Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 12 December 14 >

December 13[edit]

Category:Fictional American law enforcement agents[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming the following:
Nominator's rationale: C2C - bringing categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. --Onifpaz (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2016 (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:Fictional Special Operations Forces of the United States[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. Cerebellum (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming the following:
Nominator's rationale: C2C - bringing categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. Note that "Green Beret" and "Delta Force" are unofficial nicknames used by the media. --Onifpaz (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For the Green Berets category, I support Category:Fictional United States Army Special Forces personnel rather than "Green Berets personnel" (which just reads a bit weird). Neutralitytalk 18:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly Support/Alt Rename for Green Berets This makes sense. The one exception is for Green Berets where I support Neutrality's suggestion since the parent category is Category:Members of the United States Army Special Forces. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2016 (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:Fictional United States government agents[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 all except for Category:Fictional United States Marshals, which already matches the parent category. Cerebellum (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming the following:
Nominator's rationale: C2C - bringing categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. --Onifpaz (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (But Prefer Good Ol’factory's Alt Below) Makes for more consistent naming and removes ambiguous acronyms. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except these are not at all consistent. Why are some "characters" and some "personnel" and some "officials" and some "agents"? Deli nk (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has standardized the naming.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support this new proposal - consistency is good. Deli nk (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with dropping "United States" if the rest of the category tree does.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These should match or come close to matching the real life agency, so use "Central Intelligence Agency" not "CIA". I'm less concerned with consistency in Category:Fictional United States government agents. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: I think I see what you mean. I thought you were implying on 29 Dec that one hierarchy does use "United States", & therefore those nominated here should only omit "United States" if the rest will also get renamed to remove those words. However, I now think you meant to express support for Good Olfactory's proposal as the rest of the tree does not use "United States"... right? – Fayenatic London 20:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Clarified my vote above for the closer. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2017 (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:Estates in Powys[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:Country houses in Powys (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 entry. small category Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, both for this county and across Wales and the UK. This is a category with much scope. The fact that is has not been populated so far is neither here nor there. The large estates form a significant part of Welsh history, particularly during the phase of early industrialisation and up to the Great War. We should be working to expand this, not for bored editors to find reasons for things to do. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge, I'd also suggest it is upmerged to Category:History of Powys and Category:Real estate in the United Kingdom. There is currently no category tree to support this overly specific sub-category (Category:Historic estates in Wales suffers from similar problems of being over-specific). Sionk (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is the wrong target. What is important here is not an estate (a farm etc), but the house. The question is how the one article should be categorised, as neither of the present categorisies is a useful one. Merge to Category:Country houses in Powys and if it is listed, Category:Listed buildings in Powys. Since Powys covers three pre-1974 counties, there would be merit in splitting Powys categories between the earlier counties. The one article needs some purging of NN Lloyd ancestors, but should also be making use of H. Lloyd, The Quaker Lloyds in the industrial revolution (1975) which has a couple of chapters on the family (who founded Lloyds Bank) while they were at Dolobran. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - +1 on merging to Country houses - it may not be an exact match but the difference isn't worth the duplication. The current "Estates" is confusing as it could equally refer to council estates in Cardiff as country estates (and "historic estates" is little better), but I would oppose some of the more extreme upmerging as it's true that many of the country estates will have enough WP:RS to support an article on each. At the same time splitting a current county into three non-existent ones also seems an over-reaction, Powys seems the natural home for these.Le Deluge (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2016 (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:Rachel Platten[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:16, 13 December 2016 (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:Technological problems[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 to Category:Technological failures, until a better idea comes along; it does at least correspond to both the parent categories. – Fayenatic London 15:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge as all content of this category is about failures (disruptions, defects, blackouts). Suggesting downmerge instead of upmerge because 'failure' is more clearly defined than 'problem'. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I feel the two categories are distinct in scope and meaning. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to hear Sm8900 out, but I'm not seeing the distinctness with current contents.. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, thanks, but simply look at the category itself. it includes several sub-categories, of which "engineering failures" is only one of several. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's how it currently is indeed. The question is whether the distinction is meaningful or not. As said in the nomination, it's all about failures. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Technological failures. I do not think all the classes of failure covered are necessarily branches of engineering: some are more in the realm of metallurgy and materials, so that it is useful to have a broader parent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Problem" implies something gradual and potentially minor - some air in a radiator means one room is colder than the rest. "Failure" implies a one-off disaster - a pipe bursts, flooding the house. Whether that's what's intended I'm not sure. I'm not sure I particularly like "technological" in this context though.Le Deluge (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disruptions, defects, blackouts, they all seem to be one-off disasters. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The glory of the English language means that they are all subtle variations of timescale and impact. A defect has already happened and is absolute but minor - a bad pixel on your TV. A disruption is ongoing but again not that serious - the trains running 20 minutes late. A blackout is sudden and catastrophic - a whole town losing electricity. So defects and blackouts are both abrupt failures, probably only one is notable, whereas a disruption won't generally be a failure (the trains not running at all).Le Deluge (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2016 (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:Krampus[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 ensure clear navigation links between the main article and the other category. – Fayenatic London 14:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This WP:EPONYMOUS category is being repeatedly removed from categorisation of the main Krampus article. That would be inappropriate according to our regular practice for eponymous categories. Either the category should exist, and be included, or else abandon the category altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it has members of the main article, Krampus, and one sub-category with 9 members: Category:Krampus in popular culture. At least one of these categories seem adequate to pass WP:SMALLCAT.
  • Keep This is normal practice for an eponymous category. There is some smallcat argument for merging the two categories, but given the scope of Krampus I think we can justify both and Krampus could be expanded. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge/Weak Support I would favor upmerging the sub-category but I don't see the need for two and a popular culture topic doesn't really need a "in popular culture" subcategory. I added the main article back to this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add Krampus as the main article to Category:Krampus in popular culture, i.e. not as a member, but only in the header of the category. This way all related articles stay together in a single category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor this to having two, redundant categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2016 (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:Independent Ireland in World War II[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. I have suggested at WT:IE that WP Ireland discuss creating year categories for Independent Ireland. – Fayenatic London 15:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Independent Ireland"? As opposed to what, Northern Ireland? Because this is the normal way we indicate that... BDD (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed, as opposed to Northern Ireland. In World War 2 there was no such place as the "Republic of Ireland". The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 came into force in 1949. I am open to any renaming that does not contradict history. jnestorius(talk) 16:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • General support but purge -- Much work has been undertaken over the years to split between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Some of the content of this category is once again trying to blur that distinction. WP policy has long been that we only have Ireland categories of pre-1922 Ireland (pre-partition) and where there remain all-Ireland institutions, including Trades Unions, horseracing and Gaelic sports. I have sympathy with the last contribution, but the correct target is Category:Irish Free State in World War II. As IFS is the predecessor of the present republic, there is no reason why IFS categories should not be parented by a RoI parent category. On the other hand Ireland in 1943 and the related category should not exist: they need to be purged of Northern Ireland content and renamed to Irish Free State in 1943, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Irish Free State" would certainly be an improvement. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose: ROI did not exist, even as a description, at this time as as it is about a specific period and not on that transcends the Irish Free State and the later republic, such a renaming is completely wrong. Category:Irish Free State in World War II would be the bast and most accurate consideration. ww2censor (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not having British or Irish nationality, I'm a little confused by this discussion. Didn't the Irish Free State end in 1937? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: the Irish Free State did end in 1937, but the Republic of Ireland was not officially instituted until the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 came into force in April 1949. Between 1937 and 1949 the country was very similar to today's Republic of Ireland, though it was a member of the British Commonwealth – it functioned as a republic, but was just not formally designated as such by law. "Independent Ireland" is a fair description of this period of time, though distinguishing it from the current Republic of Ireland is a little bit pedantic. But like you, I am confused why multiple editors have suggested that using "Irish Free State" for the WW2 period would be a good idea: the Irish Free State had clearly come to an end by the time the war had started since the new republican-style constitution was enacted in 1937! Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename to Category:Irish Free State in World War II. See my reply to Marcocapelle above. The Irish Free State did not exist in World War II. The proposed rename is more accurate than using "Irish Free State", but still probably would not satisfy everyone, since the republic was not declared in law until after the 1948 Act. So "Independent Ireland" might be as good as we can get here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* I was afraid of this. The country was just called "Ireland" in this period, wasn't it? But we can't do the concise, commonsense Category:Ireland in World War II because Ireland is Not A Country. It's Only An Island, and "Ireland" is just too ambiguous. Even though there's already a {{cat see also}} to Category:Northern Ireland in World War II. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be the least controversial solution. If a more official name must be chosen, the nominated rename is more accurate than the alternative rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2016 (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 associated with Pink Floyd[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) 12:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of these people, not to mention that "associated" is a horribly vague word. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is defining for some of them: Rachel Fury wouldn't be here if it wasn't for The Great Gig in the Sky and Floyd are so enormous that even those like Storm Thorgerson who would stand independently are significantly, and probably best known for, connected to Floyd. I've no objection to a better renaming, but this category has useful value for us and our readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"People known for their association with Pink Floyd"? It's more clear, though implies they wouldn't be known otherwise... I am very open to other suggestions. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But his career hasn't been defined by his collaboration with Pink Floyd. Roy Harper (who had a substantial notable career separately) has been. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once you create this category, it's equally applicable to both Roy Harper and Carlossuarez45. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2016 (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:Separation of investment and commercial banking[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: purge and rename. – Fayenatic London 15:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF as well as WP:OR masquerading as a category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I'm actually sympathetic to this topic and there seem to be a number of articles. The lack of a main article makes the inclusion criteria too subjective for now. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while currently there appear to be quite a number of articles in the category, the topic is not defining for most of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, purge. Changed vote after below contribution. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, article created. This is an example of the kind of thing Wikipedia is not very good at - in mass-media terms this is the equivalent of Harry Potter splitting up with Kim Kardashian, but the kids aren't interested in high finance, and the sector experts tend to concentrate on national aspects under local names rather than giving a global overview. But it is definitely a "thing", and an important one at that. So I've created a skeleton article (with a slight name tweak to reflect what seems the most common usage, Separation of investment and retail banking) by grabbing ledes from a couple of relevant articles and a Japanese journal article, and summarised them in turn. I'm no expert on the area but hopefully it will point people in the right direction.Le Deluge (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename/Purge Should be renamed Category:Separation of investment and retail banking to match new main article, Separation of investment and retail banking. Only articles on this topic (not Speculation, Investment Banking, etc) should be included though. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2016 (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:Entrenchments in Malta[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. The opinions in favour of "keep" would be more convincing if there was actually more existing content rather than just potential for content. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles. Not obvious that Entrenchments need a separate category. Rathfelder (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: @Rathfelder: There are many other entrenchments in Malta which do not yet have a Wikipedia article (Bengħisa Entrenchment, Birżebbuġa Entrenchment, Louvier Entrenchment, Spinola Entrenchment, etc), and this category is intended to include these articles once they are created. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging Malta has a large number of entrenchments and the only reason there are no articles about them is because we lack volunteers to the wikiproject Malta. There are at least 30 entrenchments of notability. Most of them are a National monument, historic importance, etc. In any case they are more easily (wiki - fast) found under their own category than mix them with the main list of the rest of the world.Continentaleurope (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's enough scope here to justify the separate categories. Malta has a huge number of fortifications and sub-dividing their types is appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There don't seem to be any categories for entrenchments in any other countries.Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what? WP is incomplete. Presence or absence of other content is no proof of anything. Malta is also unusual in having been both heavily fortified, yet little worked by agriculture. It's not unusual for having had extensive earthworks of this type, it's unusual for them still surviving. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now When this category gets up to 5 or so real articles, we can recreate it. For the time being, creating underpopulated subcategories hinders navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RevelationDirect. And let's first have a general Category:Entrenchments before diffusing by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2016 (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:Welsh pornographers[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. There are many other small categories subdividing British people by occupation; perhaps an RfC would be a useful way ahead. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category - 1 article. Rathfelder (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We do divide British categories into their four separate parts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes we do, when ethnicity seems important. Sometimes we don't. The Welsh pornography industry seems underdeveloped, and Mr Desmond, the subject of the only article, seems to have built his career in England.Rathfelder (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's nothing whatsoever to do with whether "ethnicity seems important". It's purely to do with whether somebody has created a category or not! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bizarrely it seems worth splitting the UK down by country. Even though only one is listed at present, it's the UK's third best-known pornographer. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge he doesn't carry a Welsh passport, so Welsh is apparently an ethnic category, and dividing pornographers by ethnicity is silly. It's also WP:SMALLCAT unless Wales is like the San Fernando Valley... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- We should only split by the 4 home nations if there is enough content to merit it. Do we need a broader upmerge to a Welsh people category too? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it may be useful to discuss the split of Category:British people by occupation and location altogether. Probably in most cases occupation is unrelated to ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's fair enough to have cats for the overseas territories (as with the French equivalents) - if nothing else they will have separate hierarchies for politicians, sportspeople and military; politics and sport are also relevant for the home nations (sportspeople are separate for eg football, rugby union and the Commonwealth Games), but it's not WP:DEFINING for most "ordinary" jobs.Le Deluge (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rathfelder: can you remember who was the Mr Desmond you mentioned above? Currently, the only member page is David Sullivan (businessman). – Fayenatic London 12:56, 6 January 2017 (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:English politicians of South Asian 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty and superfluous Rathfelder (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after all there's nothing to merge. Sionk (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per WP:C1, unless it was emptied out of process. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Even if emptied out of process, it should be deleted: the potential content will all be in appropriate British politicians by descent categories. Furthermore, South Asian is a portmanteau, we usually use specific nationalities here. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Count me in for deleting all these various English/Welsh WP:SMALLCATs. But to be honest I'm OK with South Asian, given the specific circumstances of large numbers of immigrants coming from the former British India within living memory. There's plenty of people still alive who were born before Partition, and many more whose parents/grandparents did so. Plus there's the migration issue - if Muslim grandparents and their forefathers lived in modern India, but the parents moved to Pakistan after Partition and then the children moved to the UK - what is their "descent", Indian or Pakistani? My experience is that they are more likely to claim the pre-colonial identity of Punjabi, which adds another level of complication. So I can live with a non-country descent in the particular case of South Asia.Le Deluge (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2016 (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:English people taken hostage[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 as WP:SMALLCAT; also to Category:English terrorism victims. – Fayenatic London 12:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. Only 1 article. No reason to distinguish English hostages from British. Rathfelder (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We do divide British categories into their four separate parts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, there are several other articles in Category:British people taken hostage which could be categorised to here. (Edit: Okay, only one other, but that brings the content to more than one) Sionk (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Category:British people taken hostage is not vast enough to need splitting. Oculi (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- WE should only split UK into four nations where there is enough content to merit it. Possibly upmerge also to an English people category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2016 (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:English people of Taiwanese 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: merge without creating a precedent; noting that the single member article Tim Chow currently plays for a Scottish team, and remains in the English hierarchy as he is also categorised in Category:English people of Chinese descent. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous - and meaningless. English is an ethnicity. British is a nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I suggest the nominator goes and checks all the other 'English' nationality categories, of which there are hundreds. GiantSnowman 08:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We do divide British categories into their four separate parts. English is not an ethnicity when used in this sense. Although not a sovereign state, England is a country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a great deal of confusion about English categories. English has not been a nationality since 1707. So Englishness cannot easily be acquired. Most non-white people in England identify as British rather than English.Rathfelder (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No confusion whatsoever, other than the confusion you're creating. And do you have any evidence whatsoever for your last assertion? You know as well as I do that if you started mucking around with Scottish categories there would be an outcry, so why do it with English categories? To be honest, most English editors weren't that bothered until some Scottish and Welsh editors started obsessively describing and categorising people as Scottish or Welsh rather than British; but as soon as that starts it has to be carried through for all the Home Nations and done consistently throughout category trees that use it, as the "by descent" trees do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ I consulted the article on English people.Rathfelder (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, there is currently insufficient content in the upper level category to justify this over-specific subcategorisation. Sionk (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Not enough content to merit splitting a British category. There is a lot to be said for treating "English" as an ethnicity, rather than a nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2016 (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:English people of Tajik 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous - empty Rathfelder (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No longer empty (it was emptied by another editor and has now been restored). We do divide British categories into their four separate parts. English is not an ethnicity when used in this sense. Although not a sovereign state, England is a country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any evidence that Tajik immigrants see themselves as English, rather than British, as most immigrants do?Rathfelder (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they immigrate as an adult then no. If they immigrate as a child then most people will see themselves as coming from the country where they are brought up, whether that be England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland; they will have the local accent etc. Note that the lady in this category is actually notable for being Miss England! Which suggests she has a pretty close relationship with England! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, overly specific, there is insufficient content to justify further sub-categorisation at present. Sionk (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that this is all part of a category tree (Category:English people by ethnic or national origin). Usually we retain such category trees even if it leads to very small categories. To do otherwise messes the whole thing up. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2016 (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:English people of Uzbekistani 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: merge. (Though it's empty after the close of the discussion immediately below, so there's nothing to actually merge.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous Rathfelder (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No longer empty (it was emptied by another editor and has now been restored). We do divide British categories into their four separate parts. English is not an ethnicity when used in this sense. Although not a sovereign state, England is a country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are talking about descent, we are talking about ethnicity.Rathfelder (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be the case were the category about people of English descent! Since it isn't, your comment is irrelevant. But in any case, if it was only about ethnicity, we'd better delete Category:People of American descent and all its subcats (just for a start), since American most certainly isn't an ethnicity! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, particularly on the basis there's no content (people immigrating to England do not necessarily identify as English so the sub-category is in the wrong place - that's if it survives its own CfD discussion). Sionk (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – there is no point in splitting tiny categories into 4 possibly contentious parts. I was born and bred in England but I am Scottish (and would apply for a Scottish passport if there was one). Oculi (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that this is all part of a category tree (Category:English people by ethnic or national origin). Usually we retain such category trees even if it leads to very small categories. To do otherwise messes the whole thing up. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2016 (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:Uzbekistani emigrants to England[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; merge contents to Category:Uzbekistani emigrants to the United Kingdom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty. and if populated it is part of a heirarchy by nationality, not ethnicity Rathfelder (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No longer empty (it was emptied by another editor and has now been restored). We do divide British categories into their four separate parts. English is not an ethnicity when used in this sense. Although not a sovereign state, England is a country and people do settle in one of the Home Nations as opposed to the other three. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any evidence that Uzbekistani immigrants see themselves as English, rather than British, as most immigrants do?Rathfelder (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they immigrate as an adult then no. If they immigrate as a child then most people will see themselves as coming from the country where they are brought up, whether that be England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland; they will have the local accent etc. Note that the lady in this category is actually notable for being Miss England! Which suggests she has a pretty close relationship with England! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Uzbekistani emigrants to the United Kingdom, there's insufficient content to justify further sub-categorisation. In addition we've had previous CfD disussions about similar articles - people generally immigrate to sovereign states. It's unlikely we'll have proof of which airport they landed at. Sionk (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But people settle in specific countries. We all know that the UK, a single sovereign state consisting of four separate countries, is an unusual case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Uzbekistani emigrants to the United Kingdom. Unduly specific. Oculi (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- Not enough content to merit splitting a British category. There is a lot to be said for treating "English" as an ethnicity, rather than a nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2016 (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:English religion journalists[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. Merge contents (single article) to Category:Religion journalists and Category:English journalists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Part of a heirarchy by nationality, not ethnicity Rathfelder (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We do divide British categories into their four separate parts. English is not an ethnicity when used in this sense. Although not a sovereign state, England is a country. Need to create the British cat as well, though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2016 (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:English savateurs[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; merge contents (single article) to Category:English martial artists and Category:Savateurs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Part of a heirarchy by nationality, not ethnicity Rathfelder (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We do divide British categories into their four separate parts. English is not an ethnicity when used in this sense. Although not a sovereign state, England is a country. Need to create the British cat as well, though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2016 (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:English scholars of Pakistan studies[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: small category - 1 article. No obvious reason to separate English scholars from British. Rathfelder (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – there is nothing in the sole article to support 'English' anyway. Oculi (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We do divide British categories into their four separate parts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only where there is enough content to merit it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Oculi, article says the person is British anyway. Sionk (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Not enough content to merit a split, but also upmerge to an English scholars category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2016 (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:Musicians in popular culture[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This would be more in line with the way all the other categories in Category:Cultural depictions of people by occupation are phrased: Cultural depictions of politicians, Cultural depictions of painters, Cultural depictions of scientists,... User:Kjell Knudde 14:09, 13 December 2016 (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/2016_December_13&oldid=1138409648"