Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6[edit]

Category:Current national leaders[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: do not recreate.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Rationale: This category was deleted in November 2012, but I feel it was a mistake (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 7#Present status categories for persons). The general argument was that national leaders do not lose their categorization when they are no longer "current". That is correct, President Barack Obama will always be categorized as a President of the United States. Categorizing someone under Current national leaders does not keep them from being categorized under the respective category that includes former and current leaders. Wikipedia:Categorization states "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics". The category in question easily meets that requirement. Ryan Vesey 23:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This was a very good decision. If people want to quickly find articles on the present national leaders we have List of state leaders in 2013 that can easily take them to the specific articles, gives them a general idea of who these people are. Plus since we also have List of state leaders in 2012 and back for over 1000 years, people can find this intormation for any time that they want. The lists still could use a lot of work, but they are definantely better than categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what the == See also == section is for - for links to appropriate lists the subject is covered in. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories cannot exist as redirects to articles (nor vice versa). Bearcat (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We do not categorise by transient things, "current" is a categorisation trainwreck that needs to be abolished completely (along with "modern"), not camel's nosed back into use. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for two reasons. First, we don't categories by current status, because it can change rapidly. Categorisation should be based on enduring characteristics, and as JPL points out above, lists are better for this sort of transient information.
    Secondly, if we did have a Category:Current national leaders, it would make sense only as a subcategory of Category:National leaders. But we have no such category. Why not? Because it would be deleted as hopelessly vague. What is a national leader? A head of govt? A head of state? A head of the armed forces? The chair of the legislature? In the USA, the roles of head-of-state ad head-of-govt are combined in the one person, but in most countries the offices of head of state and head of government are held by different people, and there are many variations in how power is divided between them. TRying to select one of them as "national leader" would lea to endless heated disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question There are a number of statements that we "don't categorize things by current status", but few arguments why. BrownHairedGirl remarks that it can change rapidly, but the category can be changed as the article is changed. What other reasons are there not to categorize something by current status? Ryan Vesey 00:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While we should avoid "current" categories, it is because they are liable to to become outdated, and this reason doesn't apply to very high profile things. National leaders (leaders of nations) and Reigning monarchs are an obvious two examples of high profile categories. If most editors don't pay attention to catgories at the bottom of articles, I suggest limiting categorisation to it being done by a high profile template, a template that sits high on the article page.

    Saying that readers should be referred to a list article is a statement that categories are not useful for reader navigation. What then is the purpose of mainspace categories? Are you saying that we may as well do away with the whole category namespace? Or just that there should be no expectation that ordinary editors should be involved in category maintenance. This dumbing down of categories is a bad thing.

    Category: current national leaders should always be an additional category to time-independent categories.

    Camel's noses and slipper slopes are logically fallacious starting points. "current" can be overused, but if maintainable, it is a highly useful feature of Wikipedia to the readership.

    Category:Current national leaders does not only make sense only as a subcategory of Category:National leaders. We have a recentism bias, and it makes sense. Ideally, Category:National leaders will be populated with all verifiable national leaders, in subcategories, probably both by time and by nation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose current categories should be avoided. Nearly every item in every category remains so no matter what happens (living persons being an obvious - and legally imposed - exception). This schema works, requires much less maintenance than continually changes whose in and whose out (Category:Current members of such-and-such team, Category:Current hosts of talk shows, Category:Current members of Foo's legislature and the like are all doomed to the same failings as the proposed revival of this cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment head of state/head of government are not the only possible divisions. At times military figures are the de facto leader, and in some one-party states the head of the party has the real pwoer while other people hold techincal government leadership titles. Some countries at least at times on the lists have had more than two leaders. Also, there are some countries that have gone through 4 or more leaders in one year. Then there are times when countries have multiple people simultaneously seeking to be national leader. The thing is messy and much better covered in a list than a category. Anyway the proposed name is not neccesarily synonymous with "leaders of nations".
The current extreme might be Switzerland run by a seven-member federal council. Bosnia and Herzegovina has 5 leaders at any given time, China, Vietnam and Laos all have 3. Then there is the question of whether we should include leaders of break-away countries, such as Transnistria, Abkazia, Kosovo etc. Lists avoid many potential battles over what inclusion of a given person implies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The avoidance of 'current' categories as a general rule is a good idea for reasons which have been discussed - it puts a time-limit on how long a characteristic is 'defining', such categories have a history of not being kept up to date, etc. It is of course possible there may be categories which are good individual exceptions to this general rule. However, I think JPL and BHG among others above explain why this specific category would be a bad exception. 'National Leader' is not a globally clear concept. --Qetuth (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'National Leader' is not a globally clear concept" (which I'll accept on your word as true), is a good point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Current incumbency is properly handled via inclusion in lists, not categories, of current officeholders. With the obvious exception of Category:Living people, which exists for maintenance reasons rather than user browsing, it is almost never appropriate to use categories to classify people by transient or temporary characteristics — people should ordinarily be filed only in categories which once true will always remain true in perpetuity, not in time-sensitive categories which they might need to be removed from as early as tomorrow for all anybody knows today. Hugo Chavez will always belong in Category:Presidents of Venezuela, for instance, because his death doesn't change the fact that he did hold the role — but he would have belonged in a "current national leaders" category on Tuesday morning, and would have to have been removed from it by the same evening. Categories are forever; we use lists for the fluctuating stuff. Bearcat (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment': tending to oppose -- The reason that we do not like "current" and "former" categories is that they easily become obsolete and require constant maintenance. On the other hand, this is such a high profile subject that maintenance is unlikely to be an issue, because a failure to do so is unlikely. If kept, rename I would suggest Category:Current national heads of government. This is intended to exclude constitutional monarchs and presidents with a similar status (as in Ireland, Italy, and Germany). National is intended to exclude non-sovereign polities such as US States. On the other hand, independent (but unrecognised) polities such as Taiwan, and perhpas also Palestinian territories might be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason why lists are preferred over categories for this purpose: a list can be formatted into sections, such as one for straightforward entries and a separate one for entities of disputed or uncertain legal status (such as Taiwan or Palestine or Azawad), whereas a category just throws everybody into one pot with no context and leaves everything wide open for WP:POV edit-warring. Thus in a list, you can include the tricky cases because you're able to provide additional context by putting them in a separate subsection and explaining why — but in a category you're just begging for a constant reversion war over whether Jiang Yi-huah or Mahmoud Abbas (or Alex Salmond, for that matter) are "national" leaders or not.
And actual category cleanup doesn't happen nearly as much on here as you might like to think, either; while the articles of many national leaders are likely to be heavily watchlisted and edited quickly if their current vs. former status changes, and a list can be watchlisted to ensure that bullshit isn't being added to it, there's no easy way to watchlist a category so that you can prevent it from clogging up with self-appointed heads of non-notable micronations. (Yes, people do still try to write about such things on here — and no, they don't necessarily always get caught right away.) Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even more contentious than those you mentioned would be Ahmed Mahamoud Silanyo, Aziz Duwaik, Bako Sahakyan and Valentin Inzko, although the last for very different reasons, it would be a question if that person holds a position that qualifies as national leader, not qhether they are connected with a true nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was fully aware that I was going against a policy that I had previously supported in making the suggestion that I did. That is why my comments were qualified. If we did restore it, it would need to be (1) renamed (2) tightly defined as relating to independent countries widely recognised as such and conduct their own foreign affairs. Micronations are not recognised, so would not qualify. The real difficulty relates top polities that are de facto independent, but for various reasons not generally recognised, including Northern Cyprus, Taiwan, Transnistria (which I may have misspelt), and Kosovo. Scotland's foreign affairs are dealt with from London, just as those are Maine and Texas are from Washington. The line suggested follows what the British Foreign Office adopts for those it recognises. Nevertheless, I recognise that the weight of opinin is against this view. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Categories are not needed or helpful for every type of search. In reading the discussion, I don't see how anything has changed since that last discussion to cause us to change that previous decision. Adding a category or the list name to an article takes about the same amount of work and both are manual. Since both of these appear near the bottom of the page and the list is probably much more informative there is no reason that I see to use both. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 13 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.

Category:Ghulat[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, but merge sects to Category:Shia Islamic sects.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Derogatory terms should not be categories. This category should be deleted. It is akin to having a "heretics" or "infidels" category, and then tagging religious group articles with them. Or categorising ethnic groups as "subhumans" or such. FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is no exageration to say this is like having Category:Heretics and putting religious groups in it that some other groups dislike. In the article on one of the so tagged groups we read "They are often described in later literature as ghulat - a kind of heretic ". It would also be like labeling as "cults" all the groups that some Evangelical Christians so describe. This is a pejorative, derogatory term meant to marginalize those so described and we should not use it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or rename If you can come up with a neutral name (by some standard) then by all means do so, but these articles seem largely to have no other categorization, and they need to be categorized with respect to "orthodox" Shia Islam somehow. I would also point out that we do categorize Christian groups according to their deviation from Nicene orthodoxy. Mangoe (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The name itself means a Shia extremist, and is only used in an offensive way, so it can't be compared to non-offensive division names within Christianity. The articles could easily be categorised as "Shia sects" or some such instead, we have two of such categories:[1][2] FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that there are non-offensive divisions in Christianity? We in fact have Category:Heresy in Christianity which includes Arianism among many other examples. Calling someone an Arian is certainly pejorative. My impression is that the groups in this category do form a distinct subgroup, and that this subgroup is characterized by the negative relationship with the main Shiite body/ies. If that's not true, then they probably need to be merged into the parent category. But if not, the issue is one of possible renaming. We may have to settle for a hatnote explaining the grouping in neutral terms. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since those Christian denominations are extinct, it doesn't really offend anyone today. But Druze and Alawites, who have been categorised as "Ghulat" on Wikipedia, still exist, so it is a completely different issue. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that should be deleted too. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nominator. Pass a Method talk 14:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The word apparently means "extremist", rather than heretic. I think that the issue identified could be cured by having a short headnote, explaining the word, and stating that it is groups considered by orthodox Shiite Islam as heretical. This would be better than having some mouthful of a name. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It means an extremist Shia, which means they are heretics to whoever labels them as such. So no. It is an offensive category, and not neutral. They, and many non-fundamentalist Shia Muslims, wouldn't use such labels, so we shouldn't either. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I "extremist" is inherently a pejorative term to label views you disagree with and want to state clearly are unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term ghulat has it's own article to direct to. Alatari (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The claim above that we label Christian groups by their devisation of adherence with Nicene Christianity is only somewhat true. We have Category:Nontrinitarian denominations, but This works because the groups involved do not claim to be Trinitarian. For this to be an equivaent name the category would have to be Category:Deviant Christians where we use "deviant" to mean they "deviate" too much from Nicene beliefs. Non-trinitarian is not pejorative to people who do not accept the Nicene view of the Trinity, extremist is inherently a pejorative label.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not even have Category:Non-traditional Christianity since it would endorse the Nicene postion much more in the name choice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we do not have Category:Extremists or Category:Political extremists so I see no reason we should have this category that labels people as "extremists", especially since this proactively supports the marginalization of people who belong to the identified gorups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article Alawites cites a source (# ^ a b c d Moosa, Matti (1987). Extremist Shiites: The Ghulat Sects. Syracuse University Press. pp. 282–283. ISBN 0-8156-2411-5.) from 1987 that directly calls Alawite religion a Ghulat Sect. The term was new to me and appeared to be a proper noun that was appropriately tied to the Alawite article and a possible category entry to Wikipedia for there are other sects of Islam that are Ghulat according to that source. The pejorative usage is unclear even from the Ghulat article which states nothing about the emotional content of the term ghulat Alatari (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The mere title of that source should answer your question. It is derogatory, and POV at the very least. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heretic is not a pejorative as is other terms like 'honkey' or 'cracker'. There are categories on Wikipedia of heretic as in [[Category:Heretics in Christianity]]>
The category [[Category:Heresy]] also exists. Since ghulat is Arabic for heretic/extremist maybe just use the category heresy on the Alawite article? Alatari (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:Heretics in Christianity are under discussion itself. Several users have argued that the term "heretic" is a pejorative. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the category [[Category:Heresy]] is not being attacked for removal. Alawite religion has been considered heresy by other Shia and that is well sourced so maybe we should just categorize it with the English category of heresy and not the Arabic word term of ghulat then? Alatari (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Alawite religion has been considered heresy by other Shia" which makes the term POV and derogatory. And it is not up to Wikipedia to take particular fringe POVs over others. What is it that you don't understand? Do we categorise non-Muslims as infidels, just because some Muslims consider them such? Or atheists as apostates? Or Protestants as heretics? FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the usage is certainly NOT fringe since it is so well sourced and used commonly. You'll need to prove how the main sources within the actual Alawite article are fringe. Actually, atheists are called apostates and I'm proud to be called apostate. Alatari (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said earlier: reliable sources have reported that some Shias claim Alawites are ghulat/extremists, not that they are such. Do you get the subtle difference? Let's continue the discussion here instead of on my talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Matti Moosa, the Middle Eastern historian cited in the Alawite article, calls it a ghulat sect in his book describing the various ghulat sects of Shia. His book is cited 4 times in the main article. Here is the source: [3] Alatari (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I repeat, Moosa only reports, he does not categorise himself. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source is called Extremist Shiites : the Ghulat sects by Matti Moosa. The opening pages read: This book is a comprehensive study of the cultural aspects of the different ghulat (extremist Shiites) sects in the Middle East [4] Alatari (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I repeat: It is still POV to label someone an extremist. That should be pretty obvious. To Catholics, Protestants are extremists. To Jews, Christians are extremists. To Sunnis, Shias are extremists. Why should we be less careful with the POV here than on other pages? Even Wahhabism is not called "extremism" on Wikipedia, only that some have claimed it to be so. Let's not have double standards, please. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored WP:PROFANE. You have sanitized the Alawite article as well as the ghulat article even though Moosa is a reliable historian. Alatari (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per user Johnpacklambert's opinion. It would be nice if Funkmonk would stop sanitizing the article proper when the Alawites have been persecuted for being heretics and that is reliable sourced. It's hard to discuss the nature of their persecution if we are not allowed to state the word ghulat (those that go too far) Alatari (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat for the gazilionth time, no one is proposing the word should not be discussed in the article. It just shouldn't be a category. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or rename per Mangoe. Also "ghulat" is commonly used in the scholarly literature to describe these groups and their (mostly historical) beliefs. For one example, see [5]. Wiqi(55) 22:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is besides the point. It is still POV, and should not be a category. FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't characterize a term used by experts without qualification as POV. If that is your concern, then renaming this category to "accused of being ghulat" or "considered ghulat" would be more appropriate. But it should be kept because "ghulat" --which also literary means "exaggerators" as Arabic has a different word for "extremists"-- is an important and distinctive feature linking these minorities together. Multiple scholarly books and papers were devoted to studying these otherwise historically obscure minorities based on them being ghulat. Wiqi(55) 23:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The more I read the more this starts to seem like us creating Category:Pseudo-Christian cults and then using The Four Major Cults as the work to support the inclusion of gorups in it. It is especialy odd to see these gorups called "mostly historical" when the Alevites form a large portion of the present population of Turkey, and the Druze clearly still exist. This is not like discussing the Cathars or the Arians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only described their "beliefs" as mostly historical, which is true. Nowadays most Alawites are either non-religious or moving closer to mainstream Islam, like Ja'fari Shi'a or Sunni. According to Heinz Halm, other ghulat sects who once held similar beliefs did not survive into the contemporary period (quoted in the diff). Also your example doesn't apply as we're not creating anything. The term "ghulat" is used by reliable sources to group these distinctive sects and we should just follow suit. Wiqi(55) 04:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a term which is widely (universally?) seen as derogatory should not be used as a categorization, especially when it is a term barely used in English but one whose derogatory connotations will be immediately obvious to any educated Arabic-speaker. Incidentally, one of the most highly-regarded Arabic-English dictionaries (Hans Wehr) defines "ghulat" as: "adherent of an extreme sect; extremist, radical; fanatic adherent, fanatic". ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Category:Shia Islamic sects as a potentially neutral categorization. From what I can see, none of these articles has any other categorization which relates them to Shia Islam. It's pretty clear that there isn't a neutral name for this subcategory, or at least that there's no interest among the actually knowledgeable (which I am not) in finding such a name. Therefore they need to just go in with the rest. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great idea. I second the merge and category tagging with Category:Shia Islamic sects Alatari (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or rename There are strict rules for labeling a sec or person as Gha'li. For example, see Najashi's Ridjal in his list of Ghulat; Ibn Al-qazaeri has a book on Ghulat too. Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid and Majlisi have definite criteria as well. Among the recent scholars, I can say that at least Hossein Modarressi in his book Tradition and Survival classifies some the hadith narrators as Ghullat.Taha (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I repeat: that does not make the term less offensive. There are rules for what a heretic is too, you're completely missing the point. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 25 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.

Category:USS Tennessee (BB-43)[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category, once created when an assortment of since-remerged breakouts were created. Contains only the ship article, already correctly categorised in Category:Tennessee-class battleships, and a template which has all its links pointing to the ship article (and thus is at TfD). The Bushranger One ping only 10:09, 6 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.

Category:American people of Dougla 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category, created more than two months ago, contains only a single article. —rybec 07:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not for the reasons given. My biggest problem is that Kamala Harris is not, at least as far as I can tell, Dougla. While she is of both African and Indian descent, that alone does not make someone Dougla. Well, if it alone does, than it is clearly a race and not an ethnic group and we should not categorize by such. In fact, reading the article and its mention of Dougla being an apparence descriptor, I am strongly inclined to think maybe we should not use it to categorize people anymore than we use half-breed or "brown" or describe Coloured people from South Africa as "basters" as was done in early-19th-century Afrikans. However, if in fact to be Dougla is a real ethnic identified, the people have to either a-be from Tinidad or Guyana or b-have anestors who lived in Trinidad or Guyana who were clearly Dougla. Ms. Harris lacks this. Her mother immigrated from India to the US, and while her father was from Jamaica there is no indication in the article that he had Indian ancestry. Even if he did, Dougla is a term in Trindidad and Guyanna, and does not apply to Jamaica. What next, are we going to class Hansen Clarke as Dougla because he also has Indian (well Bangladeshi, but that is probably close enough, it used to be India) and African (although I am not aware his ancestors ever lived in the Caribbean, but it is possible) ansestry. If it was clear that Ms. Harris was Dougla I would reccomend upmerging the article, but I am unconvinced she actually fits any definition of the term, at least per the article on her. It may be that her father does have Indian ancestry, and she may have ancestors who lived in Trinidad or Guyanna, but neither of these facts are mentioned in the article. Jean Baptiste Charbouneau may be Metis, but Rebecca Rolfe's son (Thomas Rolfe) was not, nor was John Joseph Matthews, even though his mother was ethnically French and his father was basically Osage (well, OK, more English than Osage by ancestry, but Osage by culture), Matthews was Osage. Ethnicity is not carried in the blood and Major John Fairfax Bolling was not any less a Euro-American colonist than any of his contemporaries who had no Native Ancestry. If the Dougla are an ethnic group, than Ms. Harris does not qualify as such, at least not from what the article on her says.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the wider Category:American people of West Indian descent. Dougla appears to indicate mixed Black and Indian descent. We do not like dual ethnicity intersections. If a person has Indian ancestry (and it is significant), they should be categorised accordingly. In the case of the particualr article, the ancestry will be generations back and the failure to mentuion it in the article indicates that it is insignificant. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the one person in the category is already in sub-cats of Category:American people of Jamaican descent I really think that as applied this merger is a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 11 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.

Category:Diplomats of China[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:Chinese diplomats. The diplomats of the current incarnation of China belong in Category:Chinese diplomats, because that's how diplomats are categorized (see the discussion of Germany, below). What may be needed is more subdivision of earlier diplomats, which is outside the scope of this nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was recently renamed from Category:Diplomats of the People's Republic of China in a batch rename of "PRC" categories to "China" categories. However, the rename doesn't make much sense for this particular category. All "diplomats of China" are in the parent Category:Chinese diplomats. The category then contains subcategories for the different dynasties and incarnations of China. This is the subcategory for diplomats of the PRC. If the nominated category is not going to be named with "PRC" in it because it is assumed that the default meaning of "China" is "PRC", then it is wholly a pointless subcategory and may as well simply be merged to Category:Chinese diplomats. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: present name is synonymous (or nearly so) with name of parent category "Chinese diplomats" and could easily be misconstrued as encompassing Taiwanese and pre-1949 diplomats. Likewise for Category:Foreign Ministers of China. —rybec 07:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename as proposed. The current name is confusing and the distinction by formal government name is necessary for clarity. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- It is a question of how far we go, having decided that WP refers to the polity calling itself the Republic of China by its common name of Taiwan. Conversely the present PRC is China. I see two options: (1) a continuing category for the mainland covering Imperial China (pre-1912), the mainland republic (1911-51) and PRC (1947-date) or (2) a separate category for each of these. Most countries recognised PRC by the early 1950s (USA being an exception), and PRC will therefore have taken over the embassy buildings of the preceding regime. Accordingly a continuous category would be appropriate. For France we do not have separate categories for the 1st 3rd and 5th republics, etc. I prefer the first of these. There may be a 1911-1947 category to be merged in. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the "Republic of China" subcategory is still covering both Taiwan and the pre-revolution mainland. It seems to me that the right solution is to complete the split of the RoC categories, and then mewrge all the mainland categories together, excpet possibly the Han and Qing ones. Taiwan should not be in the tree, but dealt with by a "see also" (or similar entry on the page. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this approach, if there is consensus for it. That would mean Category:Diplomats of China would simply be merged into Category:Chinese diplomats. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also OK with this as long as the meanings are clear. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is only really valid in the cases where there is a sequential continuity of regimes over essentially the same place. The PRC and ROC are competing governments with different territories. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Chinese diplomats. Even Category:German diplomats only has a sub-cat for East German diplomtas, plus a Bavarian and a Prussian one. Thus we are essentially treating the German Democratic Republic in the same way we are probably going to end up treating Taiwan here, as a break-away from the historic use of the name, and we treat the Federal Republic of Germany as the Germany without question, even in 1965. Germany has arguably had more radical boundary changes in the last century than China, especially if we view it in this manner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A category of this name should include people of the legitimate Chinese government, the People's Republic government, and the imperial governments all in one. Create a separate category for the People's Republic diplomats or merge everyone per JPL. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you have argued in favour of above is exactly the two options that are proposed in the nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the rationale in the nomination. It Is Me Here t / c 16:54, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_6&oldid=1142605959"