethnic/cultural/religious/national background notable people have.
5. That the public is not interested in a category or list that will help them find which notable people of a particular profession are of a particular ethnic/etc. background
6. That nobody writes books or other RSs about this. (I think personally that, if anything, too many people write books about these things & it can encourage a certain amount of group self-congratulation that sometimes verges on the ridiculous.)
7. That anything touching an ethnic/etc. group, and especially membership in the group, is so much of an invitation to antisemitism or racism or whatever-ism that we should avoid it
8. That although these considerations may not affect some groups, it does affect the one particular group in question.
And of course all of these are attitudes expressed by members and non-members of the group alike. When expressed by members, it is perhaps due to the fear that anything said about the group might be used against it. Such an attitude is destructive of NPOV. Over-sensitivity to ethnicity even if well-meant is racism. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish Epeefleche had not used the term Jewish nation; I understand it to mean "Jewish in any one of the several ways of defining it" But some think it has a political implication that is not universally shared, among Jews or others. I tried to make my !argument above without using any specific term at all. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What does ethnicity have to do with playing football? Also note well that any discussion on the deletion of anything about Jews, Hebrews or Israel beings out a response that appears to be based on a fear that an attack is underway. If nothing else, this shows the issues which go beyond this one category on the entire issue of categorizing based on race or ethnicity. In the long run we would be better served by the elimination of this entire series of categories and the problems and baggage that they bring to any discussion. DGG tries to walk across the minefield without getting killed. But the resulting argument is in many ways the best case for showcasing the problems with keeping this category. Jewish is too ambiguous to be used in a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Precedent established here. Per GiantSnowman earlier. --Marco (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a precedent at all! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 11 January 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.

Category:People of the Maratha Empire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Although the nomination refers to a current country, that is not a compelling precedent for former countries; this is a member of Category:People of former countries, where the form "People of the X Empire" is more common. – Fayenatic London 20:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:People of the Maratha Empire to Category:Maratha Empire people
  • Nominator's rationale in the cases where a direct ethnic form will not work, we have general gone with country name +people for the form. Maratha alone will not work, because that means many things, but Maratha EMpire people is a straight-forward and workable form, and would seem to be the best choice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I do not like the use of nouns as if they were adjectives, where this is not vital; and it is not here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not like the use of compound nouns. Forced adjectival form is inappropriate for most Empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The trend in the similar discussions (1, 2, 3) that I closed recently were all toward "(X) people."--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing judge query Does Mike Selinker's intervention in this case mean that he will recuse himself from the final decision? I am moved to enquire if it is even proper for a judge in 3 similar cases to intervene in the deliberations of a fourth case? I would feel move comfortable had the precedent-setting rationale of those cases(if any) had been brought to our attention by anybody other than the closing judge himself. It goes without saying that I found the ratio decendi in those cases to be less than compelling. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, participants in a discussion generally avoid closing it; and yes, it is perfectly proper for someone who has closed previous cases to participate in similar cases. – Fayenatic London 20:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to implement standard naming format, which is a convention for categories of people from particular countries, past and present. The two opposes above actually use the phrase "I do not like ..." as their justification. If they do not like what is already a convention (long before Mike Selinker closed the discussions in question), then they should work to change the contention, not to block its implementation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as ungrammatical, per Pki & Laurel. We still have Category:People of the German Empire, Category:People of the British Empire, and we should keep them - try nominating them, rather than sneaking round historical Asian empires. That the Mongol Empire was renamed in this style, with 2 supports, means little. I no longer watch these pages, but will respond if alerted. The revolting and ambiguous Category:Imperial Russian people might be a good test case. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No 1917 reference intended on "the revolting ... Imperial Russian people", I assume. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, just stylisticly revolting! Johnbod (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Current title is correct grammatical style. --Marco (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do any of you people care about precedent? The clear precedent is found in Category:Dominican Republic people and many others. I even tried to rename that category, but there was clear precedent to keep it how it is, so we should rename these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 9 January 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.

Category:Women of the Mongol Empire[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. A group nomination of this with its parent may be in order to bring them into line with each other. – Fayenatic London 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Women of the Mongol Empire to Category:Mongol Empire women
  • Nominator's rationale This will make it match the parent category Category:Mongol Empire people in form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- I do not like the use of nouns as if they were adjectives, where this is not vital; and it is not here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not like the use of compound nouns. Forced adjectival form is inappropriate for most Empires. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The trend in the similar discussions (1,2,3) that I closed recently were all toward "(X) people."--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to implement standard naming format, which is a convention for categories of people from particular countries, past and present. The two opposes above actually use the phrase "I do not like ..." as their justification. If they do not like what is already a convention (long before Mike Selinker closed the discussions in question), then they should work to change the contention, not to block its implementation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Correct grammatical style. --Marco (talk) 19:20, 8 January 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.

Category:Hawaiian warriors[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:Hawaiian military personnel for now; further work on this may be required. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Hawaiian warriors to Category:Kingdom of Hawaii warriors.
  • Nominator's rationale this is meant to be a subcat of Category:Kingdom of Hawaii people and we should use that form in the subcats. This is not meant to gather people from Hawaii as it presently exists, but only from it when it was a seperate nation as the Kingdom of Hawaii.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were never warriors in the Kingdom of Hawaii. They were only chiefs that fought in the wars in the periods of disunity prior to the creation of the Kingdom and during some periods in the early history of the kingdom like the Kuamoo and Humehume rebellions. These inviduals should be included in Category:Hawaiian military personnel and Category:Hawaiian warriors be deleted; the term seems a bit racist anyway. One additional note Category:Hawaiian military personnel can't be changed to Category:Kingdom of Hawaii military personnel since both military personnel of the kingdom and the republic is included in the category.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of coruse we could just split the category since it is a misguided grouping of people from very different things into one category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's a misguided grouping of people from very different things, then it doesn't need to be a category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The contents of the category include Hawaiian leaders in battles fought during the period of Ancient Hawaii and the Kingdom of Hawaii so the proposed rename will not work. There could be two categories and they could be named 'Military leaders of Ancient Hawaii' and 'Military leaders of the Kingdom of Hawaii'--but there is a overlap here. The parent category is Category:People of pre-statehood Hawaii so the category could be renamed to Category:Military personnel of pre-statehood Hawaii. Hmains (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, rename this to Category:Military personnel of Ancient Hawaii, clean up the content to match Hmains (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All warriors in Ancient Hawaii before the establishment of the kingdom notable enough to have articles or have anything known about them were chiefs so they could just go under one of the subcategories of Category:Ancient Hawaiian royalty.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:02, 5 January 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.

Category:Afghan athletes[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. No evidence has been presented that people outside North America use "athletics" to mean "general sports," so "athletes" can stand for all other countries.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Afghan athletes to Category:Afghan athletes (track and field)
  • Nominator's rationale The current name is ambiguous, since in the United States and Canada and by people who have learned their English from that source it will be seen to mean all participatns in roughly all sports, however by people from Britian and some other English-spekaing palces and those who have learned their English from those sources, it will be seen in the more limited light the category intends. THe new name disambiguates the current name without imposing the alterante name on it, so allows those who want to speak of athletes in the more restricted sense to still do so while it disambiguates what is currently an ambiguous category. This follows the form of such categories as Category:Olympic athletes (track and field). I have hear proposed this category alone since I see no reason to propose more when the issues are unsure. It seems worse it to start with the first of the categories and set it in an unambiguous form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support non-English localities should not use confusing names. As the latest power in Afghanistan is the United States and not the British Empire, the use of British English for this is doubly uncertain. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are your WP:RS for your claim that American is more appropriate than British? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are your WP:RS to show that British English is appropriate? Show a strong national preference for English (any variety) in Afghanistan. The proposed move here does not link it to either British or American. The current usage is British. That the Americans are rebuilding Afghanistan and not Britain shows that this isn't the 19th-century anymore. Afghanistan is no longer a British colony (sic protectorate). -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose -- Stop this American cultural imperialism! With America about to withdraw, Afghanistan is unlikely to adopt English culture from USA. Since it is next to Pakistan, with an open border, cultural osmosis from Pakistan is much more likely. Furthermore, many Afghan people or family members have spent time in refugee camps in Pakistan, with the result that Aghanistan is now a cricket-playing nation. It is important that Amercian WPans stop trying to impose their form of English on the rest of the world, unless clear evidcne can be provided that local usage conforms to that of USA. This nom is just as inappropriate as the case of Italy (a recent nom). The American usage appaently applies to Canada, Phillipines (a former US colony), and presnet US colonies (such as Guam and Puerto Rico). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that this isn't American usage, if it were, it would be called Category:Afghan track and field athletes (it wouldn't be parenthesized). The proposed parenthesization means that it is no longer attached to British English, but in a form where it is understandable from both British and American. Especially as Afghanistan does not use English as an official language or legal language, nor is it very common there. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename. Gives it the appropriate balance between British and American English for the county in question. Mayumashu (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Afghanistan is not an American-English speaking nation, and barring some sources concerning local use of the word, the guideline as I read it is for the current Engvar to be kept without a reason to change. A less confusing/ambiguous name would be a reason to change, but the suggested name does not fit this. Track and field is a subset of Athletics (sport), as used in en.wps articles, project pages, as well as major international bodies. --Qetuth (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current name is totally ambiguous to American users and will confuse them. We need to move to a less ambiguous name. The current system is an attempt to impose British English worldwide even when it creates major confusion and ambiguity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying the current name is ideal. I'm saying a better one is yet to be proposed. An ambiguous name is better than an incorrect name. --Qetuth (talk) 18:29, 5 January 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.

Category:People from the McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr, Texas, area[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. per the standard format here, uncontroversial. The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is a catch all for a group of towns in Texas, two of which Pharr and Mission already had their separate categories. If the category is renamed to the just one town I will fill it up. ...William 00:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we general do people from specific cities cats, and then for larger areas counties. We do not do people from arbitrary groups of places.
  • Rename. This is a much better name. Good catch! Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:32, 3 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_1&oldid=1138397937"