Category:Canadian international soccer players to Category:Canadian men's international soccer players
Category:Computer and video games with special editions to Category:Computer and video games with limited editions
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus to delete: Welsh speaking people, delete others. Tim! 10:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
votes summary:
delete:
- Chicheley
- Sumahoy
- Musicpvm
- Yonatanh
- Golfcam
- Merchbow
- Dahn
- Nathcer
- Landolitan
- Mike Selinker
- Samuel Wantman
- Twittenham
- tjstrf
- Calsicol
- Athenaeum
- Nonomy
- William Allen Simpson
keep:
- youngamerican, all
- Mxcatania, all
- Deb, Welsh
- GarethRhys, welsh and catalan
- Alun, welsh and catalan
- Jtdirl, all
- Scolaire, welsh
Category:People by languageCategory:English speakersCategory:French speakersCategory:Spanish speakersCategory:German speakersCategory:Italian speakersCategory:Portuguese speakersCategory:Dutch speakers- Category:Catalan speakers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Danish speakers- Category:Latin speakers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Welsh-speaking people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- RELISTED FOR FURTHER COMMENTS PURSUANT TO
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 18
- because 3 categories received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.
- FALSE They were actually relisted because the above user cocked up his counting and interpreted votes cast on other categories as retrospectively applying to them even though they were added to the list after many of the votes had been cast and had not been included in those votes. If Mr Simpson had checked his facts before deleting he would have noticed that. He also did not notice that two different types of list had been merged together late in the vote.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC) - Please desist from your personal attacks and repeated prevarication. As agreed at Deletion review, no closer needs to check the time and date of nominations. That is the responsibility of the editors participating in the discussion. These are not two different types, they are/were all subcategories of the umbrella nomination. It is not uncommon for additional categories to be added during the course of an umbrella nomination. -- William Allen Simpson 17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- All categories are ridiculous and don't connect between like articles. All categories have existed for at least a month and have barely any people on them, if any. Cesc Fabregas is the only spanish, english and french speaker in the world apparently. Yonatanh 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all Not helpful in the slightest. Chicheley 02:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all Category:English speakers is potentially larger than category:Living people and even less useful. Sumahoy 02:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, not a smart way to categorize. Also delete Category:Dutch speakers, Category:Portuguese speakers, and Category:German speakers. Merge the subcategories into the Category:Foo language cats. -- Musicpvm 03:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Could they be speedy deleted seeing how they've been empty for 4 days after they've been created which I see in the criteria for speedy deletion. Yonatanh 03:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wait! Please don't delete yet! These categories came about after discussion at the talk page of Wikipedia:Categorization (
now archived here). The idea was to create a hierarchy of people categorized by language for all professions that relate to language. Thus there would be
Category:Poets by language,
Category:Actors by language,
Category:Film directors by language, etc... It looks like no work happened on these categories after the discussion ended. But I think this is a very good idea, and makes MORE sense for these profession categories than having subcategories by nationality. Rather than deleting these, they should be fully populated. --
Samuel Wantman
06:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This user has amended his vote to delete below. Chicheley 10:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Even if this is the idea, can you have a category as a sub-category of two categories so list of Hebrew-language poets would be under list of Hebrew speakers and under list of poets? Either way, I don't think the list of x speakers is needed as people can just go to the poets list in the first place, takes as many clicks. Yonatanh 16:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for now. I'd like to see it fully populated, per the discussion. If it doesn't work out, then I would support this CfD. youngamerican ( ahoy-hoy) 14:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I can't see this working, and I don't see the point. Olborne 17:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Very strong delete all If this is taken up it will add category clutter to exactly the articles where it is worst already. For the overwhelming majority of people language is not a defining characteristic in an encyclopedic sense. When people want to jump from say New Zealand poets to Australian film directors using the search box will be at least as quick. Osomec 17:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete all - unnecessary category clutter.-- Smerus 21:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. These have far more potential to do harm than good. Calsicol 00:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all. There are two ways: populating the categories or removing the categories. I think removing is easier for most of the people voting here, but I'm convinced these categories are useful. And, on top of that, there was a previous discussion as Samuel Wantman said. Mxcatania 17:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- ALL NOMINATIONS were properly tagged at this point: 2006-07-06 02:33:35 -- William Allen Simpson
- Delete all Category clutter.
Golfcam
03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I fail to see how it is clutter to categorize writers, actors, film directors, etc... by the language they work in. For many occupations, language is much more useful and relevant than knowing nationality. -- Samuel Wantman 04:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all There is no way to stop such categories being added to the hundreds of thousands of articles about people who are not in a field in which language is important, where they would be mere clutter. Merchbow 08:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Welsh-speaking people. Most people speak the language of the country where they were born. It's probably fair to say that 100% of English people speak English. But for Wales the proportion of people who speak the language is much smaller, which I think is why the category was created.
Deb
11:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- We can hardly have categories for all the hundreds of minority languages but not for majority languages, and having them for majority languages, and English in particular, would be a nightmare. Speaking a particular language is important to the subject of a biographical article, but it is not a defining reason why they are worthy of an encyclopedia article.
Nathcer
23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't it? Wouldn't you say that someone having been, for example, the first known author in the
Welsh language, would be a defining reason?
Deb
11:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- These categories aren't restricted to such examples, so your argument is rather like saying of Category:People over six feet tall, "Don't you think that being eight feet six inches tall would be a defining reason?". Nathcer 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't it? Wouldn't you say that someone having been, for example, the first known author in the
Welsh language, would be a defining reason?
Deb
11:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- We can hardly have categories for all the hundreds of minority languages but not for majority languages, and having them for majority languages, and English in particular, would be a nightmare. Speaking a particular language is important to the subject of a biographical article, but it is not a defining reason why they are worthy of an encyclopedia article.
Nathcer
23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Dahn 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per my comments above. Nathcer 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all This can't have been thought through properly. What is to be gained from adding such a category to over a thousand articles about English footballers? Landolitan 10:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Every single person article would have to go in at least one of these. Not even close to worth it.--
Mike Selinker
22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I give up. As this is a loosing battle, I've created new categories to keep the subcategories for language professionals. They are Category:Languages by occupation and Category:Occupations by language. Please give me a chance to populate these before nominating them for CFD. I change my vote to "Delete" -- Samuel Wantman 09:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. It seems strange to me to include all of these categories as a collective for deletion. There may be good reasons for keeping one category while none exist for keeping another. These categories should be voted on seperately IMHO, they represent different languages and the languages all have a different political/social status. For example Welsh, as a minority language (and one threatened with being lost up untill recently) has few really famous speakers, and the fact that a famous person speaks the language may be of some note. There is nothing norteworthy about a Danish person speaking Danish for example.
Alun
11:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- If we delete the lot we don't need to get into the issue of deciding which speaker-language combinations are important and which aren't.
Nathcer
18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't get the logic of that. What is or isn't important? Some might argue that much (or even the vast majority on Wikipedia) isn't important. Isn't that why we talk of people being noteworthy rather than important?
Alun
21:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Quite. Unfortunately it's clear that many people are blanket voting on this issue because they are unfamiliar with the minority language issue.
Deb
21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't assume that people who disagree with you are ingorant. I am familiar with the issue and it has been addressed by other users who have voted delete. Chicheley 10:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Quite. Unfortunately it's clear that many people are blanket voting on this issue because they are unfamiliar with the minority language issue.
Deb
21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't get the logic of that. What is or isn't important? Some might argue that much (or even the vast majority on Wikipedia) isn't important. Isn't that why we talk of people being noteworthy rather than important?
Alun
21:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- If we delete the lot we don't need to get into the issue of deciding which speaker-language combinations are important and which aren't.
Nathcer
18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Welsh & Catalan speaking category - Regardless of the fact that I'm a fluent Welsh speaker, I think it is important to raise the profile of any minority language, including making clear whether a famous person speaks it. No, having a category on English speaking people clearly is not viable, in most cases it is taken as a given that the celeb speaks English, within reason of course. However knowledge of a minority language is an interesting point, and can do much to raise a language's profile. GarethRhys 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Welsh & Catalan speaking category, as per GarethRhys. Alun 22:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all including the Welsh and Catalan categories. In India every language is a minority language so Alun's logic we would keep all Indian languages but only a few European ones. Given a choice between all or none, none wins hand down. Twittenham 10:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- But of course you would have to show that a notable person speaks the various Indian languages, would you not? Alun 11:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- RELISTED FOR FURTHER COMMENTS PURSUANT TO
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 18
- because 3 categories received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.
- Keep all deleted Having categories only for small/minority languages would be minority-centrism. Chicheley 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all deleted I was asked to confirm by vote by William Allen Simpson. Sumahoy 19:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all for sake of consistancy. -- tjstrf 19:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all deleted. It would not be a NPOV to pick and choose certain ones to keep. -- musicpvm 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Welsh-speaking people category. Before the canvassing by vested interests gets out of hand, I want to point out the following:
- Minority languages are not the same as major languages in this context. All Welsh speakers are bilingual.
- The "Welsh speakers" category had been in existence since April and was well-populated.
- Almost all the articles in this category specifically mention that the subject is/was a Welsh speaker. This suggests that being Welsh-speaking is as valid as a category as, for example, being born in 1955.
- The purpose of the category is not anything sinister or political. It is simply to enable users to find all articles about Welsh-speaking people easily. There are many circumstances in which people might find this information useful.
- Comment If you believe some languages warrant keeping, what is your dividing line? The problem seems to be that arguments revolve around a difference in degree, namely number of speakers. Is there a cut-point that could possibly be set? ~ trialsanderrors 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- See Minority language for guidance. Deb 21:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all deleted I speak English and a little Spanish, and there are many others like me, including thousands with articles. The languages we speak are just as important as anyone else's languages, but they not category worthy. With regard to point three above, Category:1955 births can be deleted too so far as I am concerned. There are masses of categories that could be deleted, but that's not an argument for keeping a specific category. Golfcam 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all deleted. No change in my opinion.-- Mike Selinker 06:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Very strong delete all Nothing has changed. Calsicol 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think that we can decide which languages are right to keep the categories for and which aren't. As you say, the articles mention that the people speak Welsh. I just don't see someone going to the Bethan Elfyn article and then going on to the Welsh speakers category and to the Isaac Roberts article. So basically, I don't see how the category would be useful and I don't see how we can choose which categories to keep and which delete while maintaining NPOV. Yonatanh 20:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Perfectly valid to keep minor languages where fluency in them (eg, Welsh) is a matter for which the individual is famous for. Minor languages where fluency is notable are different to major languages like English or French, or indeed majority languages, because whereas minority language usage is rare enough to be notable, majority languages are effectively the national default language, so the presumption is that the user speaks them. So the major default languages warranted deletion. Minority ones, where the ability to speak it is notable (and so often something someone is famous for) don't.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Mr Simpson, it appears, has intervened yet again on this issue, this time to corrupt the process by canvassing support contrary to Wikipedia rules, as his contributions page shows. The fact that a second attempt to deal with this issue has been undermined, again by Mr Simpson's behaviour, has been reported to admins.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
02:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please desist from your personal attacks and repeated prevarication. The Cfd practice is that such parties be notified upon re-listing. The
notice was (all notices were substantially identical):
- Please confirm whether you meant your previous discussion to apply to the 3 remaining languages, as they received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.
- Please desist from your personal attacks and repeated prevarication. The Cfd practice is that such parties be notified upon re-listing. The
notice was (all notices were substantially identical):
- Keep Welsh-speaking people. Welsh is unique among the languages listed above as being a minority (native) language in an English-speaking country, and therefore of interest to a large number of users of English Wikipedia. As pointed out by Deb above, the category is well populated, and the fact of speaking Welsh is relevant to the subjects of the articles in it. Scolaire 06:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all Category:Welsh language activists would be acceptable, but the present category is no more acceptable than Category:English speaking people. Athenaeum 13:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all The retention of certain favoured categories would clearly be biased. It is purely a matter of opinion as to which minority languages merit retention. You can't base it on number of speakers because some languages with very few speakers are majority languages in one locality (and figures numbers of speakers are matters of intense controversy, with a prevalence of inflated claims), and you can't base it on percentages in a given entity because political boundaries are inconsistent in umpteen ways. Nonomy 17:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all -- I have been swayed from neutrality by the personal attacks and prevarication. They should be deleted on principle, and the despicable perpetrators have their administrative priviledges revoked. --
William Allen Simpson
17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- 'Despicable perpetrators'??? I thought you said you were opposed to personal attacks. Scolaire 19:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all As I said last time: "We can hardly have categories for all the hundreds of minority languages but not for majority languages, and having them for majority languages, and English in particular, would be a nightmare. Speaking a particular language is important to the subject of a biographical article, but it is not a defining reason why they are worthy of an encyclopedia article." Nathcer 21:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.