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: name the category after the article Deliberation while an article Deliberative methods doesn't exist. It's questionable if the articles in this category are methods at all; they are more like appearances of deliberation. (Note that this is not a case of WP:C2D because the catmain template on the category page is as recent as this nomination.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. On the contrary, the article Deliberation by its very title does imply a category like Category:Deliberative methods. the category's name is simply the adjectival form of the article Deliberation's subject. That is fully consistent and in keeping with other articles and categories here.
In contrast to the previous examples, it's not clear what deliberative methods really are. Most sources I've found use the term as a particularization of "research methods", essentially as an extension of focus groups. But that's not what the content of the category is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but in my experience, it's very clear what "deliberative methods" are. the best definition is right in the beginning of the article itself on deliberation. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing about deliberative methods in the article, the article is simply about Deliberation itself and that is why the category is nominated to be renamed like that. It would be good though if there would be an article about deliberative methods, with reliable sourcing, so please take your chances. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Group decision-making. It's not clear how to define this category currently, but everything here is related to group decision-making. I see no reason to split it out farther than that. The other current parent categories aren't very compelling, so I wouldn't worry about them too much. ~ Rob13Talk 16:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose upmerging. For all articles in the category except three it's not too obvious that they are about deliberation and we may well move them to Category:Group decision-making. As a next step, we may upmerge the remaining three articles as well, per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question to @Mark viking and Sm8900: do you have any views on this alternative proposal? Note that merging to one parent would remove it from the several other parents. – FayenaticLondon 09:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. An upmerge to the more general cat of decision making would be ok by me. --Mark viking (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I would oppose an upmerge, for all of the same reasons that I stated above. But I do very much appreciate your message, your email, and all your helpful and good-faith efforts on this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:40, 23 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.
Category:People from Mooringsport, Louisiana[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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 2 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. 2 entries is not enough for by location categories, we should go to the Parish level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge for Now With no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:33, 16 September 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:Eponymous category which currently exists only to contain a single list. While the list may be an appropriate thing to have, I'm not sure it's a sufficiently WP:DEFINING characteristic to justify populating the category with all of the writers named in the list -- but if the category isn't otherwise populated, then the list does not need an eponymous category just to contain itself. It also warrants mention that the head article on exophony has been flagged as a completely unsourced potential neologism which may not even have the real-world usage necessary to even stand as an article at all, which means the list may not actually be justifiable either. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that we categorize our topics on their WP:DEFINING characteristics. A news article about Kazuo Ishiguro, for example, will always include the word "novelist" — but it will not always invariably call specific attention to the fact that he doesn't write in his own native language. Sources that are specifically about that fact will, obviously, but all coverage of him won't always define him by that fact — and even the ones that do won't necessarily use the word "exophonic" to communicate that meaning. That's what I mean about defining characteristics — it's not a thing that sources about the writers will routinely call attention to, and it's not a thing that would generally warrant mention right in the article's introduction as a basic characteristic of why the writer has an article. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the value in categorizing every writer who writes in more than one language (Spanish/English, Yiddish/Polish, Navajo/English, Afrikaans/Zulu) with no regard for time, place or context? This is easy to source because it's common and non-defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Populate from the list. I did not know the term exophony, but it appears to b4e about people who write other than in their native language. I am a little dubious about allowing this for those who are in fact fully bilingual (perhaps including Zulu/Africaans; similarly since most scientific literature is in English, non-English-speaking scientists publishing articles in English should not count. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I question whether this is actually defining for many of the writers who could be categorized in this way. Looking through a selection of articles in the list, it's very hit-or-miss, and I really don't see how a category would benefit our readers. Readers interested in exophonic writers are likely to find the list, which can help them navigate between these articles. Readers interested in one of these subjects are likely not interested in other exophonic writers, which is how I generally measure how defining a characteristic is to an article subject. ~ Rob13Talk 16:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writing in one's non-native language is not a defining trait. In some countries the vast majority of writers will do this. Also this begs the question of what percentage of the writers work needs to be in other than their native language. At times what is and what is not the native language is much harder to define. Is a native speaker of Ebonics and Exophonic language if they write in standard English? The answer there may be a resounding no, but what of a native speaker of French-Canadian who writes in standard Frnech? At some point we will find examples of such that there is no easy yes/no answer to. Other people are functionally bilingual from birth, and have not one native language, but two. There are just too many variables. This may be coverable in a list, but it has too many messy edges to work as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list is also way less than helpful. The first entry on the list is Chinua Achebe, described as a "Nigerian-English novelist". As best I can tell Achebe was never a permanent resident of England, and Nigerian is not a language. This involves a complicated and not coherent mix of usages. I have edited it to now emphasize that his native language was Igbo, and that he lived in the US at the end of his life. Nadeem Aslam does not even have enough in the article to make the non-language "Pakistani-English" description make any sense. From the article I learn that Aslam early in his life wrote something in Urdu, and it seems his later works were in English. However knowing Pakistan it is not even clear his native language is Urdu. Urdu is a literary language closely akin to Hindi developed primarily in Uttar Pradesh. It was the language of the people who dreamed up Pakistan in the 1920s and 1930s, and was thus given high standing when Pakistan was made a country in 1947. However it is not the native regional language of any of Pakistan. The article never says that Aslam's family were Muhajirs (people who moved from India to Pakistan around the time of the partition). Even among the Muhajirs Punjabi is possibly a more common language than Urdu as a native language, although because the Urdu speakers were of higher socio-economic status and thus tend to congregate in notable positions in academia, business and government, we have a higher number of articles of UP origin Urdu speaking Muhajirs than are in the total Muhajir population. Bascially this is a subject that requires close inspection, and needs a much better written list. Wasting energy by having people go off and tagging more articles in this category, instead of focusing energy on building the list to something that is useable is what is needed. Especially since the category begs the question, how much of the writing of the subject needs to be done in a language other than their native one. For example Sholem Aleichem did write in Hebrew and Russian, that were not his native language, but his most defining and known works were all in his native Yiddish, so is it really defining at all that at times he dabbled in writing in other languages?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 26 September 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. ~ Rob13Talk 16:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match to parent category Category:Diseases and disorders. There was recently a misguided attempt at a separate category for "genetic diseases" as a distinct thing from "genetic disorders" -- but there's not a clear enough distinction between diseases and disorders in this context to warrant separate categories, so it was redirected here per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_1#Category:Genetic_disease. However, both the naming of the parent category and the fact that the separation attempt happened at all suggest to me that this should be renamed to be inclusive of both terms. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Shortly before, this was a speedy WP:C2C nomination, but had to be withdrawn from CFDS because that nomination conflicted with WP:C2D. Therefore, it may make sense to get the article renamed as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support While there is in principle a distinction between disease and disorder, in human genetics, at least, disease and disorder are used interchangeably. That along with reflecting the structure of the parent cat makes this a good renaming. --Mark viking (talk) 17:59, 12 September 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:speedy delete. – FayenaticLondon 21:32, 19 September 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.
