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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT: Not clear what, if any, other potential valid articles would belong here. —swpbT 17:51, 18 October 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.
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 "nationality" to "country" as nominated. Those examples given where the group being defined is neither a nationality nor a country but is more properly an ethnicity, should be renamed manually as appropriate once the bot has made its pass. SilkTork✔Tea time 11:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename since all content in the tree is organized by country. Most of the categories in the tree are named "by country" already, the above list for rename is a mere list of exceptions. The tree also contains diaspora culture categories but these categories are not limited to the culture of people of homeland nationality, they may also include their descendants' culture who meanwhile adopted a new nationality. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
not all are countries (broadly defined): Category:Crimean Tatar culture, Category:Bohemian culture, and Category:Carniolan culture, stand out on the first page. Then we have odd distinction between Category:People's Republic of China culture and Category:Chinese culture, presumably one seems country specific, the other more ethnic? And Category:Curaçaoan culture and Category:Curaçao culture, are these duplicates or is one about the ethnic group, including diaspora, the other about the island (including non-native additions)? Another problem is: ethnic and religious cultural events, which have generic articles, are being dumped into someone's idea as to who might celebrate it, thus one could add "Christmas" to Saudi culture, because Christians in Saudi Arabia, lots of expats, celebrate it. Not useful. What to do? Not sure, but a cogent reorganization is probably in order. If we had Christmas in Saudi Arabia, that could be added to Saudi culture or down its tree, but not generic Christmas, as Category:Day of the Dead and its contents are added to American culture through Mexican-American culture subtree, as is Cinco de Mayo, but for whatever reason is not added to every culture where Mexicans participate? Presumably, many Americans celebrate the Fourth of July even when abroad, so that cultural observance is or ought to be in every country where such celebrations occur by the illogical inclusion criteria used for these cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have similar concerns to Carlossuarez46. Looking at the art categories, we have Armenian art, which unfortunately for the Armenians was most produced outside the modern Armenia, Yugoslav art, and many others. Tibetan art is already (oddly?) categorized under Chinese art, which certainly does not follow usual practice in art history. "country or nationality" would be better. We have a crazy and artificial division, not really reflected in the contents of either cat, between Category:Culture by ethnicity & Category:Culture by nationality. Really commonsense is needed here, unless the two are merged, but common sense is exactly what one can count on not being used by high-volume category sorters. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or merge to Category:Culture by ethnicity etc. for reasons just expressed. The Armenians (for example) are a widespread people-group, scattered across several of the successor states to the Ottoman Empire. The country of that name is merely the part of it conquered by the Russians in the 19th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I didn't know culture has a nationality. :P But on a serious note, "country" is more of an organised name. However, @Carlossuarez46: brings up a good point. There are other ethnicities without their own countries so I think we also need to take those into account. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 07:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated or use "by country or nationality" as suggested above by Johnbod. This works very well in music already. giso6150 (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have previously opposed such moves, on the grounds that national culture and society are not limited by national borders, but go with the diaspora. Had I seen it, I would have opposed the Society move in September, which has left that parent once again named inconsistently with its sub-categories. Please see Category talk:Society by country for links to previous CFD discussions on that topic. – FayenaticLondon
Category:Culture is still within Category:Society, so I believed that that pattern should apply at all levels within the hierarchy. As documented in the earliest of those CFDs, I ensured that each national Culture category was within the corresponding Society category, but they all seem to have been moved up to the top country categories in Jan 2016; @Rathfelder:, would you mind explaining why you did that? 13:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons. 1. I don't see see that culture is a subcategory of society. Arguably they are two ways of describing the same thing. 2. More importantly I don't think it helps a person starting at the top level category of a country if there is too much nesting of categories so that some very big topics are hidden. I think we need to think more of way categorisation helps users - or not. Sometimes an over-logical approach is unhelpful. A naive user could reasonably expect to see "Culture" of a country at the same level as "economy", "history", "politics" etc. If it isn't at the same level it certainly isn't obvious under which of those headings "culture" might be found.Rathfelder (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of diaspora, a category "by nationality" is still incorrect, because the diaspora categories include culture of country of origin even after people have adopted the nationality of their new homeland. If we would really want to be precise, these categories should be named "by country of origin" if it were for the sake of diaspora – but since these cultural categories contain much more than just diaspora this is not an actual suggestion for a rename like that. 21:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Articles in the category culture of a people, if that is a neutral term, are mostly about either institutions and events in their territory, if they have one, or (far fewer) about the culture of the diaspora. There is only one thing in Category:Bohemian culture, and that is about sport in Bohemia. But diaspora and ethnicity are not identical, and neither is well defined. Nationality has the virtue, from a categorisation point of view, of being less ambiguous.Rathfelder (talk) 22:46, 16 November 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: consistency with parent categories; "people" is preferred over "indian" due to disambiguation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atvica (talk • contribs)
Oppose renaming as suggested. This situation was atypical of other "tribes" of Native American peoples. The Chickamauga were a sometimes estranged off-shoot of the Cherokee. As such, they were not really a "people" other than simply Cherokee who followed different, albeit more militant, leaders for several decades. If renaming is deemed necessary, the category should probably be renamed to Category:Chickamauga Cherokee or something similar. Regards, GenQuest"Talk to Me" 21:47, 18 October 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.
