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.
Yep - they're two seperate leagues with the same owner and name. Also the fact the categories you mention exist is the point of disambiguation here - converting the categories to disambiguations would let an editor who doesn't yet know these are two seperate leagues find out when they attempt to "generically" categorize something. Or did you think I was !voting "split"? -
The BushrangerOne ping only
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:Transcendental Meditation practitioners
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: Delete as trivial. The vast majority of those included in this category practice transcendental meditation as a hobby and as such it is non-defining.
User:Namiba22:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I have no opinion as to whether this list should be deleted but it is relatively presumptuous to assert that people do any kind of practice as a "hobby". Such a presumption is truly trivial and condescending.
Littleolive oil (
talk)
03:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. No way to tell if it's defining or not, and therefore pretty difficult to manage or edit; thus, a terrible use of a category. --
Mikeblas (
talk)
21:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I would read the deletion nomination rationale as one for pruning of the category entrants rather than deletion. David Lynch, for instance, is a widely-known TM practitioner and advocate. He has founded the
David Lynch Foundation for this specifically.
Zaathras (
talk)
00:22, 2 January 2021 (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:HBO Family
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.
Comment (nominator). I have purged the category of non–HBO original programming. Some of the remaining articles indicate that it was original to HBO, without saying it was original to HBO Family.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:23, 30 December 2020 (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:Multiple Units of India
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 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.
American and Australian people of Shanghainese descent
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.
Delete for the usual "descent" categories problems:
User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories. Moreover, does one's ancestors passing through one specific city impart anything on their descendants. If so, then the innate uselessness of "descent" is proven because passing through one city changes the nature of their "descent" and, of course, adds another nuance: how long is one's ancestors being in Shanghai impart that special sine qua non that makes this notable?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
22:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london and
Johnpacklambert: I have taken the liberty to add the Singaporean sibling, this should be treated the same way as the Australian and American categories. For Hong Kong it is different, the parent category is a container category, so rather than merging it should be a deletion proposal. I guess we'd better discuss that separately.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Note that parent ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Hong Kong people of Wu descent (from regional
Wu Chinese-speaking culture) is also a possible target for upmerge so as not to put content in a container category. However legitimate questions can indeed be raised if splitting categories for Chinese ancestry people (or any nation) by region or city is a good idea, and also if Chinese ancestry is defining for anybody from a place with overwhelming Chinese population, such as Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan. Regional Chinese subcultures in Hong Kong are probably a defining matter for cultural items, such as neighbourhoods, restaurants, museums, festivals, cultural associations etc. but not so much for biographies.
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. John Pack Lambert's comparisons ignored the fact that (i) in Far Eastern cultures ancestral origins are an important part of people's cultural identities, and (ii) Chinese peoples comprise many (sub)ethnic groups separated by languages and sociocultural traditions.
219.73.73.176 (
talk)
18:26, 12 January 2021 (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:American people of Wenzhounese descent
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 As some may know, China has 56 recognized ethnic groups. Wenzhounese is not one of those 55. Wenzhounese is a language, but its speakers are ethnically Han Chinese. So here we are categorizing people by a language that their ancestors may have spoken. The problem is it seems we are placing these categorize based on no clear indication of this fact in the articles, and no one is demonstrating that people see themselves as a distinct group based on this shared characteristic in the United States. The notable Chinese American person I know of the mot
Gerrit W. Gong I have no clue which of these categories he would be placed in, and I personally knew one of his sons. This is not how many American people of Chinese descent think of themselves, and the few who do it is not common enough to be categorizing by. I will support categories like
Category:American people of Hui descent where we are categorzing by an actual ethnic heritage (although in the case of the Hui they are an ethno-religious group, they are Han Chinese who are ancestrally Muslim, how much this was conversion and how much it was intermarriage with Muslims merchants and other Muslim expatriates in China 1000 or more years ago, no one knows. Remember Aladin is set in China and Aladin is Chinese, even if the actually setting of Aladin as contained in the 1001 nights does not seem much like China, they explicitly say it is in China).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is a clear case of assuming bad faith. Statements like "lacks integrity" are clear attack statements. It is pure character assasination. The issues in a category as it applies in a particular nation are different than broader categories. People need to end this character assasination. I am just sick and tired of people accusing me a maliciousness on Wikipedia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Johnpacklambert: by stating that "the nomination lacks integrity" I did not mean to suggest that you as nominator lack integrity, but that it would be invidious to delete only part of a hierarchy when the rationale applies to the whole. –
FayenaticLondon16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. John Pack Lambert's rationale ignored the fact that (i) in Far Eastern cultures ancestral origins are an important part of people's cultural identities, and (ii) Chinese peoples comprise many (sub)ethnic groups separated by languages and sociocultural traditions.
219.73.73.176 (
talk)
18:28, 12 January 2021 (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.
American people of Zhejiang descent
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 above is a clear case of assuming bad faith. Statements like "lacks integrity" are clear attack statements. It is pure character assasination. The issues in a category as it applies in a particular nation are different than broader categories. People need to end this character assasination. I am just sick and tired of people accusing me a maliciousness on Wikipedia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
By stating that "the nomination lacks integrity" I did not mean to suggest that you as nominator lack integrity, but that it would be invidious to delete only part of a hierarchy when the rationale applies to the whole. –
FayenaticLondon16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. John Pack Lambert's comparisons ignored the fact that (i) in Far Eastern cultures ancestral origins are an important part of people's cultural identities, and (ii) Chinese peoples comprise many (sub)ethnic groups separated by languages and sociocultural traditions.
219.73.73.176 (
talk)
18:28, 12 January 2021 (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.
American people of Wu descent
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 above is a clear case of assuming bad faith. Statements like "lacks integrity" are clear attack statements. It is pure character assasination. The issues in a category as it applies in a particular nation are different than broader categories. People need to end this character assasination. I am just sick and tired of people accusing me a maliciousness on Wikipedia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
By stating that "the nomination lacks integrity" I did not mean to suggest that you as nominator lack integrity, but that it would be invidious to delete only part of a hierarchy when the rationale applies to the whole. –
FayenaticLondon16:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london and
Johnpacklambert: I have taken the liberty to add the Australian and British sibling categories to the nomination, they should be treated the same way as the American category. For Hong Kong it is different, the parent category is a container category, so rather than merging it should be a deletion proposal. I guess we'd better discuss that separately.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. We do not generally split national ancestry categories by region (or dialect spoken), for any nation, as there would be no end to that. Regional Chinese subcultures in diaspora are probably a defining matter for cultural items, such as neighbourhoods, restaurants, museums, festivals, cultural associations, notable immigration movements etc. but not so much for biographies.
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
In this case I think "language spoken" is a better term to use. The languages of China are clearly fully distrinct. We do for the records have
Category:American people of French-Canadian descent, but this reflects both the realities on the ground in Canada, and also how for quite some time these were a defined and distinct group in many areas of New England. I have a US born friend who was of French-Canadian descent and did not even speak English at all until he entered kindergarten. His parents were also born in the US.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. John Pack Lambert's rationale ignored the fact that (i) in Far Eastern cultures ancestral origins are an important part of people's cultural identities, and (ii) Chinese peoples comprise many (sub)ethnic groups separated by languages and sociocultural traditions.
219.73.73.176 (
talk)
18:29, 12 January 2021 (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.
Asian-American feminists
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.
Comment for every other country, this was changed to Booian of fooian descent. I will support this if you promise to tackle all the rest, but not otherwise.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename I don't have a strong preference on the name format but the proposed one is clearly more prevalent, in the spirit of
WP:C2C. (I favor further standardization but do not make it a condition for this discussion.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
14:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete for goodness sake. Non-defining triple intersection. While seem to be more appropriately populated than "Arab-American" (below), many of them aren't "of fooian descent"; they are actual immigrants. Better to keep separate our immigrant and descent categories for easier pruning. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
04:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. I do not think that the viewpoint, theory or practice of some American feminists should be primarily defined or limited by their ancestry. If there is a distinct Asian American feminism movement, something which remains to be proven, people are not automatically associated with it by virtue of a Pakistani or Japanase great-grandparent. If kept, rename as nominated, and containerize the Asian category per
this discussion.
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:25, 11 January 2021 (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.
Arab-American feminists
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.
Delete — goes well beyond the usual problems. Articles include a half-Lebanese (not Arab), writing about Muslim feminism. And a notable Jew, writing about Jewish topics! Egyptians are not Arabs. Iraqis are not Arabs. This category must be very confusing to editors. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
04:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete as there does not seem to be a specific notion of Arab American feminism – unlike for instance
Islamic feminism which deals with feminist topics in regards to Muslim countries and/or Muslim faith, which is a different topic. It is even a bit insulting to consider that the viewpoint, theory or practice of some American feminists would be defined or limited by their ancestry. If kept, rename as nominated.
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
For the record, the majority of American Muslims are not Arabs. Both South Asian and African-American Muslims outnumber Arab ones in the US. There are also Euro-American origin converts and their descendants, Chechen, Albanian, Bosnian, Turkish, Iranian, Senegalese, Gambian, Somali, Malaysian, Indonesian and Chinese-American Muslims, as well as some Latino convets to Islam and their descendants, and some other groups from other countries. Only about 20% of American Muslims are Arab, so we should not use these terms interchangeably. On the other hand the majority of American Arabs are Christians. This applies especially to people of Arab-descent. Arab Christians in the early 20th-century so heavily intermarried with the general Euro-American population that considering them a distinct group is at times highly questionable. Thus we have actresses like
Terri Hatcher who was of Arab descent, but no one would argue this at all colors the roles she is given.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Precisely my point: while Islamic feminism is a topic (in regards to the relationship between women and Islam), Arab feminism, in regards to Arab ethnic identity, does not seem to be one. I guess we could hardly find anything common between a third-generation Arab American woman, a Lebanese Christian woman and a Sudanese woman (yes, Wikipedia categories considers them Arab as their country is in the Arab league).
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:34, 11 January 2021 (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.
Combined Asian American Resource Project
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 This is an article masquerading as a category. The people who were connected with this it is not clear that it is in any way defining, or something worth categorizing. I have no objection to creation of
Combined Asian American Resource Project as an article with the 4 of so people in the category added on as a list, but I see no reason it should be a category. If it is made an article, someone would have to find sourcing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:59, 30 December 2020 (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.
Asian-American female models
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.
Delete — I've looked at a selection, and most articles never mention "asian" in any way. Folks are speculating based on last names, and partial heritage. The ethnicity of one grandparent is rarely notable. I've been unable to find any
WP:RS about Asian-American models of any gender. (But many pictures, apparently a fetish.) The top article in search is the wikipedia category itself! William Allen Simpson (
talk)
03:56, 5 January 2021 (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.
Asian-American skateboarders
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. There was consensus that the nominated category should not exist, but there was no consensus on whether it should be a merge or an outright deletion without a merge. I am defaulting to merge to retain the categorization information.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale this is one of only 2 sports specific sub-cats of
Category:American sportspeople of Asian descent. I think it at base runs afoul of our rules against categorizing by race. The parent may have that problem as well, but since most people are actually in ethnic specific sub-cats it is not as glaring a problem. This is so many intersections it is mind boggling. I also challenge anyone to create the article
American skateboarders of Asian descent and write it based on reliable sources covering these people as a broad set, so the article will be more than just a list. I do not think it can be done, so I firmly believe this category violates ERGS guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree it should be 'renamed Category:American skateboarders of Asian descent. I'm confused why Category:Asian-American tennis players is permissible but not skateboarders? --
Wil540 art (
talk)
04:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete — I'd thought there was an actual association for ethnic Asian skateboarders, but apparently that's merely speculation. How does an Asian skateboard differently than any other part of the world? If there were a large number of Korean American expatriates after the Seoul Olympics, better to listify. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
03:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
William Allen Simpson &
John Pack Lambert - How is this different than: Category:Asian-American tennis players? It seems like skateboarding it getting picked on here because it is a younger and less recognized sport. Do you want me to make hyper specific categories like: American skateboarders of Thai descent as is done in the tennis players category? --
Wil540 art (
talk)
19:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, the hyper specific categories would be far preferable to the totally banned categorization by race. However, no one has ever argued here that the tennis intersection is notable. All that we are arguing is that the skateboarding intersection is not notable. Sports intersections are considered on their own, not based on whether others such intersections exist.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:17, 6 January 2021 (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.
Latinx-American skakeboarders
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. There was consensus that the nominated category should not exist, but there was no consensus on whether it should be a merge or an outright deletion without a merge. I am defaulting to merge to retain the categorization information.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale For unexplained reasons this is the only sport specific sub-cat of the merge target. I see no justified reason to sub-divide one sport out of the parent, so we should merge it back.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I would have thought that "of Latin American descent" was a good norm. Any directly coming from Spain can be "of Spanish descent".
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete — if they were of a notable ethnicity, they'd already be in the parent category. This is confusing, what with the parent moving during a discussion. Is there an association of such "skakeboarders"? (Yes, I'm poking fun at the nominator failing yet again to use the copy-and-paste standard templates that we refined over the years.) William Allen Simpson (
talk)
03:33, 5 January 2021 (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.
American male actors of Asian descent
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 We deleted the parent
Category:American actors of Asian descent. A big issue here is we categorize by ethnicity, not race. This will tend towards being a categorization by race. Some subcategories may be justicfied in specific ethnic situations (I am not convinced all existing sub-categories are justified, but that will be a seperate discussion because their existence is independent of having this parent). There is no reason to have this category without its parent and its sister
Category:American actresses of Asian descent. I think the last deletion of the parent was before we split actor categories by sex. While the direct articles would need to be upmerged, the only direct article is already in
Category:American male actors of Chinese descent as well, so functionally we can delete this category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:13, 30 December 2020 (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:The Masked Singer (American TV series) contestants
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: Not sure how this is a defining characteristic of the likes of Paul Anka, Tommy Chong, Patti LaBelle, Bob Saget, among all the others. Would this not fall under
WP:PERFCAT? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: I had made a British category for the British version of the show, due to this category. So if the American category is deleted, then
this should be deleted as well.
Magitroopa (
talk)
20:33, 2 January 2021 (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.
Asian-American farmers
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 In theory I would nominate to upmerge, however the one article in this category is already in
Category:American orchardists, a sub-cat of farmers, and
Category:Qing dynasty emigrants to the United States (whether we should subcategorize
Category:Chinese emigrants to the United States by the government that held sway in China when they emigrated is hard to say, I am not sure, but that is an issue for another time). This is an intersection of occupation and ethnicity that is non-defining. For the Japanese category, I do know that a large percentage of pre-WWII American of Japanese descent, especially in California were farmers, however I do not think this intersection of ethnicity and occupation is worth creating a seperate category for. In theory these are all already in
Category:American farmers or a diffusing sub-cat, so there is no need to upmerge that way. I am about to go and make sure.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Support rename for Japanese. Delete parent. The one article is on a man already categorised with a Chinese sub-ethnicity category, so that we lose nothing by that.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete all — if they were of notable descent, they'd already be in the appropriate descent category. There's no evidence of an ethnic-specific method of American farming. OTOH, there are many scholarly articles about racism in farming. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
03:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete the first, weak keep but rename the second to
Category:American farmers of Japanese descent. I've been convinced that importation of farming techniques by farmers from a specific culture is a notable and defining factor in agriculture. However this is often related to first-generation immigrants rather than descendants. Also, this influence may be better covered by topic articles rather than biographies. The only content in the Asian parent besides the Japanese category is article
Lue Gim Gong, who is a horticulturalist (and Chinese-born), not a farmer.
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:46, 11 January 2021 (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.
Asian-American diplomats
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.
UpmergeCategory:Chinese-American diplomats to
Category:American diplomats and
Category:American people of Chinese descent (I just added one person to this category, although he is also in the appropriate parents,
Gerrit W. Gong. I also just added him to the diplomats category. As a special assistant to the US secretary of state, special assistant to the US state department and special assistant to the US ambassador to China, I am 100% convinced he is a diplomat. Gong passes notability for his contributions as an academic, he is also now notable as a member of the Quorum of the 12 of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I created an article on him just after he became a gneeral authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I still think all general authorities should be considered notable, especially considering how small some of the Episcopalian dioceses we let propel their bishops to notability are (some have under 3,000 total people under the diocese, Elder Gong as Asia Area President, one of the smaller areas of the Church by membership, still presided over roughly 150,000 people. He was also looked to as a spiritual leader by all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worldwide. Whether Gong's role before that as special assistant to the president of BYU for planning and assessment was a role involving actions leading to notability we do not need to decide)
Nominator's rationale These categories should be sub-cats of
Category:Diplomats by ethnicity a category that looks like it is likely to soon be deleted. Diplomats are defined by the nation that commissions them, so this categorization by ethnicity of descent (or in some cases partial descent, I am not sure the last applies here, it does not apply to Gong, but I have not reviewed the other articles) is not justified with diplomats. The grouping of these 4 together in this way to me also violates the rule that we categorize by ethnicity not race. People from China and India are not generally considered to be part of the same ethnic group (nor according to many theories of race are they the same racial group, since race has no biological reality and there is no one universally accepted way to define race, this is hard to say, some racial theories posit there are two main, distinct racial groups in India, largely theorized on linguistic lines, with the north dominated by one racial group, the south by a diferent, but Adivasi groups further north seen as remaining remnants of when the southern race dominated the whole sub-continent, and a few of the people in the north east region of India known as the seven-sisters states seen as being part of a third distinct race. Remember though to understand the 55 defined non-Han peoples of China you need to think of them as similar to racial groups in the US, so the world-wide count of races can easily exceed well over 100). Even if we were to want to go against the trends everywhere else, and our inability to create a well sourced article that treated the people in here as a cohesive group, I do not think you could write a well sourced article on
American diplomats of Asian descent that was more than just a list article, we should at a minimum rename these as
Category:American diplomats of Asian descent to make this both conform to the standard Foo people of Booian descent scheme, and because the current name is ambiguous on its surface. It could also in theory mean Asian diplomats of American descent, Chinese diplomats of American descent, etc. Also since diploimats in the main serve from one country to another, the category
Category:Chinese-American diplomats might be some editors be misidentified to mean either Chinese diplomats serving in the US or any American diplomat serving in China, or it could even by someone be misidentified as a multi-purpose parent to multiple categories including people
Category:Ambassadors of the United States to China and
Category:Ambassadors of China to the United States. Some will say "but Mr. Lambert, that is not how we do categorization". True, but
Category:Russian-American people when it existed was so ambiguous that we had both people from the United States with Russian ancestry and Americans who moved to Russia put in the cateogry, which is a big reason we changed to the format
Category:American people of Russian descent (we also at least in theory have
Category:Russian people of American descent). In this case accuracy always trumps any common name considerations.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
If their ethnic background meant they spoke the native language at home, that would be clearly be helpful. (But we don't categorize diplomats by language in general right now.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
14:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge As trivial intersection. By definition, these people or representing one nationality to another nationality. Adding ethnicity on top (which often coincides with nationalities) is both non-defining and would be confusing. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
14:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment on December 26, 2020 we deleted the in theory needed parent of this category
Category:Diplomats by ethnicity, so it appears we do not categorize diplomats by ethnicity anymore either. Plus the claim "if their ethnicity meants they spoke the language at home" ignores 1-that is a supposition that is not always the case, and even less often is sourced, 2-that these diplomats do not neccesarily serve in areas that correspond to their ancestry.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete all — if they were of notable descent, they'd already be in the appropriate descent category. Admixture of ethnicities poses a problem for editors, because the only way it would be defining would be "anti-descent". Taking the position that non-descent somehow makes the diplomat less effective is untenable and fairly repugnant. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
03:13, 5 January 2021 (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.
Asian-American Biblical scholars
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. Some proposed categories were discussed. One or more of these can be pursued if editors think they would be meaningful categories within the categorization guidelines.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale I content that no one could write a reliable sourced, GNG meeting article on
Asian-American biblical scholars that was more than just a list. This is not an intersection that has received widespread scholarly study as a phenomenon, and so we should not be categorizing by it. Although it is supposed to be a non-diffusing category not all the people here are in the parent category. There is no need to merge to
Category:American people of Asian descent because every single article is in an appropriate sub-cat thereof (all of these people have only one identified Asian form of ancestry, and all 14 are either Chinese, Korean or Japanese, evidently there are no American Biblical scholars of Vienamese, Filipino, Indian, or any other Asian ancestry, although this may be because scholar articles under cover emerging and recent people. We also may actually have articles on such Biblical scholars that were not put in this category for whatever reason as well. This to me is a non-justified triple intersection (occupation + nationality + ancestry). Some are, but this one is not.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment This category has already had an upmerge from
Category:Category:Korean-American biblical scholars and others, per a previous
CfD, so I am slightly surprised of this discussion of another upmerge. To be honest, I am not entirely clear about how different people use and understand categorization, despite all the documentation.
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.
Northeastern and Southeastern Iranian
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: These two categories are the only sub-branches of
Category:Eastern Iranian languages. First off, there's no need to subcategorise at such a fine level of detail, as the parent category can have at most three dozen articles in it. More importantly though, there isn't likely to be any consensus found for one or another subcategorisation scheme: The very categories of Northeastern and Southeastern Iranian are not accepted by all linguists, and those linguists that do accept them, use them in different ways: for example, Yaghnobi and Ossetian are the only modern languages consistently listed as NE, with Pashto and the Pamir languages variously assigned to either one or the other group. It's best if all the articles in those two categories are instead placed directly under
Category:Eastern Iranian languages. –
Uanfala (talk)15:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Agree on upmerge. East Iranian has itself some similar problems (inclusion of Ormuri-Parachi or Avestan) but at least we have an article on discussing the concept and its limitations. --
Trɔpʏliʊm •
blah23:01, 5 January 2021 (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.
Fictional Asian-American 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.
Delete apart from the usual problems with "descent" categories (
User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories), here these are fictional people. Authors are free to make their characters of any ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, species, and mixes thereof. It's not defining - indeed, many characters don't have any such attributes specified so how can these be? These are fictional people, folks.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
22:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Powerful keep - Deletion would be an extremely very bad idea because as Marco mentioned, it could jeopardize subcats and not all authors make their characters of any ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, species, and mixes thereof. Should the category be deleted, it could be somehow reformed as most people would say: "Burn it down and start over".
SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (
talk)
06:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename - Should also rename the following categories for consistency sake:
Comment That is going to be really confusing per William. William's statement in a nutshell: Most are born in America and does not have any known ancestors unlike
Donald Duck who is related to
Scrooge McDuck of
Clan McDuck. When it comes to the topic of descents, this can be really extremely confusing and possibly controversial. Also per Marco, it aligns with themselves.
SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (
talk)
23:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Do not rename, not decided about deletion for now. The reason why, for real people, descent categories are better than Fooian Booian categories is precisely that descent from a specific parent ancestor is a fact that can be pointed upon, sourced, proven or disproved whereas the loose identification with an ethnic tag gives much room for interpretation. For a fictional character, it is quite the opposite: there will most often be no ancestor to descend from, but character definition will often be built on a set of identifications with generic character traits, starting with these ethnic tags. They work pretty well for this purpose, as fictional characters are identified with fictional character traits the way a real person can never be. However I am not sure that aggregation at the European or Asian continental level is meaningful.
Place Clichy (
talk)
13:32, 11 January 2021 (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.
American librarians of Asian descent
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 This is a triple intersection category that I do not think is justified. Nor in fact does anyone else directly. You see, we have two organizations that seem to cover this, however one uses the Asian Pacific Islander formulation, which existed on the 1990 US census but has since been broken up. The other is the Chinese American Library Association. Asian descent should be capturing anyone whose ancestors came from Asia, and I can show where we have included Iranians in the category, so we are not conforing to the US census which defines Iranians as white. Plus ERGS rules say we categorize by ethnicity, the r is for religion. Asianess is not an ethnic group. As we can see from the Chinese American Library Association. In the 1930 census there were at least 4 racial groups, Hindi, Malay (Filipino), Chinese and Japanese. I think the few Koreans were subsummed under Japanese, Korea was controlled by Japan at the time, and there were so few Vietnamese and others from mainland South-east Asia in the US it is hard to know how they were counted. In the 1950, 1960 and 1970 censuses those from India were counted as white, under the false and depricated idea of a Caucasian race. There may be ways to argue a broadly defined East Asian ethnic identity in the US, but any ethno-cultural study will recognize there is a clearly distinct South Asian ethno identity, and the vast majority of Americans of either of these broadly defined ancestries will specifically identify in a much more clear way. Even the people from Hawai'i who are on average the most established in the US Asian Americans with often multiple generations of intermarriage with non-Asians, will identify their ancestry not as generic Asian, but as Japanese, Chinese, Filipino etc. For various cultural reason Detroit Public Schools delineates their Bangladeshi population distinct from their Asian population (they also count Romanians seperate from whites), The University of Wisconsin on its applications, at least when I applied back in 2008, had options under Asian for Hmong, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian and other Asian. On the nomination itself, I am not proposing upmerging to
Category:American librarians because this is supposed to be a non-diffusing category. Also, in practice most of these people are already in one or more sub-cats of the target, so we need to do this move wisely in a way so they end up in the most appropriate sub-cat of
Category:American people of Asian descent.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Support with reservations Upmerging into a container category doesn't work. Not sure of the specifics of how to make sure everyone is put into the appropriate sub-cats, but that's what needs to happen. I hear what you are saying about the vagueness of the original category. How many people are we talking about here?
Jessamyn (
talk)
18:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Distinct category of an underrepresented professional group. Also, this nominator has a history of controversial decisions and nominations in this area, so I would respectfully suggest perhaps they leave race and gender category work for other editors.
Gamaliel (
talk)
19:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose.
Asian Americans are defined as a panethnic group in Wikipedia. The relevant organization in the United States,
Asian Pacific American Librarians Association, has defined for itself the group it serves as "Asian/Pacific American librarians". This category is equally as appropriate as established categories African American librarians and Hispanic and Latino American librarians.
Skvader (
talk)
19:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Changing my vote on this. While I understand the rationale presented, I am now viewing it in the context of other actions by the nominator and I don't think this is the right way to move forward as a resolution to the concern raised.
Jessamyn (
talk)
04:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose Agree with above. This category is equally as appropriate as established categories African American librarians and Hispanic and Latino American librarians. --
Wil540 art (
talk)
16:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Not to make it weird since I generally agree with you, but not all Asian-American librarians are going to be members of APALA so that might wind up being oddly inexact.
Jessamyn (
talk)
04:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Just membership of an association is hardly ever a defining characteristic. We may keep a category for presidents of the association though.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
We're agreed there. In the US, at least, many national library organizations are part of the American Library Association umbrella, and I have no desire to see its hierarchy mirrored in category space! --
BDD (
talk)
16:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose Statements like "Asianess [sic] is not an ethnic group" are irrelevant. This is suitable for American librarians descending from any ethnic group with Asian origins (i.e., the continent of Asia), and matches other categories for American librarians by ethnicity. --
BDD (
talk)
16:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Which racial classifications put Arabs, Japanese, and Kazakhs together? This is geography-based categorization. --
BDD (
talk)
18:15, 6 January 2021 (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:Sanskrit declension
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 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:Apabhraṃśa-language literature
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 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:Sanskrit-language activists
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 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:Etimesgut Şekerspor footballers
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.
Yeah, my only point was that the Turkish ones currently use "footballers", with only a few exceptions out of more than a hundred. I'm not opposing a rename to "players", it would just be good to have some discussion about this.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The Turkish cats use "footballers", because Turkish clubs tend to be multi-sport organisations, not just football.
Beşiktaş J.K., for example, is one of the most successful football clubs in the country's history but also competes in sports as diverse as basketball, wrestling, and rowing. So to have a cat called "Beşiktaş J.K. players" would not b specific enough...... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
21:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A rare 3rd time, as there is consensus about the renaming, but not the rename target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
12:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment -- In some cases the category is "footballers" because these are multi-sport clubs. Where this is the case "footballers" is appropriate. Furthermore, since "football" is not in the club title, this will show what sport is involved. We would not need to do this for Manchester United FC players as they are obviously footballers.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename as nominated. This is not "F.C.", so "F.C. players" isn't a good target matching recent precendent. The distinction is apparently not seriously important enough to gather much discussion, so let's just make the obvious change. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
02:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I'm sympathetic to the concerns of those who don't like to see the Turkish category out of sync with other countries. The situation with multi-sport clubs justifies it IMO. I'd rather see a broader discussion about whether to standardize, though there's no point in keeping this at the former name in the meantime. --
BDD (
talk)
16:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I've been meaning to bring something up, the most popular sport for all the big multisport clubs are always football, and I think Galatasaray, Fenerbahçe S.K. football clubs should be at base name, and Turkish club players brought in line with others. Would agree to a discussion to bring all Turkish clubs in line, not just Turanspor for these categories.--
Ortizesp (
talk)
00:57, 7 January 2021 (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:Screenplay (TV series)
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 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:Mosques converted from churches by the Republic of Turkey
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: Misleading category. None of the buildings included was a church at the time of becoming a mosque. All were museums. It would be as sensible to name this category "mosques converted from mosques by the Republic of Turkey" or "mosques converted from former mosques". The proper name should be something like "former museums converted into mosques by the Republic of Turkey" or "former churches converted into mosques" or "former churches converted into mosques converted into museums and back into mosque by the Republic of Turkey". Or somesuch.
GPinkerton (
talk)
15:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: It's more than a matter of detail. Most such buildings were made mosques in the Middle Ages, many long before the Ottomans, but the phenomenon of the secular republic reconverting some into museums is itself notable, and the fact that a wave of such decisons have been undone more recently deserves a category. There are four church-mosque-museums converted into mosques under the current president alone. The question is only how to word the categories of these different sets.
GPinkerton (
talk)
12:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment As the creator of the category, I am neutral as to a future name as long as it is retained. As the nominator correctly points out, "There is certainly a trend for re-(re-)converting them in recent years" in the Republic of Turkey. This appears to be contrary to the Republic's supposedly secular constitution. That makes the phenomenon notable.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
It is not in contradiction of the constitution, in which the administration of Islamic charities is a cabinet level ministerial position with government department. It is however decidedly political and possibly without due process for other reasons.
GPinkerton (
talk)
13:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete none of these changes were done in notable ways under Turkey. They were all converted by the Ottoman Empire, and should be categorized in a category related to that polity.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)reply
There are multiple others, mostly in Greece, even one obscure case in France. I would rather keep "Ottoman Empire", modern European countries have nothing to do with conversion to mosques.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
14:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Support renaming/merging to
Category:Mosques converted from churches in Turkey. This can obviously be a pretty contentious topic, so let's keep things concise and reflect three clear points: they were churches at one point, they're mosques now, and they're in Turkey. Getting into topics like who converted them and how often is a job for article space. --
BDD (
talk)
16:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Apologies. Those not in Turkey should just go in similar categories for their respective countries. I would prefer to leave the question of who converted the buildings to article space. --
BDD (
talk)
23:22, 5 January 2021 (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:Planners
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 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.
Nazis who committed suicide by method
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: merge as trivial triple intersections, the method of suicide was just a matter of what was at hand, it was not related to being a Nazi. In addition, but just for the Austrian categories,
WP:SMALLCAT applies.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge all I have to admit I am unconvinced we need to categorize by the intersection of political party affiliation and method of death at all, but these are far too precise.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- I suspect (without having checked) that many of these were in the aftermath of WWII, in despair at defeat or to avoid a war crimes prosecution. In these cases the political affiliation is highly relevant. No objection to some upmerging.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:24, 1 January 2021 (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:Sanskrit language and history
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.
Manually merge per nom. Conceptually there would not be much objection to a
Category:Sanskrit history, but for now there are too few history articles. A manual merge is more appropriate than an automated merge because a number of articles are already in some other subcategory in the Sanskrit tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:01, 30 December 2020 (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.
Mayors of places in Russia
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.
Merge for Now While these places have likely had more than five mayors, most are non-notable. No objection to recreating any if we ever exceed expectations and reach 5+ articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
09:00, 30 December 2020 (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:Male actors who committed suicide
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: Trivial intersection. No notable
WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
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:Actresses who committed suicide
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: Trivial intersection. No notable
WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
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:Pornographic film actors who committed suicide
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: Trivial quadruple-intersection. No notable
WP:DEFINING link between the occupation and the manner of death. There may have been many years between the occupation and the suicide, making the link even weaker.
Note: Sources about the death of a person will often discuss both their occupation and their cause of death. This doesn't make this intersection any more notable than a combination with other aspects often discussed in such notices, such as their number of children. See previous:
This does not refute the "note" above; a news story about a death will invariably refer to the occupation of the deceased. If a suicide by a noted anime voice actor is written about in the papers tomorrow, it does not make "Anime voice actors who committed suicide" a needed category.
Zaathras (
talk)
01:59, 31 December 2020 (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:Grand Crosses of the National Order of the Ivory Coast
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 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:Right Livelihood Award laureates
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.
When an award consistently appears in the ledes of articles it's usually a good sign it's defining but, in this case, that is due to a single purpose IP editor (128.114.255.122) who
added the award to the intros of every single article despite
concern expressed by User:Swliv. The
Right Livelihood Award is a peace award that self identifies as an alternative to the Nobel but, tellingly, the
Nobel Peace Prize article makes no mention of this award. Even after the systematic editing above, this award is non-defining and here's how you can tell:
Greta Thunberg, the only Good Article here, demotes the award to a passing mention listed with other honours
Nasrin Sotoudeh, who won after 128.114.255.122's edits, mentions legally representing others who won the Nobel Peace Prize more prominently than personally winning this award.
I certainly
pushed back some (as gently as I could) on aspects of the wide-ranging edit effort by the editor(s) from the
IP number, a year-and-a-half ago (good find,
RevelationDirect; took me some work and time to figure out any of it; thanks for leading me back to it). At that time I earned a sarcastic and, in part, puzzling
rebuke for my trouble. That said, though, in response to the notification of today's effort, I looked also at the
Goldman Environmental Prize -- which I've heard of with some (more) regularity; a little more my traditional area of interest -- and find both the full list in the Prize article and (at least for the one I checked basically at random,
Chibeze Ezekiel) on the awardee's page. The effort to coattail on the Nobel doesn't bother me deeply, in either case. The Nobel is venerable and substantial but it's not 'holy' or 'perfect' in ways, itself;
2018 Literature is still prominent in my mind, and that's a small example; so I respect the effort to open up and broaden the pipelines and channels of recognition with, for example, the Award. In summary, I'm not feeling the need to delete
Category:Right Livelihood Award laureates. I recognize enough names, and certainly recognize the effort behind the initiative (as I do with the Goldman), to lean pretty fully toward 'lenience', hence toward no deletion. I also though think I appreciate the effort of the delete initiative here and will engage further if the discussion develops further. I'm no specialist, so am open to the idea conceptually on a variety of grounds (though I also hope I'm not simply opening up the Goldman to a similar effort; that I would more readily and straightforwardly oppose).
I wrote the above paragraph before I saw
Marcocapelle's endorsement of the delete proposal. I've left my 'holistic' effort to defend the Category untouched; however, I'll add a few more thoughts. First, the one honoree page I checked on the Award was chosen as someone I didn't know at all and my recollection is that the Award fit nicely as an important mark of Ezekiel's life and accomplishment to that date, i.e.arguably defining. A good many of the names were not known to me which would argue that the Award is more likely to have been defining at that point in a career. Another impression is that most of the honorees did have Wiki pages of their own. With the added defenses of 'time of career' and 'time of discipline' ('peace' does seem a little narrow of a characterization of the honorees I saw but that's another subject), those individual's pages argue strongly I think for the Category. I also think the effort to demote the Award based on Greta Thunberg is quite flawed. That the important young campaigner accepted the award is to me a strong argument in favor of categorization. My basis remains basically 'leniency' on a relatively nascent initiative in the world and its 'scheme of things' and in Wikipedia. But I'll add, finally, that I've now thought also of the way the
'genius awards' have gone in my view from a curious new effort to an important regular part of the way the world works (aimed also at, say, mid-career). I'm not going to do even a cursory look on Wikipedia at this, my second 'defense by comparison', but feel the MacArthurs would likely also affirm my no deletion recommendation. Thanks.
Swliv (
talk)
15:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
This is, probably obviously, a new-ish corner of Wikipedia for me. One curiosity: There's no mention of 'listification' on the page
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion; 'deletion' would seem a more useful header-word for
the notification I received to join the discussion here. I appreciate the process and the header didn't misdirect me in any way -- I frankly hadn't even noticed the curious 'listif-' word at all until after posting the above. But this seems the best place and time to bring up the observation, to start at least. Next question: How broad is the notification 'net' of past editors of related subjects, in this process? I'll try to answer the question myself if someone else doesn't do it first. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Rather dramatically, I'd say, I've first found that
Ekabhishek who established the Category doesn't have a similar notification to mine on their
User talk page. Maybe with that I'll let my question stand now for anyone else who may wish to answer it. Thank you.
Swliv (
talk)
16:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Alright, further work on this realm has led me to the proposed "conversion into a list named
Right Livelihood Award#Laureates" as part of the template posted for this review process on the
Category:Right Livelihood Award laureates page. That helps me understand 'listification' some more though my 'more useful' comment re: 'deletion', above, stands I think; maybe augmenting rather than replacing 'listif-'. Another bit from that Category page goes to a point I speculated about above: all, in fact, listed Award winners have their own Wikipedia pages. Of course I've had experience with one or more of the editors of I guess a good many of those pages but I am not overly affronted by relative newcomers to Wikipedia stumbling some in early going; I stumble still myself. As I think is clear from my already cited efforts in that regard with the IP-number editor(s), I try to welcome and encourage new editors. So I see that level of accomplishment -- Wikipedia pages for each; unless the individual articles themselves are somehow broadly and egregiously compromised in ways not yet cited here -- as an affirming note for my no delete recommendation. In another substitution of a real specific for a speculation of mine above, "
environmental protection,
human rights,
sustainable development,
health, [and]
education" accompanypeace as areas of attention for the R. L. Awards. Finally, for the record,
Category:MacArthur Fellows (bigger of course, having started in 1981) also affirms my feeling about that awards program as another useful parallel to the Right Livelihood one. (It's not just a Nobel world; I know they're not saying 'MacArthur of ...' or 'Alternative Goldman ...' but that's also understandable.) 'Defining' happens at other than just the end of a career or the 'full acceptance' of an individual's contribution or a field's maturity. I feel more strongly, then, that MacArthur is helpful in considering opposing this proposed deletion/listification. I know some of this paragraph (firming up speculations, especially) could have been done as rewrites to my earlier postings; it seemed better not to start rewriting, now, though. Final
p.s. Thanks and cheers.
Swliv (
talk)
18:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I appreciate the replies/further contributions below and, particularly, the non-rush to execution of the delete-consensus beyond my contrary vote. I tried an immediate response to the 'Short Reply' below -- in two draft rounds in fact -- and believe I do have more that's useful to say. However, I am only now able to start to get back to it all; and to look at it all with a bit of perspective/time-passed. If there's a little more forbearance, that'd be great. No guarantees from this end but I'm giving it a try. (I'm assuming there's been no execution. ...) Thanks and cheers. 06:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Nothing more likely right away. In any meantime, there are plenty of points left unaddressed so far in my comments above. All best.
Swliv (
talk)
14:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Another example is
Martin Green (professor), e.g. this source
[10] lists four awards without any indication that the Right Livelihood Award is any more special than the other awards. And more importantly, the awards are only mentioned after a larger elaboration of Prof. Green's achievements in the development of solar power for which he rightfully is in an appropriate category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete the requirements for an award to be defining enough to the notability of the people receiving it to make it notable are very strict, this category does not meet that strict guideline.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:56, 5 January 2021 (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.