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:listify. Nearly all of the foods already appear in the list and mainly the drinks are missing. The category's contents already have been listified to the
article's talk page, and discussion can continue there to incorporate the missing items. -- Black Falcon(
talk)19:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify and delete, much better. Feel free to add links to the list in the "see also" section of the articles instead, particularly in cases where the naming is discussed in the article. –
FayenaticLondon18:15, 4 February 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:Serbian-Croatian people
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. There is a clear consensus that this category is inappropriate, but no consensus on what (if anything) to merge it to. So I will close the discussion as "delete", but will post a list of the category's current contents on the talk page of this discussion page, so that interested editors can review the categorisation of individual articles. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Pointless made up category. Either Serbia or Croatian, while we already have Serbian people of Croatian origin and vice versa. WhiteWriterspeaks15:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge' to
Category:Yugoslav people then purge if necessary. Serbo-Croat is a spoken language, common to the Orthodox Serbs (who write it in Cyrillic characters) and the Catholic Croats (who use Latin characters).
Brandmeister has completely misunderstood the nature of the issue: this is not a typcial dual nationality issue.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Few people today would accept that Serbian and Croatian are the same language. The notion that they were was tied up with the project of Yugoslavia. Language border are inherently politcial notions, and in the end decided as political questions. Modern Croatians at least would deny they speak the same language as the Serbs.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The spoken language is largely the same, the two languages just use different scripts: Serbian uses Cyrillic and Croatian uses Latin. There are differences but a speaker of Croatian would have no trouble at all understanding a speaker of Serbian and vice versa.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)reply
That is not a politically popular view in Croatia anymore, and there is a clear view there that they have a different language. Language lines are inherently political.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
The phrase "Serbian-Croatian people" is meaningless, it's too ambiguous to be useful. The intent of the creator seems to be to produce a category for people who are of both ethnic Serbian and ethnic Croatian descent, regardless of their location. This is possibly legitimate, but I've no idea how to name it in a concise manner. "Yugoslav people" is not a name for that. E.g.
Andrej Pejić is not a "Yugoslav person". --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
13:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
I should also note that some of the additions to the category are just plain bonkers.
Gavrilo Rodić and
Svetozar Boroević are not children of mixed marriage - all the available information says they're ethnically Serbian. Similarly, for
Stjepan Jovanović we don't have information on ethnicity, but an OR inference of a mixed marriage gets us absolutely nowhere. (Also, none of those people can be described as "Yugoslav people".) --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
14:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Such a plain is a bad idea. We have some such categories such as
Category:Anglo-Indian people (although that one needs serious monitoring because there is another totally different meaning of Anglo-Indian, as in English people in India especially during the British Raj). However we are not in this case "categorizing people of mixed marriages" but categorizing people who are part of a recognized ethnic group that assumes dual ancestry. The same could probably be said for the Colored of South Africa and the Metis of Canada and the US mid-west. Until we have an article
Serbo-Croatian people I do not think we should even try to have a category. For it to warrant a category it needs to be a recognized ethnic group.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete The category constitutes original research, the group simply does not exist in reliable sources in the real world and the combination seems entirely arbitrary. Also, even if the creator's idea was to create a category for people with mixed descent it is misnamed, adjectives "Serbian" and "Croatian" relate to countries as opposed to "Serb" and "Croat" which relate to ethnicities. In addition, these are not equivalent to "Yugoslav people".
Timbouctou (
talk)
11:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Just a nitpick: the longer form adjectives are ambiguous, they may be both demonyms and ethnonyms. Either way, they're unsuitable for use in the name of a category. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
17:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete after looking at the contents and realizing for example one of the people died in 1903, it is clear that this category cannot be merged into Yugoslav people, and in fact it is not clear that really any of it should be so merged.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:31, 10 February 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:Canadian record label compilation albums
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.
Because by itself, it fails to properly distinguish greatest hits albums by single artists, and compilation albums which are actually compilation albums in the traditional definition of the word compilation (i.e. albums on which each track is by a different artist entirely.) That is, without the diffusion it mixes up two completely different things that don't belong in the same category as each other.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Response But this is even more confusing. Now you're proposing a categorization scheme based on the location of the record label which issued it? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯23:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)reply
It's not the physical location of the issuing record label that matters, but the nationality of the artists who are compiled on the album — which is why each and every article in this category must be somehow accessible from the
Category:Albums by Canadian artists tree: not because the record label was Canadian, but because the artists were. But simply upmerging the albums directly into
Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists inappropriately conflates two separate things — real multi-artist compilation albums and single-artist "greatest hits" albums — that do not belong in the same immediate category as each other, and which must be somehow kept separated from each other while still both being placed in the Canadian albums tree.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Compilations What constitutes a compilation album of Canadian artists? Must they all be from Canada? Is this regional music (such as the folk music of First Nations peoples) or a compilation which so happens to have only Canadian performers on it? Why can't these just be in
Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists, which already exists? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯17:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)reply
As I've already explained, the problem is that
Category:Compilation albums by Canadian artists, as currently constituted, includes single-artist greatest hits albums — and accordingly, because single-artist best-ofs and multi-artist compilations are two different types of albums which do not belong in the same category as each other, they need to be kept separate via the use of subcategories to distinguish them. So why are you asking a question I've already answered twice, as a followup question to that very answer?
Bearcat (
talk)
06:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted from
CfD January 14 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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 Leggett, North Carolina
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.
In previous cases, I have redirected dozens of them at a time. There appear to be
about 500 ppl-from-foo redirects, tho I haven't checked which ones are for small places. I agree that this particular place is unusually microscopic, so a redirect may not be needed here, but in general I think that a redirect of
Category:People from Smalltown, Statename to
Category:People from SomeCounty, Statename is great way of helping editors to categorise biogs by the subject's place-of-origin. This is particularly important in the USA, where it is much more common in reliable sources to refer to "Smalltown, Statename" than to "Smalltown, SomeCounty, Statename". This means that an editor who sees that someone is from Smalltown probably won't have the county name to hand, and the redirect saves 2 steps of checking: 1) is there ppl-from categ for this town? 2) If not, what county is it in? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge with redirect. The problem is that most articles only state the place people are from, not what county it is in. If we make a redirect, if I understand correctly, when people try to put in this category with hotcat it immediately puts it to where it has been redirected, which will aqvoid miscategorization.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:11, 2 February 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.