Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 17

< May 16	May 18 >

May 17

Category:American expatriate ice hockey people in Canada

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. — ξ^xplicit 01:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:American expatriate ice hockey people in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Extremely overbroad, indiscriminate, non-notable category. Does this mean Americans who've permanently settled in Canada? Americans who've ever been in Canada? It doesn't distinguish between players, coaches, equipment managers or between major league, minor league or amateur players, living or dead, and the only common ground of the handful of players listed seems to be that they once played hockey for Canada-based teams. Which, by the bye, only a couple listed here still do, which doesn't match many definitions of "expat."  Ravenswing  23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you still think these are those currently expat and not for those previously expat? And why should it distinguish between players and non-players - you d support Category:American expatriate ice hockey coaches in Canada and not this page? What do these points lend to your argument for deletion?? Mayumashu (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Because you are no longer an expat if you no longer live outside the country. Its just like the "Living people" category. You don't keep people in it once they are dead just because they used to be alive. -DJSasso (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

But do you see it this way? WP categories, aside from Category:Living people, do not maintain 'current only' status. Just as some notable people can change nationality or occupation - they are still listed as 'Canadian' or a 'actor' or what have you even if they changed or died - someone listed here has been expat at some point (and in particular here has been expat, in the U.S., while being hockey player), regardless of their current status (so Theo Fleury's expat cat links , for one, need to be restored until the related nomination below is closed, btw) Mayumashu (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your POV would hold slightly more water if you were at all being discriminate over whom you define as "expat." Consensus wouldn't likely hold for "lived in a hotel room for a month while playing for a local team before being traded."  Ravenswing  03:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per my comments in the Canadian expats in the US debate below. Also, while an American player may play for a Canadian team, there is no guarantee that his residence does not remain within the United States. Some may take up full-time residence in the Canadian city they play for, some might maintain a second residence while maintaining their primary in the US, and some may not take residence at all. This entire category is based on guesswork. Resolute 23:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as sub-cat of Category:Expatriates. Btw, playing for a Canadian club and having no Canadian residence (even pt residency still 'counts' as being expatriate) would be impossible. Well, someone who for a few days or one game and was then traded, maybe. (And there is this weakness with expatriate status - duration; but it doesn t mean that the whole schema need be scrapped.) But again, why not cut to the chase and nominate Category:Expatriates? Mayumashu (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider the difference between "residence" and "domicile;" it's a distinction readily grasped by tourists, people temporarily abroad and college students. That being said, let me answer this yet again, and for the final time: I nominate for deletion things I think merit deletion. Nowhere in deletion policy is there a defense against deletion based around the categories a nom hasn't so far nominated.  Ravenswing  04:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It may not be written into policy but it is certainly the convention to premise categorising on the validity of trees - if a tree exists, its branches must be valid, aside from the issue of WP:Overcategorization, and then an upmerge takes place. Okay - I don t believe the act of being expatriate requires 'domicile' status i.e. forbids absentee residency, so-to-speak, (I don t think the term differentiates clearly) but I may be wrong - it is an important consideration either way - thanks for the tip Mayumashu (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Resolute. These categories are non-defining, non-discriminant and are heavily based on guesswork. -DJSasso (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Rather non-defining category. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Influenza and Pneumonia

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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Category:Influenza and Pneumonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This acts only as a container category for Category:Influenza and Category:Pneumonia and as such is just an unneeded layer of categorization. Apparently this was created in an effort to make the category system reflect the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision. I don't think we need to slavishly follow this publication in cases like this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Delete - My working life is spent using and teaching users of the ICD-10 and I can think of no practical use for this category on Wikipedia. I agree that with Good Olfactory that following the higher levels of grouping in the ICD-10 is not always useful. Yes, I know that some WHO reports group mortality statistics based on this category. As an epidemiological overview this grouping is useful, but it doesn't require a category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete uselessly jamming two topics together. Pneumonia has a myriad of causes. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Criterion Collection films

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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Category:Criterion Collection films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category, under various names, has been repeatedly created and deleted, e.g. here and here. Rationale for deletion is that it gives undue prominence to one company's products and is therefore a subtle form of advertising, although I am not criticising its creator. I cannot find a valid reason for speedy deletion, so am bringing it here for attention. Rodhullandemu 21:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Creators comment: I was unaware of the the contreversy surounding this category. I however, must disagree with the rational that it is a form of advertising, first of all I am in no way affiliated with this company, however I do believe that if you look around the net you will find that the Critereon Collection holds a certain relevence not held by other companies. I initally created the category out of frustration that there wasn't already a category for it: I was looking to watch some movies and I wanted to view some Critereon flicks, and a category felt like a no brainer to me. Also if a page is created multiple times does it not say something about the relevence of said company? Because I am the creator of said category I will not vote, however I sincerly hope you take my comment into consideration. Deathawk (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to vote even as the creator, and you've established put forward a defence. However, it's up to consensus to emerge. Rodhullandemu 21:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete' yet again per the previous CfDs and its not being any sort of "identifying" characteristic of a film. Its a marketing label for some DVDs, nothing more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per the previous discussions. Also we have the page List of Criterion Collection releases for readers to access the information about this companies films. I also would not criticize this editor or the anon IP that is also adding the category either. It has been a few years since this came up. If this discussion goes as the previous ones have perhaps there would be a way to salt this entry so that this can be avoided in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 21:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete This category is a commercial SPAM in articles. Useful list exist. --Snek01 (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per the comments above. The Criterion Collection is notable, but that's why we have an article. The categorization is unnecessary. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: per the above. There is no harm however in mentioning that the film was released on a Criterion DVD or Blu-Ray in a home video section of the article. I would recommend that over creating this category. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Three CfDs on this is more than enough. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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 Muslim women

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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Category:American Muslim women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-notable triple intersection of nationality, religion and sex. TM 20:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Also becomes unwieldy when deciding how the term is applied. Born in America? Naturalized? as just two examples. MarnetteD | Talk 00:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Endonyms

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 25#Category:Endonyms. — ξ^xplicit 01:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Endonyms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: With one exception (Éire), every member of this category is either a redirect, or a disambiguation page. Per the Manual of Style, disambiguation pages should not be categorized except in disambig-specific or similar categories, because a disambiguation page is not an article about any topic. For example, Deutschland (disambiguation) is not an article providing information about the endonym "Deutschland". The disambiguation pages could just be removed, but it's hard for me to see how a category consisting entirely of redirects (okay, and Éire) falls into the acceptable situations described at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, or how such a category is particularly helpful. List of countries by native names seems to serve the same purpose in a much better way. Propaniac (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Anglophone Canadians of French 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 result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ^xplicit 01:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Anglophone Canadians of French descent to Category:Canadian people of French descent

Nominator's rationale: Merge. That a Canadian with French descent speaks English as their native language is not-notable. No more than an Anglophone Canadian of Russian descent, Spanish descent, American descent, etc. Resolute 17:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, this one would be an upmerge. ;) Resolute 18:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Opps I meant Support. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. In Canada it is notable, where the assumption could be that someone with a Francophone surname is Francophone. Is a valuable sub-cat of Category:Anglophone Canadians Mayumashu (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• As a Canadian, I challenge your argument that it is notable in Canada. As far as your other strawman goes, do we assume a Canadian with a Russian sounding name speaks Russian natively? Resolute 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

strawman? Where Russian is not a prevalent language in Canada (as a whole), no of course. Mayumashu (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While you are well known for making assumptions when it comes to categorizing people, Wikipedia does not operate that way. Further, we generally do not categorize people by language spoken. Resolute 22:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge per nom. This is a triple intersection of nationality, ethnicity, and language spoken. I don't think it's fair—even in Canada—to assume that someone with a French surname speaks French as a first language. Particularly in the western half of the country, such an assumption would typically be viewed as absurd and nigh unto "ethnic stereotyping". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I thinking from the perspective of someone not from here, but who knows (from looking it up) that the country is bilingual French-English. At any rate, should it not be a double upmerge, to Category:Anglophone Canadians too? Mayumashu (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the Anglophone/Francophone parent categories is that the terms, bluntly, have very little meaning outside the context of Quebec's socio-political climate. While there certainly are pockets of Francophone communities outside Quebec (i.e.: North-Central Alberta), I don't see any value in categorizing people this way based only on language spoken. Resolute 22:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Anglophone Canadians of French-Canadian 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 result of the discussion was: delete both. — ξ^xplicit 23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Anglophone Canadians of French-Canadian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. Effectively, this category is "Canadians of Canadian descent", which is ridiculous on its own, but also attempts to join the native language of the individual with the native language of their ancestors. Resolute 17:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Adding Category:Canadian people of French-Canadian descent as well. (note that this was added after Djsasso's !vote) Resolute 18:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete I am in shock that someone actually created this category... -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Still shocked and still say delete with newly added category. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Upmerge to Category:Anglophone Canadians of French descent. Too hard to maintain and too fine a distinction to keep. Should this cat also fall, then upmerge to Category:Canadian people of French descent Mayumashu (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Upmerge to Category:Anglophone Canadians of French descent; or Category:Canadian people of French descent and Category:Anglophone Canadians. (Actually this is quite subtle as French Canadian suggests that such a person is not necessarily of French descent. I think it is asking too much of the category system to cover such complexities. There is also Category:French-Canadian people.) Occuli (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

True too - French Canadians can be of Haitian descent, for instance. However... Mayumashu (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Or Belgian. Upmerging in this case relies on assumptions of ancestry that we're best avoiding. Resolute 22:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You re right - the only possibility is upmerge Category:Anglophone Canadians of French-Canadian descent to Category:Canadian people of French-Canadian descent, which should be kept. Mayumashu (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Upmerge. Oh my—this is really getting bizarre. This is a triple intersection of nationality, ethnic descent, and language, and as such it is difficult to see it as anything other than overcategorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Resort/rename it should be Category:Anglophone Canadians of Quebecois descent and Category:Francophone Canadians of Quebecois descent ; Category:Anglophone Canadians of Metis descent and Category:Francophone Canadians of Metis descent ; Category:Anglophone Canadians of Acadian descent and Category:Francophone Canadians of Acadian descent ; 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • or just Category:Canadians of Quebecois descent ; Category:Canadians of Metis descent ; Category:Canadians of Acadian descent ; 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The last two are already covered by Category:Canadian Métis people and Category:Acadian people. As to the first, about as ridiculous as Category:Canadians of Albertan descent. It doesn't matter how you try to re-word it, any category that is effectively Canadians of Canadian descent is silly. Resolute 14:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      • That's wrong, Quebecois is an ethnic group, Quebecer is a person from Quebec. Prime Minister Harper even acknowledged it. As for "Acadian people" there are Acadians outside of Canada, so that category is not equivalent. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• I never thought that the "anglophone" subcategory was particularly necessary, but I can explain that it arose from a discussion over whether Paul Chalifoux was properly categorized as Category:Franco-Albertan people or not — the core issue is that some editors perceive Category:French-Canadian people to be a language category rather than an ethnic one, such that a person who has French-Canadian heritage ceases to be French-Canadian themselves, and becomes merely descended from French Canadians, if they don't actually speak the French language on a daily basis. Once you throw that interpretation on the fire, Category:Canadian people of French-Canadian descent becomes necessary as a container — but it really has no discernible value otherwise. I'd support deleting both; if a person has enough French-Canadian ancestry to warrant even mentioning it at all, then they more appropriately belong in the appropriate subcategory of Category:French-Canadian people anyway regardless of what language they use most in daily life. It's an ethnicity category, not a language one. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearcat. He is one of our Canadian editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Belarusian-American Jews

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename which was already done. If anyone wants further action taken, all of Category:American Jews of Slavic descent's subcategories should be nominated for discussion, but there's no consensus here to delete this category, especially not in isolation. Also, if someone wants to discuss the term "Belarusian" further, this category can be renominated for deletion. There's just no consensus for further action here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Propose renaming Category:Belarusian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Belarusian descent

Nominater's rationale: All the American Jews of Slavic descent categories have been renamed in accordance with the mass American descent category renaming, apart from this one. 14:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This a speedy candidate, for sure Mayumashu (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Honestly, Delete. If these three traits intersect, then Category:American Jews and Category:American people of Belarusian descent/Category:Belarusian immigrants to the United States would cover the fact that an individual is American, Jewish and has Belarusian ancestry. Haim Kantorovitch is cute example of the overcategorization triple intersected categories like this create. He's categorized as an American Jew, Russian Jew, Belarussian Jew and Belarusian-American Jew. Why? Resolute 22:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Where it is unclear when he became a U.S. citizen and Belarus was part of the Russian Empire the four links would seem to be validly kept. If we knew when he became a U.S. citizen and this occurred before he became notable (he was American when he became notable) then we wouldn t link his page to 'Russian Jew' and 'Belarusian Jew'. Mayumashu (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, as usual, you are simply guessing? That said, you utterly failed to address my main point - I do not see Belarusian-American Jew or a rename to be of any value given the other categories. How many different categories do you need to explain the exact same attributes? Resolute 03:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Basically I m making an assessment based on the info the page. And they are not the same attributes. Now I do think the subdivision of Category:American Jews of European descent by regions of Europe may not be necessary but that would be a different nomination and discussion - this one here is simply about renaming from a non-standard to a standard naming pattern. If you don t think the tree is of value, nominate its top, the supracat Mayumashu (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

They are the same attributes. Someone who is a Belarussian-American Jew is also a Belarussian Jew and an American Jew. Why create a 3rd category when they already fit into the other two. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

An American Jew whose parents are from Belarus is not a Belarussian Jew - this category is for such people, primarily - the complexity of this particular individual's bio is the exception, not the rule Mayumashu (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If this category stays - and I expect it will - all I would suggest is to ensure that articles are not overcategorized because of the multitude of triple-intersected category trees. Since this category would be in both Category:American Jews and Category:Belarusian Jews itself, articles in this category don't need to be in those as well. Simpler is better. Resolute 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This category is not for Belarusian citizens who are Jewish - it s just for American citizens who are Jewish and then whose ancestry is Belarusian. It is already pretty simple. Mayumashu (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get the category. I just don't get why the category exists. You have Category:American people of Belarusian descent to note such an individual's ancestry, and Category:American Jews to note they are Jewish. You don't need a third category that combines the two. That is overcategorization. Resolute 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. That may be the case. If you think so, you could/would/should nominate the sub-cats for an upmerge. There are a few thousand WP notable American Jews so some sort of sub-catting is likely necessary. They are also sub-catted by occupation. Perhaps both types of sub-catting is unnecessary. Mayumashu (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Resolute's point here is a valid one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(If I get you right.) Certain bios are complex in terms of citizenship and ethnicity, as this one happens to be - most are not. Are we to take a so-called bad case scenario and base our approach on that? Mayumashu (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Limit scope to Americans who actually were (or still are) citizens of independent Belarus (post-1991), and if it effectively empties the category, delete. Prior to independence (or, at best, prior to the recognition of Belarus as a UN member in 1945) we can only talk of ethnicity, which should not affect categorization. Remember that the land had been the boundary of Catholic and Orthodox worlds, suffered both polonization and russification, etc. - Belarusian ethnicity alone is a very complex phenomenon. East of Borschov (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a simple matter, for sure, but we certainly do keep categories for ethnic groups, particulary those that did/do not have a state (Basques, Kurds, Poles during the 18/1900s etc. etc.) Mayumashu (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not put it correctly; the ethicity of these people (being Ashkenazi Jews) is not disputed. But placing them under an umbrella of a state that only emerged in 1991 is incorrect. A person who ran away from Hrodna in 1882 perhaps never even heard of the word Belarus (which, in a different form, only appeared in Russian official papers that did not reach inside the shtetl). More likely they'd identify themselves as Polish Jews. East of Borschov (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I do not know why this was raised here, as it would have been approved without problem as a speedy candidate. As to the objections, I see no reason to single out "Belarussian" for opposing, as there are already established categories of American Jews of "Ukrainian", "Russian", "Latvian", "Lithanian", etc. descent. Davshul (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly Mayumashu (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• WP:WAX. Resolute 14:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WAX applies to article pages - reading it makes this clear Mayumashu (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WAX applies to anything you are deleting. It is never a good arguement to try and say the only reason to keep is because something else exists. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This statement is simply wrong. The page talks about articles and doesn t mention 'category' or CfD once. Categories work as 'trees' - proper deletion is to delete the tree (its most encompassing layer or supra category) - its branches (or subcategories) may be upmerged if they are overly finite (WP:OC). Mayumashu (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A quote from the first line of the page "The following are a list of arguments that can commonly be seen in deletion discussions for templates, images, categories, stub types, redirects and especially articles which should generally be avoided". Notice how it mentions categories? -DJSasso (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles are unique. Categories, on the contrary, must follow a rigid scheme and not contradict the logic of the scheme. "Follow the standard" ("the other stuff") seems to be the most common argument at CFD. On a side note, what's the point of citing a non-binding essay? East of Borschov (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is to usually get someone to make an arguement for why something should exists beyond "Well this other category exists", because often times that other category maybe shouldn't exist either and the nominator didn't see it. You need to have a reason why something should exist that extends beyond the fact other categories exist because those categories might not be valid as well. Somethings plain existence doesn't mean it should exist. I could create 50 categories that are all horrible categories, and then at CFD say well but this other one exists which I also created but the nominator didn't see to include. The fact I created it doesn't make it worth existing. You need more reason than that. There is a difference between making sure categories fit a scheme and whether or not the category is valid at all. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per Resolute. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Car manufacturers by country

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: keep. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Category:Car manufacturers by country Category:Automotive companies by country Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers by country Merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.191.27 (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep – these are all different. See eg Category:Automotive companies of the United Kingdom which includes tyre makers. Trucks/buses are vehicles but are not cars etc. Occuli (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Campbell 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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. While the notability of the family article is debatable, categories for discussion isn't the right venue for such a debate. Deletion of the category- or the article- may be pursued by a new nomination here, or at WP:AFD as appropriate- but the consensus in this discussion is to rename to match the parent article, with no prejudice against a renomination to examine deletion, which wasn't fully discussed here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Propose renaming Category:Campbell family to Category:Campbell family (Sierra Leone)

Nominator's rationale: Campbell is a common surname - disambiguation needed Mayumashu (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per Campbell family (Sierra Leone). Occuli (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete the category shouldn't exist in the first place. The article on the family isn't very compelling (one source, no overarching claim to notability).--TM 23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality of parent is not a basis for corresponding category deletion, not that I don t disagree with your view of the article. Mayumashu (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the guidelines for familial categories? Does every family with multiple notable members deserve an article?--TM 22:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Many more settlements

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 28#Many more settlements. We have consensus to rename, but the original plan to have a bot tag these thousands of categories has fallen through. So we are relisting with hopes of either a new bot plan or consensus to rename without tagging.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Nominations

Discussion

Nominator's rationale: Rename per this discussion and this CfD. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 05:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note, you are listing categories already nominated and listed. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed all I cound find. Feel free to remove anymore you find, or point them out to me on my talk. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Question. Is the Hawaii group Category:Settlements on Lanai to Category:Populated places on Lanai and such correct or should it be to Category:Populated places in Lanai? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lanai indicates it is one island, not a group. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 13:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See Category:Cities, towns and villages in Crete. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also group refers to the group of nominations about Hawaii's islands that includes, Category:Settlements on Lanai, Category:Settlements on Kauai, Category:Settlements on Maui, Category:Settlements on Molokai, Category:Settlements on Niihau, and Category:Settlements on Oahu. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Crete is a country, as well as an island. All countries are "...in Foo." All the other islands, that I see, are "...on Foo." None of the Hawaii's islands are also countries. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 18:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Shouldn't it be "Populated fictional places", not "Fictional populated places"? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Either works in English, but "Fictional populated places" is more consitent with the naming format in general. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 13:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Fictional" seems like the dominant tree, so I'd put it first.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, "Fictional populated" works better than "Populated fictional". The dominant aspect here is that the places in question are not real, not that they are populated. --Cyde Weys 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rename and/or merge all, and thanks to the people and bots that did this hard work. As for the individual categories, the only ones that seem out of whack to me are Category:Populated places of Alexander the Great and Category:Populated places of Philip II of Macedon. The "of" doesn't seem like the right connector. They're kind of bizarre catchall categories anyway, so I'm not sure what I'd do with those two.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We can go with the longer by more correct Category:Populated places founded or renamed by Alexander the Great if you like. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 19:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be better, but I wonder about the utility of the category itself and wonder if a list might function better. I did love the article that is apparently here from this phrase 'The city was named by Greeks who came with Alexander the Great'. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I also think the categories' utility is dubious. A list could be useful, I guess. So, Listify those two.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Delete Category:Cities, towns and Union Councils in the Federally Administered Northern Areas, as it is just a redirect to a non-"cities and towns" category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Listify Category:Populated places of Alexander the Great and Category:Populated places of Philip II of Macedon, undecided on the Hawaiian Islands form, but will not oppose for now. Rename the remainder. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • If these are the only objections, I think a close leaving these as undecided and allowing the others to be processed makes the most sense. We really need to clean up the bulk of these as soon as possible. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. In regards to Crete as long as rename all of the other Greek regional categories. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• CLOSING NOTE. Please list these with NO BOTS when adding to the queue. Admins can then release these in small groups so that we don't lock out other requests that need processing. Based on the last large change and the current request, processing this entire list could take around 48 hours. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This isn't particularly necessary. I can do a one-off run from a separate working page as necessary to process a really large task such that it does not impede the normal workflow. For instance see User:Cyde/CFDW, which I use for testing on occasion. Note that it has the same format as normal WP:CFDW. So the closer of this nomination can just set up a separate temporary working page, send a link to it on my talk page, and I'll begin the separate task. --Cyde Weys 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Whatever works. Can we include that in our closing procedures? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Go ahead, but be sure to point out that this special process applies only to exceptionally large closures. The normal CFDW process does not require my intervention; this does. So make sure to establish a high threshold. --Cyde Weys 18:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
        • How about an estimated 10,000 articles? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support all — "Populated places" is much nicer than "Cities, towns and villages", and is also consistent with the previous renaming. --Cyde Weys 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Update: I removed 27 categories that had been changed in previous nominations. I also found a grouping of Settlements categories that appears to have been missed in the creation of this nomination, and added them at the bottom of the list. If people want, that can be separated out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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 expatriate ice hockey people in the United States

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. Fixing the tree is handled by a large nomination, for this category and this category only, the consensus is pretty clear towards deletion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Category:Canadian expatriate ice hockey people in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Extremely overbroad, indiscriminate, non-notable category. Does this mean Canadians who've permanently settled in the United States? Canadians who've ever been in the United States? It certainly doesn't signify living people; there are a number dead ones on the list so far. Nor does it distinguish between players, coaches, equipment managers or between major league, minor league or amateur players. Since the vast majority of professional hockey franchises have been located in the United States for over eighty years, this category would be about 90% consonant with "Canadian ice hockey people."  Ravenswing  02:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Have to agree here. Also should consider adding Category:American expatriate ice hockey people in Canada. Its pretty much the same thing, in reverse. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Part of an established tree Category:Expatriates and this nomination singles out but one branch. Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States potentially has several thousand links, so it's divided up by occupation for navigational purposes. Mayumashu (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  You probably shouldn't have created those two categories either. Being an expatriate is a non-defining characteristic of a person in most cases. This whole tree should probably be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole tree should be nominated - exactly - not one branch. (Single branches of a tree are deleted for being WP:OC, and then they need to be upmerged, which should be the case with this nomination. However the arguments being made here are not WP:OC and only apply to the whole tree in general, as you point out DJSasso.) Mayumashu (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Single branches of trees are deleted all the time. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Only improperly. They are correctly upmerged, as per Occuli's comments below. Mayumashu (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Strikes me as a low value, non-defining category on what is by and large a temporary attribute. Resolute 02:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment most pro hockey players in North America are Canadian (something like 70% of them) ; most of the pro teams are in the US, because the Canadian economy is too small to support all the teams needed to sop up all those Canadian players... so most of the players end up in the US... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Indiscriminate and non-notable. 70% of the professional hockey player in the top pro hockey league are Canadian and the majority of those are playing in the US. The percentage is even higher for the lower minor leagues. This is not a defining characteristic of a hockey player. The fact someone lived in another country for a short period is not that defining of the person, especially in this case. Especially when it seems these cats are being added to anyone who ever lived in another country and not just currently is an expatriate. This makes these categories even lower value. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not even convinced that it is defining of anyone, actually. At the very least, Mayumashu, could you explain to me how you think a Canadian citizen currently living and working in Canada can possibly be considered an expat of Finland, Northern Ireland AND the United States at the same time? These categories are not only ridiculous, they are being improperly applied by someone with an obsession with overcategorizing everything. Resolute 13:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Category pages for people's bios always (although there may be certain specific exceptions) categorize people according to if they have ever belonged to the category, not to if they belong now. If that weren t the case all dead people would not be linked any occupation categories, say, or very few other. To me there is however the one outstanding issue, that of WP:Notability as it relates to catting on WP, and it touches on the matter here. For instances, not everyone listed under Category:Lawyers has been a WP notable lawyer. Those listed there have been WP notable for whatever reason and then have happened to have been a lawyer at some time. Next to no one is notable for being expatriate, for being of a certain nationality, for dying, yet we cat for those qualities (rightly or wrongly?). One of the main arguments here is an utter non-starter, that a Canadian hockey player or coach being expat in the U.S. is non-notable. Mayumashu (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding notability when it comes to categories. What we (or atleast I) mean when we say its non-notable. Its not that they non-notable for being an expat. But that being an expat is a non-notable attribute of the person. Two very different things. For example Wayne Gretzky isn't notable for being Canadian. But being Canadian is a notable attribute of Wayne Gretzky. To use your example, Joe Smith wasn't a notable lawyer. But the fact that Joe Smith was a lawyer is a notable attribute of Joe Smith. It defined him in a notable way. DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not have been personal defining to Joe - one's veiw on whether it did is POV, unless you have Joe Smith saying so and this first-hand account rarely exists. We categorise by deaths by year - is that defining ever defining to either the person or the year - very rarely. But back to Joe and Gretzky, I would hazard to guess that for some of these players their time spent in the U.S. has shaped them personally, and their sport too, so to say that it has never been an attribute for any of them (or the sport, the other feature here) very much seems wrong. In general, where one lives does impact their being (I know this personally, having been expat for a long time, previously.), so we cat by place, by nationality, etc. In the end, that it is POV to try to determine "attributal significance" shows why we don t cat on WP based on whether membership is notable but based on whether the subject of the categorising itself, here being expatriate, is notable. Mayumashu (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the year someone died in is extremely defining of them. It marks the year in which they stopped living which is a highly notable attribute of a person. Other than birth year its probably the most notable of things that define you. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

One's death year is defining to their personal make-up when alive?? That s what we are discussing when we say Joe's job was a defining attribute of him (as living). But you would say that being expatriate cannot be defining for a person, as what one's occupation is can be? Mayumashu (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I see what you mean better - defining of one as we the audience see them. In that sense noting death years, etc. is significant. But how is being expatriate never signficant? Mayumashu (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

To use this specific case, when 90% of canadian hockey players probably at some point in time were also an expatriate in the US. Then it stops being an attribute that sets them apart from others, which is what categories are supposed to do. It's supposed to be something that seperates them from other hockey players. If it is something that they hold in common with almost everyone it ceases to be a notably defining characteristic. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a defining attibrute to other hockey players, but a defining one to other people. The purpose of the cat nominated here isn t a hockey one but a human migration one. Cats link up so sure it can seem to be a hockey one but to see it as a hockey one first and foremost is to say one needs rethink the interconnectivity of WP. (I direct this comment to contributors in general and not you personally, DJSasso, to be clear.) Sure 90% of Canadian hockey players have at some point been expat in the U.S., but still only, what 10% of Canadians or so have evey been expat in the U.S. - (expat requires having had residency there, having had the experience of having kept or rented a place to live there). I mean, if the hockey crowd feels it looks too much like a hockey cat page then why not vote to upmerge to Category:Canadian expatriate sportspeople in the United States? Then the onus is off the 90% and back to the 10%. Before I was an expat, I would have likely said too that being expatriate is, in and of itself, a meaningless feature of someone and does not define them (either from their or our POV), and it does depend on the two places involved - the US and Canada are culturally very similar, so the impact would less - but it is POV, probablematic, and non-substanible to try to establish this type of expatriate experience is defining and this is not. Mayumashu (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I could ask how being an expatriate is significant? In this specific case, a player is known for the teams they played for. They are not known for the countries that those teams play in. Resolute 16:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I know from personal experience that it can be - I would hazard to guess that you have never been, that you are asking. Of course two years compared to ten and the U.S. compared to China say are significant differences for most, but we can t go about catting on WP in such a POV way - it needs to be simple either we have Category:Expatriates or we don t. Mayumashu (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

But your question is signficant to hockey specifically. As hockey players solely, they are largely not significant, of course; and as people, that they were expat certainly can be. But this is not a hockey category first, but a human migration one, that has been sub-catted down to the occupation of ice hockey. That this is the apparent problem with the hockey crowd suggests an upmerge. Mayumashu (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comments – it would be helpful if people could give specific examples rather than alluding to unspecified 'worst cases'. It seems to me that people are objecting for 2 reasons: (a) an inordinate number of ice-hockey players in the US are Canadian; (b) general unease about the 'expat' scheme. I don't agree about the difficulty of definition - this is for Canadians who have been involved in a contract with some US ice-hockey team, sufficiently notably to be mentioned in their article. (Past and current is a red herring - we don't do 'current' categories.) I do share the general unease about expat/emigrant/immigrant categories, but not enough to do anything about it. There should certainly be some upmerges, not a straight delete. Occuli (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• An upmerge is only valuable if the category schema as a whole is valuable. Given I don't find expat categories valuable, I'd rather just start deleting this mess. Resolute 15:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Then do so - nominate Category:Expatriates. The only way to show what you claim, and you may be right if comments here are representative, is to nominate the head of the schema. (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, and you do that after you do a few test CFDs with lower tree branches. You never go straight for the head because that just becomes a big mess. You try smaller branches to show prescedent and then you tackle the main category. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

But I'd add there's a world of difference between a category like this, and the main category, at least imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Then wouldn t you favour an upmerge? The only difference is the break-down to occupation, for navigational purposes, since so many Canadians (relative to other places) have been expat in the U.S. Mayumashu (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Djsasso as a non-defining and very low value category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: While Mayumashu has filibustered extensively on procedural issues - and what it boils down to is that I nominated what I nominated, and am happy for those who want to take on other nominations to do that - he's yet to touch the reasons I nominated this in the first place.  Ravenswing  22:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

??I haven t already said that being expatriate can be a notable attribute of someone's bio, that these are not just for those living now or expatriate now in the U.S., and that this is not a hockey first category, but a human migration one - I don t care if it is upmerged if the hockey people can only see this as a hockey first category? Well there - I resaid it for you. Mayumashu (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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:Ar-Raqqah

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: Keep as is - separate categories for specific cities are not uncommon. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging Category:Ar-Raqqah to Category:Populated places in Ar-Raqqah Governorate

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category with unclear expansion possibilities. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Upmerge to Category:Populated places in Ar-Raqqah Governorate or Category:Cities, towns and villages in Ar-Raqqah Governorate, whichever prevails in cfd. Occuli (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Ar-Raqqah is a city. It could quite easily be filled with articles related to the city and it functioning as a sub category to :Category:Populated places in Ar-Raqqah Governorate. I'll see if I can populate it a little and make the city category legitamate. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Like I said, unclear possibilities. Sine there are now two articles, I'm OK with this remaining at this point. I'd like more articles, but... Vegaswikian (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The populated places categories are for groups of more than one populated place.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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.