The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is just an arbitary category created for cities that are important in someone's personal opinion. There is already Category:Metropolitan areas, which has problems of its own, but at least has some sort of official meaning in many countries. Nathcer 23:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. Nathcer 23:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 01:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Calsicol 23:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and because Metropolis has alternate meanings. Carlossuarez46 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have difficulty understanding why this was created. evrik 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to define and rather biased. Nathcer 23:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete too subjective. Dismas|(talk) 00:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective/POV. Osomec 01:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Blatant editorializing. --TJive 10:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; inappropriate, POV, pointless. Bearcat 01:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete (empty). Conscious 09:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also the related proposal below titled "The Legend of Zelda games"
Delete all per this discussion. It was decided that all three sub-categories should be merged with their parent category. However, as they are now all empty, they can just be deleted. Road Wizard 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 09:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also the related proposal above titled "Legend of Zelda games"
Merge all per this discussion. It was decided that all of these sub-categories should be merged with their parent category. Road Wizard 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus)Tim! 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. Nom's reasoning was "This is a completely inappropriate and silly category. The place for this material is the article namespace". No opinion from me. Punkmorten 20:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough William Shatner-related articles for a category. --Musicpvm 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the need for this. Nathcer 23:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't merit a category. Osomec 01:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of categories named after people, and as Musicpvm notes there are enough articles here to warrant inclusion. Ziggurat 01:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A rich and varied career like this (no matter how mockable) has many articles feed into it.--Mike Selinker 02:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category has enough material in it (and Google gives 5m hits, so I would guess more material is likely to come). Shatner's later career and notability in the real world is a phenomenon that can be treated sensibly. --Mereda 14:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does the job. Calsicol 23:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I feel ambivalent about such "named after people" categories. As Ziggurat notes there is categories named after people. This once only had 50 subcategories and now has 153. If people are really against such categories, then something should be done soon before it gets out of control. Carcharoth 11:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can do your part to help stop the overpopulation of eponymous categories. There needs to be a clear benefit to the making a category. If all the articles are cross-linked, or could be listed in a "see also" section, the category is not needed at all. If eponymous categories are not controlled, we will end up with a category for almost every article. There are links in articles, "see also" sections, and "what links here". Categories should be added to these tools when they do not do an effective job of helping a user browse through articles about the topic. The William Shatner category does nothing of any more value than what is already in the William Shatner article. Think about it: would you like to see a category for EVERY actor, EVERY TV show, EVERY play, EVERY author, etc...? -- Samuel Wantman 04:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Samuel Wantman. I would also urge investigation of the current eponymous categories and ask people creating them to give a justification for each eponymous category. Each category needs to be checked to see if all the articles are linked from the main article, and a link provided back to the main article (cross-referencing). If not, then add text about the other article to the main article, and link them, or add to "See also". Also, remind people that they should use "What links here" to make sure cross-referencing goes both ways (if appropriate). Then nominate the category for deletion. I would add one caveat though. If the category serves a useful purpose within a well-defined area, keep it. If it starts to sprawl too widely (acting like a portal, rather than a narrowly focused category), then get rid of it. Broad, cross-subject links should be explained in the context of an article, not the simplistic listing of a category group of links. Carcharoth 13:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A further comment. The category is currently functioning as an article. The bit at the top is a brief bio of Shatner, and the links at the bottom are acting like a "see also" section. This is either the way of the future, or very, very bad. I use the space at the top of categories to explain what the category contains, both to help readers navigate it, and to help editors know what to put in there. This "articlisation" of category space is something else that needs to be stopped if it is inappropriate. Carcharoth 13:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wantman & Carcharoth. ♥Her Pegship♥ 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is as much an argument to delete some of the others as it is to keep this one. We have to decide where to draw the line. If the bar keeps lowering, there will be thousands of these silly categories. Help raise the bar very high. -- Samuel Wantman 10:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a trekkie, so I don't really care a whit about whether Shatner gets to keep his category or not from that perspective. However, if it goes, so should nearly all the eponymous categories, which during my current visit to the page demonstrated that most of these folks are entertainers of some sort, including fictional characters, sprinkled among a few scientists, writers, philosophers, political types, messiahs, and such.
Alex Rider (fictional character)
Alexander the Great (politician)
Tori Amos (entertainer)
Namie Amuro (entertainer)
Louis Armstrong (entertainer)
Isaac Asimov (writer-scifi)
David Attenborough (entertainer - higher brow, perhaps, but still that's what he does)
Jane Austen (writer)
Stephen Baxter (writer-scifi)
Beethoven (composer)
H.P. Blavatsky (philosopher)
James Bond (fictional character)
Botticelli (artist)
David Bowie (entertainer)
Bertolt Brecht (writer/entertainer)
David Brin (writer-scifi)
Edgar Rice Burroughs (writer)
William S. Burroughs (writer)
George H.W. Bush (politician)
George W. Bush (politician)
Julius Caesar (politician)
Joseph Campbell (writer)
Caravaggio (artist)
Mariah Carey (entertainer)
George Carlin (entertainer)
Andrew Carnegie (industrialist)
Agatha Christie (writer)
Winston Churchill (politician)
Arthur C. Clarke (writer-scifi)
Claude Shannon (scientist)
Bill Clinton (politician)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (politician)
Leonard Cohen (entertainer - high brow)
Phil Collins (entertainer)
Steve Coogan (entertainer)
Bing Crosby (entertainer)
Salvador Dalí (artist)
Charles Dickens (writer)
Walt Disney (entertainment entrepeneur)
Arthur Conan Doyle (writer)
Hilary Duff (entertainer)
Albert Einstein (scientist)
Eminem (entertainer)
Frederick Forsyth (writer)
Benjamin Franklin (American icon)
Mahatma Gandhi (Indian icon)
Bill Gates (businessman)
Charles de Gaulle (French icon)
Marvin Gaye (entertainer)
Genghis Khan (politician)
Vincent van Gogh (artist)
Al Gore (politician)
Francisco Goya (artist)
H. Rider Haggard (writer)
Ayumi Hamasaki (entertainer)
Warren G. Harding (politician)
Robert A. Heinlein (writer-scifi)
Ernest Hemingway (writer)
Adolf Hitler (politician)
Homer (writer)
Robert E. Howard (writer)
L. Ron Hubbard (messiah to some)
Hulk Hogan (entertainer)
David Hume (philosopher)
Saddam Hussein (politician)
Ibn-e-Safi (writer, only 1 page in his category)
Iqbal (writer, politician)
Andrew Jackson (politician)
Janet Jackson (entertainer)
Michael Jackson (entertainer)
Thomas Jefferson (politician)
Jesus (messiah to some)
Jinnah (Pakistani icon)
Joan of Arc (another French icon)
Kane (entertainer)
John Kerry (politician)
Shunsuke Kikuchi (entertainer & anime)
Martin Luther King, Jr. (American icon)
Stephen King (writer-scifi/horror)
Gustav Klimt (artist)
Beverley Knight (entertainer)
D.H. Lawrence (writer)
Leonardo da Vinci (artist)
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (philosopher)
Abraham Lincoln (politician)
Liszt (composer)
H.P. Lovecraft (writer-scifi)
Jennifer López (entertainer)
John A. Macdonald (Canadian icon)
Madonna (entertainer)
Édouard Manet (artist)
Mantegna (artist)
Mao Zedong (politician)
Bob Marley (entertainer)
Meher Baba (messiah to some)
Katie Melua (entertainer)
Michelangelo (artist)
Luis E. Miramontes (scientist, only images in his category)
James Monroe (politician)
Gary Moore (entertainer)
Muhammad (prophet of Islam)
Isaac Newton (scientist)
Friedrich Nietzsche (philosopher)
Richard Nixon (politician)
Olsen twins (entertainers)
Omar Khayyám (writer)
George Orwell (writer-scifi)
Trey Parker and Matt Stone (entertainers)
Penn & Teller (entertainers)
Perugino (artist, category empty)
Pablo Picasso (artist)
Robert M. Pirsig (writer)
Edgar Allan Poe (writer scifi/horror)
Harry Potter (fictional character)
Prince (entertainer)
Aleksandr Pushkin (writer)
Daniel Quinn (writer)
Ian Rankin (writer)
Raphael (artist)
Ronald Reagan (politician)
Rembrandt (artist)
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (artist)
Rihanna (entertainer)
Robert Silverberg (writer, only a subcat with his books in it)
Rodney Rude (entertainer)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (politician)
Theodore Roosevelt (politician)
Todd Rundgren (entertainer)
Hakim Said (scholar)
Friedrich Schiller (writer)
William Shakespeare (writer)
William Shatner (entertainer)
Ashlee Simpson (entertainer)
Adam Smith (Capitalist icon)
Will Smith (entertainer)
Britney Spears (entertainer)
Bruce Springsteen (entertainer)
Joseph Stalin (Communist icon)
Rudolf Steiner (philosopher)
Robert Louis Stevenson (writer)
Rod Stewart (entertainer)
Nikola Tesla (scientist)
Tolkien (writer-scifi/fantasy)
J. R. R. Tolkien (so important he gets two categories)
Leo Tolstoy (writer)
Tolstoy (also very important to merit two categories)
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (artist)
Pierre Trudeau (Canadian icon)
Alan Turing (scientist)
Rudolph Valentino (entertainer)
Johannes Vermeer (artist)
George Washington (American icon)
Orson Welles (entertainer)
P. G. Wodehouse (writer)
Virginia Woolf (writer)
And yes, my categories are rough, and somewhat arbitrary. Hitler was also a writer and artist, and Al Gore was busy inventing the internet, but I digress. The real point is that there is an overabundance of scifi writers and entertainers. So do we zap Shatner and begin to clean house with vigor or do we let this grow organically? Carlossuarez46 00:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And while we are at it, more often than not, these eponymous categories should not be put in the same categories in which the eponymous articles already reside. -- Samuel Wantman 10:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree. But how do we prevent these from growing out-of-control? If we subcategorize these would it be a tacit acceptance that these will be numerous and will grow, but now we're channelling the growth? The beauty of Carcharoth's proposal is that people in multiple genres whose categories survive whatever purge may occur can be put in multiple places. Carlossuarez46 05:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 09:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete (empty) per nom. David Kernow 01:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 09:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contentious POV. Intangible 20:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a useful category. If it's used inappropriately to 'label' things in a POV way, the label can be removed, but in many cases it's pretty clear cut.Zaian 20:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert my vote, as the category seems to be populated in a partisan way. I think it's disgraceful that some of these people did indeed support the Apartheid government, but I don't want to see a POV category. Zaian 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective. --TJive 10:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep or rename to 'International pro-Apartheid activists'. This is no more POV than the categories of people who opposed Apartheid. Same with any other pro- and anti- category. Of course, people articles should be included in any category only when the facts in the article support their placement therein. Deleting such categories might be done for POV reasons--hiding things when such support or opposition is no longer politically convenient. Thanks Hmains 19:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be highly POV. Calsicol 23:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Calsicol 23:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not Merge I don't believe the line is 'clear cut' on whether all the category members supported Apartheid, or were just tangentially associated with it. Even if the cat contained only people who said "I support Apartheid", I believe it would be of limited encyclopedic use. KWH 07:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People politicians need to be held acountable. 132.241.245.245 17:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete — Way, way too broad; this could include thousands of superheroes in comics, film & TV, and countless mthological and folkloric character. Tenebrae 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it gets subcatagories like comic characters who can fly it's still way to broad Exvicious 00:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 01:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been over 7 days and there's a clear consensus, I will delete the category and notify its creator. -- Tenebrae 18:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was do what Mike Selinker said. Conscious 14:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment' Fictional radio contains fictional radio stations and fictional radio shows, same thing with fictional television. While fictional films contains films, and would fit under fictional fiction, I don't see how fictional TV stations do. So fictional media does not serve the same fuction. 70.51.9.252 09:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment fictional media also doesn't represent all cases of fictional fiction, since in fiction you can use other means to portray further fiction... like a daydream sequence, or one guy telling another guy a ghost story over a campground fire... which would never fit under fictional media. When looking at fictional fiction, there's category:fictional fictional characters, which would also not fit under fictional media. 70.51.9.252 09:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename per Mike Selinker. Metafiction is fiction about fiction, which is the opposite of what is described here (fiction within fiction). Ziggurat 01:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (move) to structure suggested by Mike. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to rename per Mike Selinker. MakeRocketGoNow 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. --musicpvm 00:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. --Musicpvm 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Golfcam 02:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename/merge. Conscious 13:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not intending to make a WP:POINT, but my "vote" would be Delete All. Unencyclopedic, little benefit in networking, and possible votestacking problems if an obscure Grateful Dead (say) album were nomintated for deletion. I'd recommend deleting all Wikipedians who listen to ... categories, but it's not worth the effort for me to properly tag them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, but I think the self-descriptive category is an established custom not easily overturned in a nomination like this. I'm just trying to get them all named right so that I don't get a repeat of this morning when I tried to put the trumpet player for a rock band into category:Trumpeters and discovered it was full of Wikifans.--Mike Selinker 22:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Arthur Rubin; this is user over-categorization. For now though, they should be renamed for consistency. --Musicpvm 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category seems to be about 'state violence', not terrorism Intangible 18:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I despise the dirty tactics used by the Apartheid state. Terrorism is too controversial a label to throw around in this way - assigning an article to this category based on POV would be all too easy. At least if the word "terrorist" is in the text of the article, it can be justified by an explanation or backed by a reference. Zaian 18:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. These "terrorism" soapboxes are getting more frequent lately. --TJive 10:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nathcer. --Mereda 14:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least merge. Calsicol 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete; the creator is unclear on category formatting vs article formatting, and obviously self-promoting. ♥Her Pegship♥ 20:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Reverse merge into Category:American saints and slap evrik on the wrist for effectively renaming a category without bringing it here. Osomec 01:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge back to Category:American saints. Since the "new" category was created by Evrik scant minutes before nominating the "old" one for deletion, and I can't find any obvious attempts at discussion around this, it looks very much like an attempt to game the system around naming conventions. The use of "American" rather than "United States" in category names that call for the adjectival form is a settled issue around these parts — if you don't like it, you're welcome to try reopening the debate yet again (and good luck to you), but simply ignoring the standing convention isn't really acceptable. Bearcat 01:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anecoregion is a concept of area originally defined by the World Wildlife Fund. As a region conceptually defined by man that is not state-derived in any way (in contrast to for example a Province of Canada, or a National Park of Scotland), there is no reason to name these categories "of country". "In country" is the most appropriate choice, because as with Category:Landmarks by country and Category:World Heritage Sites, the entity is simply located in that country - nothing more, nothing less. The following renamings are proposed:
Rename and include rationale above for "in" on category page. Nice one, Kurieeto. Regards, David Kernow 22:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename/merge. Conscious 13:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom for consistency. --Musicpvm 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with renaming category:My Bloody Valentine EPstocategory:My Bloody Valentine albums is that the contents of the former category are very clearly EPs, whilst the contents of the latter are very clearly albums. To recategorize would make a nonsense of the category name. The EPs cannot be placed in the category "... songs", for example, because most of the EP titles are very clearly not song titles either. Compare Category:The Beatles EPs - if the latter is a valid category, then so is category:My Bloody Valentine EPs. --DaveG12345 21:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm willing to have EPs separated out if others are, though they look like albums to me. Regardless, "releases" is a terrible category word, so if we agree to do that, then category:Belle & Sebastian releases should become category:Belle & Sebastian EPs, and we should have a category:EPs by artist. Seems like overcategorization to me, though, and so I stick with my original position to merge.--Mike Selinker 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to propose an alternative to "albums" for use in all subcategories of Category:Albums, then feel free — but as it stands, there's simply no valid reason for EPs and full-length albums by the same band to be filed in two separate categories. There are tons of other bands whose EPs are filed in their albums category, and nobody's found that inappropriate before — is there a good reason why either My Bloody ValentineorBelle & Sebastian should get special treatment in that regard? Rename all. Bearcat 02:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "good reason" (perhaps the best reason) is that these acts released EPs, and they released albums, and there's a big difference between the two. I'm not actually asking for any "special treatment" at all, I'm specifically asking for no special treatment on these categories. MBV released two albums only. If Wikipedia is to tell the world that, no no no, they released twelve albums, then Wikipedia is going to be looking somewhat foolish. Not all bands released EPs, but some did, and these are two of them. The Beatles are another. If Long Tall Sally (EP) is to be re-categorised as part of this CfD as a Beatles album, and if Category:The Beatles EPs is then to be deleted, then fine, rename them all - no special treatment, you see. That sounds a defensible position. But if this is not going to happen, then why rename certain categories so that they no longer reflect the truth, whilst preserving others that do reflect the truth? Please explain the reasoning (or the "special treatment", if you like) there. --DaveG12345 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I should state Rename All Except *category:My Bloody Valentine EPs and category:Belle & Sebastian releases (unless renamed to category:Belle & Sebastian EPs), unless someone can explain the "special treatment" re such categories, and why certain artists released EPs and retained a category here, whilst others demonstrably released EPs and apparently did not merit a category under the exact same rationale. --DaveG12345 00:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any examples other than the Beatles? In general, there are many artists who have EPs under albums, and few artists who have EPs broken out. I think the definition of album is broad enough to include EPs. Here's the definition from album: Due to the large capacity of new media, the matter of how long an album should be is open to debate. According to the rules of the UK Charts, a recording counts as an album if either it has at least four tracks or lasts more than 20 minutes. Sometimes shorter albums are referred to as EPs, an abbreviation of extended play, "extended" meaning longer than a single. The term "mini-album" may also be used. All of these have "at least four tracks" and EPs are defined as "shorter albums." It seems inclusive to me.--Mike Selinker 04:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems no one wants to tell me why Category:The Beatles EPs gets "special treatment". Puzzling. The definition of album given here seems problematic (in the article it is marked as uncited, for example) - Extended play gives some more in-depth descriptions that apply more to these releases. The single/EP/album "definition" is far from cut-and-dried, but these two acts were well-known as releasers of EPs, rather than as album artists - Belle and Sebastian particularly in their early years, and My Bloody Valentine throughout their career. There are not many artists that fit this bill, but these two most certainly do. It seems you guys want to restrict categories for your own internal housekeeping reasons or whatever it is, which is fine I guess, and certainly applies to countless numbers of bands and artists unproblematically. But there are exceptions to this basic rule, as people here seem to recognise per the example of Category:The Beatles EPs and the comment above that there are "few artists who have EPs broken out". These two cases should be part of these "few" - EPs (not singles, not albums) formed an important part of the identity of the acts concerned, and to suppress that artificially would be a mistake. It would also be a shame, because I believe categories (as opposed to lists) can be very useful WP tools, but this "policy" of merging with albums makes the album categories less than useful in these two cases. I hope you will therefore consider them as "exceptions", per apparent precedent. --DaveG12345 17:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Beatles categories are getting special treatment in the case of Singles per artist (at least so far), because WikiProject Beatles is a well-organized and thoughtful project that has very strong opinions. So they might get special treatment here. Or not. Regardless, the goal should be to define a rule that works for nearly everyone, put it into place, and then see if the Beatles folks are willing to follow it. It shouldn't stop us from figuring out what we want to do as a general case, which is that for apparently all artists except the three we are discussing, hundreds of EPs are put under albums. I can see that the Beatles could deserve an exemption, but My Bloody Valentine and Belle & Sebastian do not, in my opinion. But that's all it is.--Mike Selinker 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I appreciate you're trying to create something "general", nothing wrong with that. As said above, these two acts do - at least to me - constitute special cases. I cannot in fact, off the top of my head, think of another equivalent band that might represent such an exception to the general rule during the last thirty years. Their adoption of the EP format was somehow a key characteristic of the bands and their outlook on popular culture, and they are kinda unique in that way. But if WP dictates that EPs = albums, I guess that's that. :-) --DaveG12345 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all except Category:Eagles albums -- There has been considerable debate on the band's (and article's) actual name, with the consensus being to leave it at simply Eagles; the category should match. Also note that there exists another article on a different band called The Eagles. -- Engineer Bob 06:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that debate and its resolution. I will remove this nomination from the list.--Mike Selinker 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 13:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The classification by country for plants and animals using categories is not very useful.
The classification should be based on climate, environment, etc, not based on some arbitrary political boundaries.
There are many plants and animals which can be found in most countries in Eurasia and Africa, for example. That would mean a plant would be added to a hundred or two of categories.
In an average country, there are somewhere between 3-10,000 species of plants. Some tropical countries (like Brazil) have more than 25,000 known species of plants and 5,000 species of animals. I can't see how such an immense category can be useful or maintainable.
Support animals and politics do not make a sensible category. Justinc 12:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shows a basic lack of understanding of how even elementary taxonomy works. Batmanand | Talk 12:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Changing to Keep per Guettarda, although it would be nice if there were stronger criteria or a better system. It seems to me that if a plant is native to, for example, the Balkans, it will get cat-heavy listing all those countries. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - while a little unweildy, it's a very useful set of categories. The native range of a species is terribly useful information - I can't imagine why you would want to omit such information. Obviously I'm biased - this counts as one of my professio*nal interests as a biologist. But I can't figure out why anyone would want to delete such useful information. Guettarda 12:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, if I hadn't seen this on WikiEn-L I wouldn't know about it. All the cats and subcats need to be tagged so that the people who actually use the cats can express an opinion. Guettarda 12:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These categories are useful to readers regardless of traditional biological taxonomy rules. The category being large is not a reason to delete. We have much larger categories on Wikipedia (Category:Animals for example), and the subcategories you're also proposing to delete are not large anyway. Angela. 13:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is the best way to present the information. I do believe that lists by country are better, because you can add references for the including of a plant/animal in the list. I'm thinking about something like List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland. Plus, it's easier to check the factual accuracy and to update.
Also, a picture is a thousand words: for the display of information, a map of the spread of the plants/animals is much more useful than simply listing the names of the countries. An example can be Image:Present distribution of wolf subspecies eur.JPG.
Strong keep. Incredibly useful, especially when you consider countries as geographic regions and not just political entities (cough Eurocentrism cough). [ælfəks] 15:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 15:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these would be hopelessly unwieldy if fully utilized as intended. Bryan 17:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: unless every relevant subcat is duly tagged this vote is invalid. --Mais oui! 17:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in many cases, especially when dealing with island or otherwise isolated countries, this info is quite valuable. •Jim62sch• 19:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I've found this way of categorization to be very useful. There are many species that are only found in one country or just a few countries. These categories should be restricted to those types of species but should definitely not be deleted --Musicpvm 19:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps a [[Category:Endemic species of xyz country]] should be created; this is not an argument, though, for keeping this category. Batmanand | Talk 22:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is already the way the categories are being used, so you don't have an argument for deleting it either. I would support a rename though to Category:Endemic fauna by country ("fauna" rather than "species" because some categories include subspecies and genera) and Category:Endemic flora by country (and similar renames to all subcategories). --Musicpvm 23:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but suggest conversion to lists. Shyamal 06:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because 1)the use of biogeographical regions rather than political boundaries would be more reasonable - so I support their conversion 2)there could remain the categories for endemic species 3)if the categorisation by country scheme were applied systematically, the number of categories will be immense for many common species (e.g. about 150 for the House mouse) Kaarel 07:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There's simply no justification for deleting a useful category like Category:New Zealand birds, for instance. More generally, countries have the advantage that people are more familiar with them than with biogeographical regions. I also strongly object to the process followed here. This is a blanket nomination of hundreds of categories, with no notice being placed on most of them, so people with those categories on their watchlists probably have no idea about this vote. None of these categories should be deleted without such a notice being in place for a reasonable length of time. I feel that raising your concerns on Category talk:Animals by country and Category talk:Flora by country would have been a more sensible first step. -- Avenue 09:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of these are certainly useful and reasonable. If there are some that aren't they can be nominated individually. Calsicol 23:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Avenue. Countries offer a clear and unambiguous demarcation whereas ecoregions are more controversial, and many external sources on the subject group animals in this fashion. Ziggurat 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if you look at almost any published field guide, the basic demarcation of range is by country. In particularly large countries, like the US, they do it by state, often with maps that show things right down to the county level. It is the cleanest and most easily recognizable/understood method. I do think the categories need to be standardized. If we're going with "Fauna of..." then all the cats should follow that nomenclature. Though, I can certainly see some categories getting very large and need breaking down further. -Dawson 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I have worked hard on cleaning up the Category:Australian animals into subcategories, and I think they are very useful. I find Category:Frogs of Australia especially useful, as there has been a lot of activity recently in Aus. frog articles, and I like to go over it to see if I am not watching any new ones. Also, I don't think that using biogeographical regions is any better than political. There are species spread over many bioregions as well as political borders so there is no real difference. If a category is useful, it should not be deleted, pretty simple. --liquidGhoul 06:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but for the love of consistency, define a set of standard names!Circeus 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename both. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename in line with naming convention SilkTork 10:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename [both] --Musicpvm 19:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Looks like a mistype of 1970s fads. Empty cat. There was one entry, but that was for a 1970s fad, and I've moved that. Delete. SilkTork 10:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 19:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 1970s category already exists and there is nothing to merge. Osomec 01:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 01:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Calsicol 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
To go by Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, this category would cover a significant percent -- possibly most -- of ALL industrial food products, so it's a pointlessly broad category. Calton | Talk 04:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --TJive 05:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current "food fad" following Pollans book, use of the sweetner is also not universal ie. coke in Australia doesn't have HFCS and there is no way to make that distinction.--Peta 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 172 | Talk 06:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. Dr.frog 02:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was move, and also move article. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: Such a move would make it so that the category would comply with Wikifilm Project's long standing naming policy of using the word "film" instead of "movie". (Thanks William, for making the nomination.) --P-Chan 05:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, including the article move. --Usgnus 19:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Golfcam 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 13:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero cat members; no impact; no brainer. Rklawton 00:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't modify the categories while they are in discussion, that's against the rules, and it says so on the cfr label. --William Allen Simpson 06:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MUST Keep. Freemasonry is regarded as a secret society whose members look after each other. In many countries people who hold public office are either required to declare that they are freemasons or are required to resign from the masons. Given the belief that Masons (and other secretive societies) help each other by discriminating against non-masons, it is VERY important IMHO that all masons on WP, but particularly those exercising power at admin or developer power, must declare their membership. In Ireland, for example, members of the Masons, the Knights of St. Columbanus and members of Opus Dei are banned from public office unless they declare their membership and resign from the organisation immediately. Someone caught hiding their membership is sacked on the spot. To protect openness and ensure no secret bias WP should follow a similar rule and this category should be kept so that WP freemasons can link up to it. At least if we know who is a member we can spot if favouritism is shown to other members. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment if it's a secret society, wouldn't that mean that the categories should be empty? 132.205.64.91 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As with other organisations, those belonging to such organisations would be required to declare their membership via this category. A failure to do so would mean that, if their membership was discovered, they would be automatically dismissed from whatever post (eg, admin) they held. That is the standard rule applied in organisations worldwide. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep, but without the requirement to list oneself as suggested by FearÉIREANN, or the punishments for not having done so. This would establish a bad precedent, in my eyes. Alex Dodge 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
No you are wrong, see the US discussion.--Peta 03:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Last time I looked most of the American categories had hyphens and I prefer it that way. However I would be very happy to see all of these DeletedOsomec 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all without hyphens for consistency with articles. --Musicpvm 05:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The first word, i.e. German, in "German-American" is an adjective and the hyphen is required to make it a noun phrase. This is a basic tenet of English grammar and really isn't negotiable. •Jim62sch• 19:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose. I believe the hyphen is correct. ExRat 02:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As with the other hyphen discussions on this page, I'd prefer to leave styling them alone until we've tried to settle a guideline or two about their use (and whether a bunch of them should be deleted). If they're useful, I'm thinking it ought to be that the category topic has already been established as culturally significant by external sources. That would match policy for ethnicgroup-subject subcategories as Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality#Special_subcategories. And, if and where so, we'd also see whether those external sources consistently use hyphens or not. --Mereda 15:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Inflammatory, polemical, open to original research and POV. It is not Wikipedia's place to decide what constitutes a "human rights violation," and attribute unspecified classes of events to "anti-communism"-- a murky, hard to define label. The likely spin-off category "Human rights violations attributed to anti-communism" will be similarly problematic, if anyone is interested in having me elaborate. 172 | Talk 03:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Wikipedia doesn't need to keep adding original research political categories open to POV warring. --TJive 03:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are certainly individual encyclopedic topics that I might describe that way: and that the article itself might describe that way. But as a category it looks like pure advocacy. LotLE×talk 03:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Meaning of the category ambiguous and open to POV-pushing. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to stay neutral on this category deletion debate simply because I understand the points of view stated above, and I agree that such a category heading is vague, and too open to interpretation and POV-pushing. But now, after having seen that 172 has gone ahead and removed all of the articles that were grouped under this category heading (including a number of articles on my watchlist), I begin to doubt his motivations. The deletion of this category, and the marginalizing of the ideas associated with it seems to me to be his form of POV-pushing. ---Charles 04:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt that 172 is interested in shielding the reputation of Latin American juntas and apartheid South Africa. Deleting cats from articles is regular practice for very egregious cases. --TJive 04:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should not impugn his motives without further information, so I will retract that comment. However, who is to decide how "egregious" these cases are, and is that not the purpose of this very debate? Depopulating the category only makes it impossible to read the articles that were grouped thereunder, thereby making judgment difficult. I find the idea of judging the category simply by its name absurd and frought with the possibility of error. Are we really to say that the category is worthy of deletion by its very name, and not the content of the articles to which it refers? I find this very puzzling. ---Charles 17:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I'd do the same for any "Human rights violations attributed to Insert X ideology" category. While I suspect the creation of the category was motivated by POV, de-populating the category had nothing to do with my POV. 172 | Talk 05:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 04:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many of these Americans wikiusers would embrace Category:Human rights violations attributed to communism? I would guess all of them. Further isn't the nominator of the delete supposed to contact the creator of this category? I just did. "Consider adding the article to your watchlist and letting the article's creator know that you have tagged it. You can use {{subst:PRODWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ for this." As per WP:PROD#Nominating_a_proposed_deletionTravb (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but perhaps you'd like to guess that I'm also a bad faith voter, although I'm a non-American who opposes human rights violations wherever they're from? Zaian 15:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I don't see anyone here as a bad faith voter. I don't see everyone here as an American, either. I have simply tangled with some of the above POV warriors before. Best wishes. (Notice how I did not support to keep this category, only to comment on its deletion)Travb (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose being hardline anti-communist isn't the only reason to oppose perjorative anti-communist labelling. Too many negatives, my head hurts... Zaian 16:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that this category could be valuable! Blacklists. McCarthy hearings, etc, are all undeniably human rights violations, and all are undeniably the result of an extreme reaction against real or imagined communism. And as Tjive observes above, this nomination seems to be for political motives. Perhaps even the sort of motive that requires this category to begin with? BenBurch 16:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong guy. --TJive 10:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CJK 19:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject area is notorious for POV conspiracy theory pushing. Calsicol 23:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can you please provide even one example to back up this accusation? If it is as notorious as you claim, you should be able to do so with no problem at all. ---Charles 04:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 02:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RN 06:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. Osomec 01:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per TJive's suggestion. ExRat 02:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
American people by ethnic or national origin[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
In an attempt to standardise categorisation of people by ethnic or national origin, the hyphen seems to be used in less than half of all these type of category names, almost all the corresponding articles like Norwegian American and List of Norwegian Americans use non-hyphenated titles. I propose that we being to rename all these type of articles to remove the hyphen, America has the most of these types of categories and seems like a good place to start.--Peta 02:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. Good way to go. Thanks Hmains 02:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose The hypen is correct. Cuban-American means American of Cuban descent. Cuban American among other things can mean half-Cuban, half-American; Cubans with American residency; someone with dual citizenship, and a number of other meanings. The hypen narrows down the meaning to indicate an American with another ethic origin. The non-hypenated version is ambiguous. (Writing Irish American rather than Irish-American is seen as a typographical faus pax.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The context you describe as incorrect is precisely how these categories are used, they are not used only to categorise Cuban-born Americans, but they are stuck on anyone that claims some vague kind of ethnicity.--Peta 03:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per FearÉIREANN. The is a difference. Too bad many U.S. schools don't teach this stuff in high schools any longer. 172 | Talk 04:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We either need two systems, one for expatriates ie. Category:Cuban-Americans and one for their decendents who still have Cuban ethnicity ie. Category:Cuban Americans, which would be a real pain, or we need to move them all to the non hyphenated form since that is the way that these categories are being used, see yesterdays FA Lindsay Lohan she is categoriesed as Category:Italian-Americans and as Category:Irish-American singers amongst other things, but she is not Italian-American or Irish-Amercian by the hyphenated ideal.--Peta 04:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Use hyphens across the board. There is zero chance of a double system being used with anything approaching accuracy. Delete all is also an acceptable option. Osomec 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all without hyphen. All the articles do NOT use hyphens (Polish American, Russian American, Scottish American, etc, etc). It is very important that categories be consistent with not only each other but also their related articles. --Musicpvm 05:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RenameOppose. Our Hyphenated American article says that "Current style guides most often recommend dropping the hyphen between the two names". The unhyphenated versions seem ugly to me personally, but I think we should follow authorities on usage. -- Avenue 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is factually wrong. Some style guides (usually American ones, usually reflecting the notoriously poor standard of English teaching in American schools — the standard is so poor Irish universities teaching American students now arrange remedial education classes for visiting American students to teach them the basics of grammar, syntax and spelling) advocate dropping hypens. Most international ones don't. This not an American encyclopaedia. If the planet does one thing, and Americans another, then it is the planet's rules, not American preferences, that take priority. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give sources? Anyway, we should follow American style on American topics. The Chicago Manual of Style (Table 6.1, 14th Ed. - see p56 here) says most such terms lack a hyphen, for example Japanese American and African American (but also Afro-American). -- Avenue 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose. Alan W makes a good point about the list including a mixture of adjectival and noun usage. -- Avenue 10:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The first word, i.e. German, in "German-American" is an adjective and the hyphen is required to make it a noun phrase. This is a basic tenet of English grammar and really isn't negotiable. •Jim62sch• 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The hyphen is required. BoojiBoy 23:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. We have been over this Three times already, and each time this has failed. How many times is this going to be nominated to be renamed? I oppose this merely for consistency - I REALLY wish we could come to a consensus about this. It makes absolutely NO sense to me to have a Category:French Americans and a Category:Serbian-Americans. I really wish this could be corrected either way. ExRat 02:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As with the other hyphen discussions on this page, I'd prefer to leave styling them alone until we've tried to settle a guideline or two about their use (and whether a bunch of them should be deleted). If they're useful, I'm thinking it ought to be that the category topic has already been established as culturally significant by external sources. That would match policy for ethnicgroup-subject subcategories as Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality#Special_subcategories. And, if and where so, we'd also see whether those external sources consistently use hyphens or not.--Mereda 15:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much better with the hyphen. Calsicol 23:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides agreeing with the reason Jim62sch gives above, I would note that the categories being considered are not even all of the same type. "Italian-Americans" is not the came case as "Italian-American cuisine". I could see arguing either way for "Italian-Americans", but "Italian-American cuisine" uses a compound adjective to modify a noun and should always retain the hyphen. There appear to be other factors in involved in naming some of these categories as well, including custom, and it may never be possible to agree on a rule that applies to all. I think that enforcing a pseudo-consistency would do more harm than just leaving these category names alone. --Alan W 03:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Rename to remove the hyphen.--Peta 01:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.
rename per nom. Good way to go. Thanks Hmains 02:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose The hypen is correct. See above. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per FearÉIREANN. 172 | Talk 03:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, but failing that oppose. Osomec 04:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all without hyphen per my comment above. --Musicpvm 05:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The first word, i.e. German, in "German-American" is an adjective and the hyphen is required to make it a noun phrase. This is a basic tenet of English grammar and really isn't negotiable. •Jim62sch• 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I also believe the hyphen to be grammatically correct. ExRat 02:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As with the other hyphen discussions on this page, I'd prefer to leave styling them alone until we've tried to settle a guideline or two about their use (and whether a bunch of them should be deleted). If they're useful, I'm thinking it ought to be that the category topic has already been established as culturally significant by external sources. That would match policy for ethnicgroup-subject subcategories as Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality#Special_subcategories. And, if and where so, we'd also see whether those external sources consistently use hyphens or not.--Mereda 15:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The naming conventions state "Exceptionally, where the commonly used English name for residents of a city is known globally, the category "Foocityers" may also be used to redirect towards People from Foocity" although I don't believe that Minneapolis can be said to be known "globally" nor would the term be known globally. Dismas|(talk) 00:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Modified nom, guess it should really be "Minneapolis, Minnesota" to make it more globally known and in cases where there may be more than one Minneapolis. Dismas|(talk) 01:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 04:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Mereda 15:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
\(caint) 01:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
