The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete or Rename - Two options. Either delete as a small category in favor of the template, as we've done with some other film series categories recently. Or, rename to Category:Halloween (franchise) both to match the lead article and to reflect that there are two separate Halloween film series (or three or possibly four, depending on how you count Season of the Witch and the films springing from H2O. Whatever folks decide is fine by me. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to Category:Halloween (franchise) to better match title of parent article. No rationalization is offered for deletion other than the arbitrary personal opinion that a template is somehow better. This is certainly not small and provides an aid to navigation across a set of articles united by a common defining characteristic. Per WP:CLN, we should be keeping categories AND lists AND templates, not improperly pitting them against each other based on personal biases. Alansohn (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't include the characters sub-cat because deletion of the parent was under consideration and including the sub-cat would have muddied that discussion. If/When this is renamed then the sub-cat can be nominated. I think "franchise" is clear enough (obviously) but if there needs to be an additional qualifier is should be (media franchise). Otto4711 (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename since I've heard no good reason for deletion. I suppose "franchise" is good enough and matches the article. -MrFizyx (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
I'm concerned that this is to broad a category. For example, in many parts of the United States, people would be delighted to have Oxeye Daisy growing in their yard, but I am holding a pamphlet in my hand right now that identifies it as an invasive species in Alaska. (see also [1]) Also the Northern Pike is considered a desirable sportfish in many places in the US, but is hated in Alaska because it eats our native salmon. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a renametoCategory:Lists of invasive species, leaving specific countries as possible subcats, since it is difficult to make blanket generalizations for the larger countries. These could be subdivided by region or state, there's a whole host of things they are trying to keep out of Hawaii... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Only article in category has the same title as the category and is a 2 line stub. Don't see how this category could ever expand. (Created April 09) thisisace (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If a plethora of articles on notable Priddys should arise in future then the category can be resurrected. Occuli (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These categories, all of which exclusively deal with popes of the Roman Catholic church, are all both underpopulated, having only a very few articles in them, and basically redundant to the List of Roman Catholic popes by nationality. In each case, use of other existing categories would keep the articles in each of the same field of categories, while eliminating the need for these categories which have no realistic opportunity of getting particularly larger in our lifetimes. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the key one, but if you look at "What links here" on the Polish category you will see a plethora of links, as this often cited as a classic case of the "wider scheme" rule. It was deleted in 2005 or so, but restored in 2006. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep to have the complete of such subcats in Category:Popes by nationality and in as means to navigate to the articles via a common characteristic. Lists and categories of same subject area can and do both exist and are allowed in WP. But, might they be better for this purpose if they were renamed in the style 'fooian Roman Catholic popes' and the parent category renamed Category:Roman Catholic popes by nationalityHmains (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's avoid that naming problem for now. As I understand it, they were simply Catholic before the Eastern split and then they became Roman Catholic. To split these categories by time frame would be OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I would only add that each of the categories included has, at most, six individual popes listed. Also, as each of these individuals can be and I believe is at least potentially included in one or more Roman Catholic clergy categories, simply including them in "Fooian Roman Catholic clergy" and "Popes" would achieve the same purposes. Also, the existing group of categories is itself not necessarily complete. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an effective aid to navigation through the nationality stricture. The notion that this should be deleted based on it being "redundant" with a corresponding list is in direct conflict with WP:CLN which advocates for the retention of lists AND categories as an aid to navigation and as a means to help build each other in synergistic fashion. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2009 '(UTC)
Keep - Why is this being proposed for deletion? This is quite encyclopedic. Please direct your energies to improving Wikipedia, not foiling navigation for our users. Badagnani (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment - Hear-hear Badagnani. The CfD section of Wikipedia has become extremely bizarre as of late, with all kinds of nominations and deletions which should have never taken place showing up here for no apparent reason and many actually getting unjustly deleted. --Wassermann (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People executed in effigie for treason against Poland[edit]
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.
How do you execute someone in effigy? It is common to say that one was hung in effigy, but executed? Maybe this is a US/UK thing? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Symbolic execution of convict sentenced to death is some kind of execution. In Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth de iure such people ceased to live... Mathiasrex (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I was just trying to fix a perceived spelling error. I don't think the category implies these people actually were killed, that's kind of the point of "killing" the effigy. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, and I agree on the latter category—maybe not a good fit. Perhaps all those "prisoner sentenced to death" categories need to be changed to "people sentenced to death". Or perhaps not. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of people are burned in effigy - most anti-globalization demonstrations have the major world leaders; being "executed in effigy" seems non-defining for the person and it can happen over and over again. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not defining and POV. How big of a crowd do you need to do this hanging for someone to be included in the category? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. If someone wants to try out a new name, feel free to create the category. The outcome here is without prejudice to a future discussion on the new name.Good Ol’factory(talk)00:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category makes it appear that Wikipedia is saying that there are acknowledged runestones in North America, and outside of Greenland there are none. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lord, no, please let us not introduce a "claimed" category! If these objects are identified in reliable sources as runestones then the category is fine. If they are not, then delete the category. I am a bit baffled by the nomination's reasoning that there are no "acknowledged" runestones in NA outside Greenland. Seems like a bit of a POV-push. "Acknowledged" by whom? Is there some organization or agency that has responsibility for certifying runestones? Otto4711 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The only POV being 'pushed' here is that of scholarly academic consensus in history, archaeology, anthropology and linguistics—ie, researchers and institutions whose job does involve the authentication of artefacts. As it happens, any research that claims these particular objects are genuine products of precolumbian Norse visitors, represents a distinctly tiny minority viewpoint. And per WP:UNDUE, "[v]iews that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views", an injunction that extends "not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, [and so on]".--cjllwʘTALK04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The RS are clear these are not genuine runestones (Iceland apart) but they are notable, and adequate categorization is needed of the articles we have. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, although open to the option of rename if some suitable, not-too-convoluted expression can be found, that makes it clearer these objects are more in the realm of pseudoarchaeology and wishful speculation. I can see there may be some utility in grouping these claimed objects together in some way, but a category may not be the best way to do it. A navobox perhaps? I dunno. I suppose the best option may be an article that describes these claims in an overall and survey-like sense. It would be much easier then to place a perspective on these claims that is proportionate to the manner in which such claims are viewed within the relevant fields of scholarship; something quite hard to achieve with a category. --cjllwʘTALK04:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those in favour of deletion should bear in mind that this is the primary category for these objects, which are otherwise not going to be notable (except for the Greenland one, which everybody seems to accept as a genuine runestone). Under WP:CAT every article should be categorised in its primary category. And not another navbox please! Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Things widely-disbelieved, fringe science, or even things totally false, still have a place on Wikipedia. See bigfoot, or category:cryptids, for examples of things that do, and should, be addressed here.
Hold on. Cryptids and Bigfoot are by definition considered to be legendary and likely bogus. Runestones are quite real. The problem is this particular category would make things that reliable scholars don't consider to be runestones - to actually be runetones. This cat would lend credibility to something which scholars dispute, and i don't think it is something an encyclopaedia should do. If the reliable sources don't consider these things to be 'runestones' then wikipedia shouldn't either. So the 'undue' comment above makes sense to me. It'd be misleading to have this category in my opinion. Delete.--Celtus (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we have the articles we should have a proper way of categorizing them, not leaving them isolated in location categories. Your comments are true as far as the current name goes, but not my suggested rename above. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment How about naming the category "runic writing in the americas" - the rune stones are obviously runestones - they are just not ancient. I think naming the category runic writing would make possible the inclusion of all notable instances of the runic alphabet being used in the americas - whether by vikings or by people producing a hoax.·Maunus·ƛ·14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could go with that also - I'm completely sure there should be a category, which nobody has really argued against, & am happy to accept any reasonable rename. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about the Vérendrye Runestone? It no longer exists, there are no copies of it, so we have no idea of what was really on it. Or the Viking Altar Rock which seems to have no runes at all on it (hm, the article says that it was an altar like the Kensington Runestone, whoever claimed the KR was an altar?). Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category does not mean anything.
Zimbabwean billionaires? In what currency?
In Zim$ then everybody in that country is a billionaire.
In South African Rands? Maybe
In US$, probably not.
In Euro, probably not. FFMG (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the only occupant was Mugabe, whose wealth is not mentioned in his article. (Category:Billionaires has rather bizarre inclusion criteria; the currency seems to be whatever you prefer.) Occuli (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jewish fraudsters and all sub-categories in Category:Jews by occupation[edit]
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, but only for this category. Of the sample of the other categories that I checked they were not nominated so that can not be deleted based on current consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Without opining on the legitimacy of the other Category:Fraudsters by nationality, I would point out that this one is not a nationality, and is fundamentally racist. There is no category for other races or religions, nor ought there to be. Someone WP:BOLDer than me could nominate this for speedy as an attack page. Bongomatic12:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I tend to agree that Jewish is not a nationality, those who hold the opposite view have got it their way at Wikipedia, as we do categorize Jews by occupation. You should move to have that higher level category along with all its sub-categories deleted, it's wrong to single out the fraudsters category just because some people don't like the fact that there are Jewish fraudsters as well. Your argument is equally valid for Category:Jewish inventorsorCategory:Jewish actors. BirgerOJ (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree the categorization is out of step with the remaining categories in the Fraudsters by nationality breakdown and have said as much here. --ponyo (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment although "Jewish" is not a nationality but rather an ethnicity, we do have a few "Occupation by ethnicity" categories. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As we all so far agree, Jewish is not a nationality. I also note a tendency with religious categories, particularly anything to do with Jews, to put people in categories no matter what religion they say they profess, but that's a side issue. As for the occupation categories, don't we have guidelines for such intersections? Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just found this edit [2] - I'm a bit concerned about the editor, and I note that at least one other editor has noted similar concerns on his talk page.[3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
Comment I agree that creating a category to highlight a particular ethnicity when connected with fraud appears to be racist. However we have several occupation by ethnicity etc categories as mentioned above. Also, as we agree that Jewish is not a nationality, can we also agree that African-American is not a nationality and update those categories to jut American? Would we object to categories such as Jewish writers, Jewish politicians, American white collar criminals, etc? Also agree that BeganLogal has an anti NPOV agenda, but that doesn't invalidate arguments in favour of keeping the page by itself. The interesting issue here is that Jews are an ethnicity as well as a race, so it isn't quite the same as "Catholic fraudsters" - I think it may be relevant to some fraudsters to include in a category, the same as we may have "Jewish bankers", "Jewish writers", etc. If fraudster is not an occupation, why categories such as "American (Fraudster| money launderer | perjurer)"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.34.132 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the intersection of "Jewish" and "fraudster" is not a matter of encyclopedic interest. There is no encyclopedic relationship between Judaism and committing fraud. Otto4711 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As my category, I ought to defend it. It makes an interesting point. Before making any decisions to delete the category lets decide what are acceptable categories which mention nationality, race, or ethnic origin in connection with a profession or otherwise. Fraudster isn't a profession and I'm troubled that we allow fraudster categories for almost every other group than Jews. Do we really need "American white collar criminals" or "Irish perjurers"? I can see how "Jewish fraudsters" sounds inflammatory, however on closer analysis so are other categories. Perhaps we could just limit the categories to professions rather than crimes - Jewish authors, American film stars, etc? 22:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs)
Not sure I see the connection between whether it is a nationality or an ethnicity / race (this latter distinction is widely debated, but I'm not aware of any serious debate about whether it is a nationality). There are lots of categories of people by profession or activity that are ethnicity- / race-based but not nationality-based (see Category:Kurdish comediansCategory:Persian astrologersorCategory:Palestinian Anglican priests for a few examples.
As to what's an NPOV violation or not, you're selecting on the wrong variable. Are there "fraudster" categories for the majority of nationalities and ethnicities and races? If so, then having Jewish fraudsters would possibly be appropriate and deleting it would possibly be NPOV. However, there are not, despite the obvious fact that virtually all nationalities, ethnicities, and races have their share of fraudsters. So the singling out of one ethnicity / race for a category along these lines is an NPOV violation, not the deletion of such category. Bongomatic00:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's those who want to make an exception to delete this category while keeping other categories under Jews by occupation or Fraudsters who are singling out one issue and attempting to violate NPOV. It seems to me that some people think it's fine to treat Jews like a nationality as long as they can list up Jewish inventors, scientists, actors, Nobel Prize laureates and so on, but when it comes to Jews known for less noble activities, they use different rules. This category is valid by definition because Category:Fraudsters and Category:Jews by occupation exist. There need to be one policy on whether Jews are to be treated as a nationality. If not, this category along with Jewish actors etc. can be deleted. But this category cannot be deleted while keeping the other similar categories. BirgerOJ (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish on at least two counts:
First, this has nothing to do with whether it is a nationality (it is not--what "nation" would it be—do you think Israel? How many people in "Jewish x" categories are Israeli? About 0%). Read the definition of "nationality" in any dictionary. Note there's nothing wrong with categories of people by ethnic or racial background.
Second, as stated above, you are making a basic statistical error. If you look at common categories, such as "actor" or "criminal" (hundreds), you will see representation of lots of national, ethnic, or racial classifications. If you look at very uncommon category types, such as "fraudster" you will see some potential attempts to be encyclopedic and some obvious indications of bias. Bongomatic13:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say, but if it's "nothing wrong with categories of people by ethnic or racial background", then it can't be anything wrong with this category. Category:Japanese fraudsters, Category:German fraudsters and Category:Greek fraudsters are also ethnic categories since these are all ethnicities as well. If this category is deleted, I think the other fraudsters categories should be deleted as well. BirgerOJ (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable enough to me—"fraudster" categories are so sparse as to lead to a presumption of bias. Nominate them. I nominated this one for that reason and because I happened upon it. Go nominate the others. Bongomatic16:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Upmerge to Category:Surnames/Category:Names, as appropriate. After reading this entire discussion numerous times, a few points are evident. (1) A fair number of users like these categories and find them useful; (2) there are some major problems with these by-country categories as they have been implemented (there is no need for me to go through all of the problems here again, but suffice it to say I find the problems far more persuasive in this case than any reasons that were given for keeping the by-country structure); (3) there is probably a better system we can develop for sub-categorizing surnames. The proposal floated by cjllw is one possibility for revising this structure, but honestly it's a little too complicated for me as the closer to implement in this close. I could be at it for weeks if I attempted it. So all the names will be kept in ‹The templateCat is being considered for merging.›Category:Surnames, and I encourage users to begin organizing these in a way that makes more sense. I'm not going to dictate how exactly that is done—whether cjllw's system should be implemented or not is still an open question—but I suggest anyone who wants to begin considering this should at least mention their proposal at Category talk:Surnames before users start making categories. (This is just a suggestion, of course. Ultimately, you can all do what you like.) Note that some of these categories may well have to be re-created if it's later determined that they conform to the agreed-to system. Some final points: the previous information is not lost by upmerging—if you want to figure out what surnames were previously in a by-country category, just refer to Cydebot's contributions for this day, where the contents of categories will all be upmerged consecutively. The history page of a particular article will also indicate what category it was upmerged from. Also remember that any categorization of a surname should be supported by appropriate sources as noted in the article, blah, blah, blah.Good Ol’factory(talk)01:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many were created during the debate, often after it became obvious the Fooian names were being deleted. In effect, many are a recreation of deleted material.
Keep These are informative lists based on a logically way to break up Category:Surnames (And this tree in fact is not a recreation of any kind as about half of this list has been around long before last week.) Mayumashu (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the glass half full or half empty? Many created during the last few weeks include "names" made after the "Fooian names" had been nominated.... Added here as they were found. And "surnames" that are virtually identical to "names" that were deleted. Sadly, it's true that new categories can be spammed out much faster than we can delete them. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, created by me, and I m the one who nominated Fooian names for deletion (actually an upmerge so not to strand the links). Fooian names needed to go because it was serving next to no purpose, housing just these and Fooian given names. The fooian surnames tree needs work - are we talking origin or not, and if we are we need to rename. (I don t see the problem, myself, with a non-origin, actual, list, even if it is a phone-book type for the States and a few other countries where citizens have disparate surnames, as most countries do not have such huge lists. But I know that s almost certainly a minority view.) Mayumashu (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - names are not and cannot be bounded by language, ethnicity, culture or heritage in any meaningful way. As soon as one Fooian person is given or adopts a name, it becomes a "Fooian name". This simply doesn't work as a categorization scheme. Otto4711 (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, agree that this is totally unworkable and undefinable. How to classify surnames I don't know but this is an impossible way of doing it. Drawn Some (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – I doubt if there is any useful way of subcatting Category:Surnames. It is not of interest to know whether a Smith (say) has ever been resident in Luxemborg (say). Category:English surnames - "This page lists surnames found amongst English people, both traditionally and contemporarily"; and yet there are only 900 of them. It's an impossible task. Occuli (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nom has now added a large number which are not 'by country', eg Category:Flemish surnames. I am certainly in favour of deleting 'surnames which appear in the white pages of Foo'; but 'Flemish surnames' is completely different. Occuli (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whomever did the original categorization(s) intermixed various sorts. In this case, many European countries are either in Surnames by country, or European surnames, or both. Obviously, Estonian is now a country, as are most of the others under "European" that are not under "by country". But I was surprised that Norwegian surnames weren't considered from a country (or even European) for these purposes. It's really only a mishmash of random junk. And that's a nice unofficial reason for tossing them all! BTW: why do you value Flemish more than Belgian? --William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But then we have the issue of the source of the name which can not be well documented in a category. Maybe in a list, but not a category. What country is the source of a name from the Slavic regions? Is it Poland, Russia? What about a Polish name that was created to appear as a Russian name? The you have the issue of Bosnia and Herzegovina surnames, actually the contents there are rather interesting. Why are they combined? Are we saying that over history, these are in fact all of the same origin? The more you look the more questions and problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On first sight you seem to have an argument here, but actually the subject of surnames is so vitally interesting to so many, that you can find very precise sourced geographic origins for mostly all surnames. Debresser (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As we learned in the previous nomination (many/most of these are recreations), these are not "precise sourced geographic origins" [sic]. Proof by assertion is not good argument. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh dear. I've just looked at the sentence at the top of Category:New Zealand surnames. "This page lists surnames found amongst citizens of New Zealand." As New Zealand citizens have ethnic origins from all parts of the globe, this means that the vast majority of surnames from the other categories will also have to be here. Doesn't this fact alone destroy the point of subcatting in the first place? It also implies that there are a lot of surname stub articles that will have to be written so that these subcategories can be correct/accurate. This then leads me inevitably to WP:NOT. So let's not even let this train leave the station. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are indeed no surnames originating in New Zealand, then that category should be deleted, but there are surnames originating in Poland, Holland, England, Ireland, and a lot of other lands, all very well documentated. Debresser (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we want a way to categories the origin of names then we should give these categories an appropriate name. Category:New Zealand surnames seems to me, and i assume just about everyone else, to mean all names found in New Zealand. It makes no mention of origins. IMO it is pretty much pointless having cats for names used in countries. I think making origin cats is a good idea, because we can get refs for this kind of thing. The problem with this discussion is that people have varying ideas on what these country cats are really are for. That kinda kills the whole point of a category.--Celtus (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep and expand all the articles: I really can't understand Why there is a person that thinks to delete all these academic useful pages better. These pages are not disambiguation, but academic articles about all of the names. --Cmaric (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing deleting the categories not the articles in the categories. Oh yea, and Delete I say. We live in a global society, several of these categories, in fact all of them from the Americas, strike me as ridiculous, as most surnames in those regions come from other places. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - may we please keep this enormous list collapsed as is fairly standard practice for nominations of this size for the convenience of not having to scroll past it? Otto4711 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the html you keep inserting says something about collapsing, but it doesn't work (MacOSX, Firefox) and centers the list on the page (making it very hard to read), and removes the bullets (destroys the listing). Perhaps you are using the wrong html.... --William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The templates you are using now are better. It still doesn't collapse anything (apparently, I'd need JavaScript turned on), but it doesn't mangle the entries anymore. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surnames in west Asian and North African societies (perhaps excluding Israel) can tell a lot about the persons. They are social markers, give ethnic and sectarian origins. Useful for people interested in this region. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is nothing that limits those names only to people who are a part of west Asian or north African societies. And even if there were, a bare alphabetical listing of names can impart no information about anyone's social status or ethnic origins. Otto4711 (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the traditional salami-slicing approach at CfD usually involves chopping off a twig and then using that result to demand that all other branches must be lopped off in sequence, here we have gone straight for cutting down the entire well-structured tree, without bothering to leave a stump. This is exactly how information on surnames should be organized and I could hardly imagine a more effective means of organization. Deletion of these dozens of categories leaves Wikipedia and its readers far worse off with the complete elimination of the ability to navigate through surnames using the category structure. Alansohn (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The few that I recognized are especially famous Ukrainian musicians. Presumably, you are referring to the Greater Russian Empire; but believe me, you wouldn't want to say something like that in my neighborhood near the Ukrainian cultural center.... --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very common Russian names, but also common (due to former conquests or intermarriage) among people that adamantly don't consider themselves Russian. Are you trying to start a riot? (I'm sensitive to the issue after performing so many times under the great Estonian American orchestral conductor, Neeme Jarvi, during his long tenure in Detroit.) Why include obviously English transliterations of Russian(ized) variants of other national origins, such as Estonian, Molodovan, or Ukrainian? Why include Prokofiev, which lists Ukrainian, Czech, Slovenian, Croatian, Hungarian, Slovak, Polish, Serbian, and Bulgarian variants — what makes it of Russian origin (unlikely, and certainly not verified by a reliable source)? Why include Jewish names such as Abramowicz, Barad, Lapin (removed), etc? This is a prime example of the problems with these categories — hopelessly tangled! --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YOu learned nothing in the previous nom. There was just a set of opinions, not particularly substantiated. (Most people didn't see this page since categories are seldom on many watchlishs.) Quite often the origin of a surname is very well known. You cannot nominate all of them in one huge heap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenmann (talk • contribs) 2009-06-08 23:10:25 (UTC)
Keep generally, though as there are currently no Maori surnames in the New Zealand category, this could go, as should similar colonial ones with no indigenous names. "Originating in" is the approach to take, and perhaps worth renaming to. What exactly is the objection to Category:Roman surnames? It should be renamed Category:Ancient Roman surnames, but otherwise seems fine. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These categories are terribly useful to writers! To make categorization simpler it could be surnames originating from, or surnames in common use in, a country. - 07:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoccoWasHere (talk • contribs) — RoccoWasHere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - One would think that American names would be a misnomer. However Native American names and names that have had their spelling changed to be pronounced phoenetically in English are if not in the hundreds of thousands are most certainly in the thousands. Maori surnames originated in New Zealand probably. Williamb (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These categorisations may look suspicion because they are wrongly classified: the surnames are classified not by country but by culture (language, ethnicity, etc.). Inclusion into category:United States surnames would require quite serious refs to justify that the surname in question originated in the U.S., but category:Lithuanian surnames in 100% recognizable. - Altenmann >t23:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative closure The nominator has added new categories in the middle of the discussion that - although related - can not be discussed together with the previous categories. Debresser (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, and stop casting aspersions. It simply took a long time to complete the nomination by hand (more than 12 hours), and the daily log (UTC) rolled over. A placeholder was placed on tomorrow's page, referring the discussion back here. All was done correctly, or at least to the best of my admittedly human capabilities. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOT#Directory, these are basically phone book dissections of no use to anyone. If I find a Mr. Fujikawa in my local phone book in California - I'll assume that Fujikawa is an American name, perhaps those who'd have liked to send him to Manzanar would think otherwise. Apparently, none of these names can demonstrably be uniquely limited to the countries/races/ethnicities they are classified in rendering this an exercise in futility as well as basically a huge blot on the accuracy of Wikipedia. Suarez is an American name, by the way. It probably is also a Mexican name, Ecuadorian name, Nicaraguan name, Spanish name, British name, and with the EU us Suarezes are probably in at least 20 other countries in Europe alone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize Surnames categories. These should be maintained, but reorganized and renamed. Remove Categories that list surnames found in or common in or seen in the natives of different nexus countries like the U. S. and N. Z. and Australia, and organize names and surnames into categories such as: "Surnames Culturally Originating from Germany" or "Names Culturally Originating from Germany." Just as examples. The basic concept of the categories is a good one, but by the same token, they need to be reorganized and any kind of category for countries that are cultural melting pots should be limited to the earliest inhabitants or native inhabitants: for instance, there should be no "Category:United States Surnames" but there SHOULD be "Category:North American Surnames" listing, if applicable, surnames of the tribal peoples such as the Cherokee or the Lakota who were here before European settlers arrived. The same for "Category:United States Forenames" - that would be unrealistic, but, by the same token, "North American Forenames" should be a category and one which lists by tribe first names known to be used by them - such as, for example, Powhatan (uncertain of spelling), Pocahontas, and Sitting Bull. - Ophelia Alexiou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ophelia Alexiou (talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC) — Ophelia Alexiou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep : Obviously, surnames is a huge category and some sort of sub-divisions are essential for easy retrieval. This may not be the best method of sorting, but does allow people to access information by known point of origin. I'm glad to see the topic of reoganiztion under discussion. WBardwin (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - all (or nearly all) countries, cultures, and racial/ethnic groups around the world have surnames which have their genesis among and/or are common/unique to a particular country, culture, or ethnic/racial group. User:Otto471 is totally incorrect above when he wrote that "names are not and cannot be bounded by language, ethnicity, culture or heritage in any meaningful way." That false statement is downright absurd and strikes me as profoundly disingenuous. --Wassermann (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy enough to claim that there is a way for names to be so bounded. How about offering up some proof of that? Can you give us some examples of names that can be used by one and only one language, ethnicity, culture or heritage? Otto4711 (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's late in the day for this particular CFD, but would like to suggest a 3-stage process. (1)Rename the head category ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Surnames by countryto‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Surnames by linguistic origins, ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Surnames by language origin, or even ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Surnames by language. (2) Next, go through all the subcats and repurpose/rename to ensure they are focussed on linguistic, instead of nationalistic, usage. (3) Delete those subcats that are country/political containers only, eg Australian surnames, Peruvian surnames, Belgian surnames, Cameroonian surnames, etc etc. My reasoning:Anthroponymy and onomastics are generally if not properly considered as branches in philology, which is to say they are areas of research within the field of linguistics. Linguistic subdivision makes a whole lot more sense than doing so by modern political entity, which in many cases are essentially historically arbitrary divisions (think of post-colonialism) that do not map onto homogenous cultural/linguistic ones. If there is any encyclopaedic value and interest in having surname articles at all, it surely is in the philological information that can be sourced and described for that name—and not whether or not there exists some citizen of a country bearing that name. It should be evident that just about any permutation of surname–citizenship to a country is possible, so having categories (some explicitly stating) where "This page lists surnames found amongst citizens of Foo" is next-to-useless, both as a navigational aide and as providing any info at all on the naming conventions of a country. Indeed, thanks to migration and diasporas quite a few surnames, like Nguyen, Patel, Wang, Murphy & so on would by rights need to be assigned to practically every ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Surnames by country subcat. By the same token, if they were ever to be conscientiously populated then most Fooian country surnames subcats would end up containing hundreds, if not thousands of entries, many of them in common. The days are long gone when a sovereign political entity ("country") had a citizenry drawn exclusively from one unified & discrete linguistic/ethnic community, if indeed those days were ever really here at all. While a handful of countries have conventions or even laws about personal names, I think it would be highly problematic to determine any objective and verifiable criteria to limit a country's category to names that supposedly 'belong to' or 'originate from' that country (and remember, most modern-day countries did not exist, even 200 years ago, in their present form leastways). In summary, (sub-)categorising surnames along linguistic lines is much more verifable and ties more closely to actual philological research and data, than does doing so by country where in most instances there is no meaningful relationship. The surname articles themselves are the place to go into the finer points about distribution, ethnic/cultural/national distinctions; the category system cannot hope to do this. There could still be a ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Surnames by culture for articles specifically addressing particular cultural anthroponomic conventions and practices. But this is one of the—unfortunately common—instances where by country categorisation makes little sense or has practical use. --cjllwʘTALK07:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support of the above by CJLL Wright. Hopefully people who have voted already will read your comment. IMO, it seems people here that voted 'keep' are roughly thinking of the 'origins' of the names, and not whether people actually bear those names in countries today. So to get rid of the confusion we ought to have cats that are more specific, usefull and encyclopaedic. No point having vague and unverifiable cats.--Celtus (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. A nice idea but the opposers will have strong reasons against it. First, what about names common to groups of languages/culture, especially the conflicting cultures? I see another wikifight for hijacking "our" names, more Greco-Macedonian tug of war etc. What about apparently Jewish names made along the patterns of other languages? etc. NVO (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, some surnames may have indeterminate linguistic etymologies, or be claimed for more than one linguistic origin (like a few regular words). And proposed solution prob won't completely eliminate linguistic chauvinism or rival disputes; but these are usually only between 2 or 3 parties (Serb/Croat/Bosnian, Romanian/Moldovan, etc) & should be managable, either by having category higher-up the 'language tree', or assigning those 'shared' entries to 2-3 categories. But you wouldn't need to place entries in 60, 80, or 100+ by country subcategories, which is what some common surnames would demand if we accept the by country cat scheme here to mean "surname is held by some citizen, nay any citizen of Foo, at any point in time"—like a few of the categories' descriptions do exactly that. And the smaller number of involved cases like 'Jewish surnames' that do not easily fit in to a purely language-based scheme, there would still be ‹The templateCategory link is being considered for merging.›Category:Surnames by culture. People with Jewish surnames are spread around the globe just as much as about any other, so the by country scheme would work even less for these (if applied consistently, which it clearly isn't). --cjllwʘTALK09:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Next to no support for the above. What is unverifiable is many to most assertions that a particular appellation of a surname originated in a particular country or culture or within a certain language(, and, with some such assertions, that the name is thereby not from another place or language.) Expanding on points raised by User:NVO, I even wonder how many books and articles published in the field of name origins are peer-reviewed objectively across cultures (and not just within a culture). (How many researchers, say, examining names of a particular cultural origin do not have ties with and nothing invested into that culture? Otherwise, what would motivate them to research such a trivial matter?) I see, contrarily, the only specific, accurate, clear, and verifiable list that can be done to be by country according to proof that someone with that particular country's citizenship has had that name, and this is easily and straightforwardly done by listing people with wikipedia biographies on that page, firstly, and, secondly, by providing a source that a person of a particular name and citizenship has existed. Such cat pages would be long and phone-book like (and rather trivial for some for a country like the U.S.) but clear, accurate, and utterly verifiable. (If such a list is deemed too trivial, then delete is the best option.) Mayumashu (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are muddling up 'language' and 'culture'. There are countless reliable books on the etymology of surnames published by university presses. They show how the name evolved over time, from it's root, to the present form. It about language. IMO the 'culture' thing will just cause problems; and it's obvious from this whole discussion no-one really knows what these 'country' cats are suppose to mean. The categorising names by their linguistic origins is easily verifiable and encyclopaedic.--Celtus (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rather the whole point of onomastic and philological studies is to trace and demonstrate linguistic origins and affiliations, so I don't see it would be problematic at all to verify. Philological sources that are also WP:RS and WP:V are not hard to find. In practical terms we're not generally dealing with obscure/uncommon surnames here, the ones we have articles on are usually put together because they are common and function sorta like a disambig page. --cjllwʘTALK09:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prune -- Some surnames are characteristic of particular European or other countries. However, American, New Zealand, etc categories should be pruned of anything except Native American and Maori surnames respecively. Colonisers' surnames need to be expunged. There may well be cases with multiple origins: Lee could be English or Chinese, but Patel is likely to be Indian, and O'Connor and Murphy Irish. This is not something that the closing Admin can be expected to do. Accordingly, Procedural keep and renominate in appropriate batches. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to one category that is working. I have a Patel in my department, he was born in Indiana (a US state coincidently close to the name India, but close doesn't make Letterman or Mellencamp an Indian name either) and is certainly American not Indian - never been there, not from there, can't even speak an official Indian language, save English. Yes, that's OR, but.... so are these categories and your rather broad observation about "origins" - since we have lots of people "from" places that their names aren't from and vice versa. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent example! Patel is only in the Indian category, despite being the 45th or whatever most common surname in the UK (2nd most common in India). I wonder if your colleague is as ready to minimize his heritage as you suggest. These categories should be about origin, not current occurence. That "we have lots of people "from" places that their names aren't from and vice versa" is supremely beside the point. Johnbod (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you understand that these are by country - that's what the head category is. So your OR says that at the partition of the subcontinent there were no Patels in what is now Bangladesh or Pakistan - what sources do you have to support that bold proposition. (which can quickly be disproven by example: Dorab Patel). Shouldn't Patel be - at least in your view - in those categories because no doubt it originated pre-split and we have at least one notable Pakistani of the name. Of course, our Patels at WP seem to come from all over: a quick scan showed UK, Kenya, New Zealand for starters. It's this mistaken falsities of saying Patel is uniquely Indian that this category structure perpetuates. It's got to go - you couldn't have picked a better best shot to show that these cats are OR, Subjective, not verifiable, and just plain FALSE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So pre-Partition India isn't India?? Is that what you're saying? I'd have no great objection to the Bangladeshi & Pakistani categories being added, although the name is most associated with Gujerat. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say so, Wikipedia does: look at India, which starts out:『India, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: भारत गणराज्य Bhārat Gaṇarājya; see also other Indian languages), is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. ...It is bordered by Pakistan to the west...』If that's prepartition India, things are really confused over there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see Aaronson is an English surname in the appropriate subcategory, and can be found in a dictionary of surnames. Verifiable but not meaningful. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am thoroughly opposed to deleting the topics regarding surnames from specific countries. As a writer it is important for me to know what I am writing about and it would be rather obnoxious to give a French doctor a last name like Perez. I find these categories extremely helpful and I am sure that I am not the only one. User:68.0.143.11 Moved this comment from log for 12 June. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)— 68.0.143.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Except that based on these categories you would be able to use Smith for that character. I'll also note that based on the criteria for inclusion in the category, we could add Perez to the category if it has an article. So I don't believe that this would be a good tool for you. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I wonder what actual French doctors called Perez would make of their surname being described as an 'obnoxious' one for a French citizen to have. Doctors like, Bernard Pérez (1836-1903), French physician and neonatal specialist after whom the Perez reflex (the normative response to a reflex test used to see if there is potential brain damage or nervous abnormality in newborn infants) is named. Author of The First Three Years of Childhood, a noted neonatal medical text in the late 19thC[4]. Seems to me that Perez would be quite an illustrious name for a French physician....--cjllwʘTALK04:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Beeswaxcandle I am offended by your comment which seems racist - do you have problems with people named Perez not doing your lawn or cleaning your pool? Perez is a fine name for a doctor, French or not. Your comment - undoubtedly encouraged by Wikipedia's obsession with race - is offensive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UpmergetoCategory:Surnames based on the discussion and the unconvincing replies for the keep position. Note to closer, it appears that we have a few single purpose accounts participating in the discussion so that needs to be accounted for in any decision. Clearly this discussion raises many issues with these categories. A complete redo is needed with a pracitical focus for the categories and not simply being used in a country. Clearly that is not defining in any way, shape or form. An upmerge preserves any articles in the trees that would be lost if the category was simply deleted. While there may be a few categories that could justify existence, especially if the inclusion criteria was tightened, cleanup would probably be much easier with a blank slate, so well reasoned recreations with more specific criteria is not grounds for an immediate speedy delete. So I agree with the prune and reorganize opinions. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a technical matter, the upmerge would be done by removing these categories from the {{surname}} template. Then, we'd handle those that didn't use the proper template. So, we'd be ready for a fresh start. I'm somewhat inclined toward the lingistic derivation suggestion, rather than raw "nationality" or "ethnicity". As long as those can be kept out, we're probably OK on ethnic conflicts, etc. But we can only wait and see! --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any favouritism is involved here, Russavia. It's probably merely because cat:Ukrainian surnames is not arranged as a direct subcategory of cat:Surnames by country, whereas cat:Russian surnames is. The only current parent category for Cat:Ukrainian surnames is cat:Slavic surnames; other similar subcats of Slavic surnames like cat:Montenegrin surnames have not been nominated either, although cat:Slavic surnames itself has been. I believe that the intention would be to include subcats of nominated categories, in the overall deletion/upmerge/repurpose discussion. --cjllwʘTALK03:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I spent more than 12 hours last weekend trying to track down all these categories, those that aren't in the country tree itself were missed. Category:Ukrainian surnames was mis-categorized more than 3 levels down. When did Ukraine become a regional Slavic ethnicity, not a country? (Yet Flemish was listed as a country?) After these are deleted, I'll do my best to find any others that were missed, too. Thanks for bringing this one to our attention! --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Are you kidding me? I have found these categories to be extremely useful in the past. They in no way violate Wiki guidelines or the purpose of an online encyclopedia. If some surnames are shared by two or more cultures, so be it! Then categorize them under all the said cultures. I'm sorry to be so candid about this, but I think this is an incredibly stupid idea.--Pericles of AthensTalk03:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you meant delete, as these are all currently "by nationality"? Nobody is talking about deleting the surname articles themselves. Categorizing them by culture (rather by language) makes more sense to me. But deleting these categories would be the first step. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested that the articles themselves would be deleted. Also, there is some flaw in your logic about "nationality" and "culture", as certain cultures can be associated with the nation itself. Your request of a blanket deletion for all of these categories would have categories like Category:French surnames deleted. France is a nation, while the culture associated with it is "French". So no, I did not mean "delete", I meant what I said when I typed "Srong keep". Get it?--Pericles of AthensTalk20:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!. Instead of deleting all, delete the unneeded, non-ethnic categories such as American, Australian, New Zeel-ish etc. and re-categorize the articles to their real ethnic or linguistic origin! --User:Nexm0d .16 June 2009.
Perhaps you meant delete, as these are all currently "by nationality"? There is another category for "by ethnicity", and there is a proposal that these should be "by language". That makes more sense to me. But deleting these categories would be the first step. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSER: many of the keeps are of the WP:USEFUL variety, and some are basically racist like User:Beeswaxcandle's who would use these categories in writing fiction so as not to name a French doctor "Perez", despite their being an eminent French doctor so named. Let's not encourage inaccuracy and reward racism here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos, you will find my actual thoughts about this much higher up in the discussion on 7 June. None of the keep arguments have dissuaded me from my original thoughts that these categories should be deleted. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not of the flawed WP:USEFUL variety, because the defense of these categories falls in line with Wikipedia's guidelines for what an encyclopedia should include. Like WP:USEFUL says, lists of phone numbers are arguably useful in everyday life, but not useful for an encyclopedia. How could you possibly make this comparison with an encyclopedic categorization of surnames and their national origins? I think you need a better argument if you are going to debase the arguments of all those here as merely WP:USEFUL.--Pericles of AthensTalk20:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repurpose relating to origin of the name, not the countries where it is currently found. Consider new nomination to rename accordingly. Depopulate where articles have been added according to where names are found. Ask WikiProject Anthroponymy to take the lead. Comment: it may cast doubt on some parties' good faith that the lead WikiProject for these articles was not notified before yesterday; that in itself militates against deletion this time around. - Fayenatic(talk)22:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic, can't say for sure, but I'd rather suspect the reason for 'late' direct notification to the anthroponomy project is more to do with nobody previously realising such a wikiproject even existed. Up until a few days ago when I posted the notice on the project's talkpg, I had no idea there was one. There's no project banner on the nominated category, for eg. In any case, glad that interested parties from that project wld be prepared to do the heavy lifting in making something more sensible from this whole category scheme. Personally, I'd recommend "origin of name" to be organised by linguistic origin, and not national or ethnic origin. Dunno what you guys wld intend. Cheers, --cjllwʘTALK09:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One day when I have access to AWB I will tag the surviving categories with the project banner. Linguistic rather than national origin is certainly my own inclination, and I would expect that to be agreed by consensus within the Wikiproject. It's regrettable that the head categories for names by language were simply deleted last week rather than upmerged to words by language; I may take that to WP:DRV for permission to re-create the linguistic ones. - Fayenatic(talk)16:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that although he has argued "keep" above, user Mayumashu actively devalued some of these categories by adding articles according to residence rather than origin, e.g. Abineritocategory:English surnames, despite being requested to desist on his talk page. He then nominated the Fooian names categories for deletion, not even upmerging to Fooian words and phrases. - Fayenatic(talk)20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grounds for an article but not for a category. You are also misunderstanding how these categories are used. In is not for indigenous names but simply for names found in a country. Even if one could show that we should keep this category, deleting and repopulating with indigenous names would be the way to go. The current contents of most of these would be useless if the inclusion criteria was tightened. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP. Essential categories. Study of Fooian surnames in its morphological and semantic aspects is a standard subject; there are hundreds of monographs on onomastics of different countries. Just to give an easy example: the ref list to Unbegaun's monograph "Russian surnames" (sic!) is 10 pages. Henry Merrivale (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, Uruguayan surnames are so important because no Uruguayan has a surname that exists elsewhere, ditto Swiss, ditto all of the above. These are perpetuations of innacuracy if kept they should be populated by any occurrence because it would be OR to say someone's surname doesn't belong to where he/she is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to believe that the cat Fooian surnames is for surnames which can be found in Fooian phone directory (provided there are phones in Foo). That is simply not the case. Category Fooian surnames is for Fooian language surnames. Probably the source of the confusion is incorrect umbrella category: Surnames by country.Henry Merrivale (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the confusion/misapprehension of actual category use that this nomination is trying to address. As Carlos, Vegaswikian, WAS & others have been noting, the present scheme is not actually set up or generally used as meaning "Fooian language names", but "Foo (country) names", a la a phone directory (of sorts). Some of these subcats even explicitly say so, eg ‹The templateCat is being considered for merging.›Category:Australian surnames: "This page lists surnames found amongst citizens of Australia". Clearly, Australian, Cameroonian, Uruguayan, American, Canadian, Moroccan, Nigerian, Honduran, Singaporean, etc etc surnames subcats are not "Fooian language name" cats. The proposal here is to get away from "by country" and towards something much more sensible and justifiable, philologically-speaking, ie "by language/linguistic origin(s)". --cjllwʘTALK09:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and support the proposal to scrap category:surnames by country and categories like American, Canadian, Australian, etc. But I am not at all sure and convinced that smth like category:Russian surnames needs to be renamed into category: Russian language surnames. It sounds very awkward, doesn't it? and counter to the standard (academic) use. As an example, as I mentioned before, there are many monographs with titles like "Fooian surnames". Umbrella category should probably be category: surnames by language. In other categories clear explanations of what goes into category should be added to avoid future confusion.Henry Merrivale (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People in the history of Worcestershire[edit]
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.
UpmergetoCategory:People from Worcestershire. This doesn't work. One of the subcats is Category:People from Worcestershire (before 1974); this does not contain historical people, but people of all eras who would have been from Worcestershire before 1974 but are now from somewhere else (West Midlands) (this is trying, in vain, to use categories to express the fact that Dudley was partly in Worcestershire and partly in Staffordshire until 1974 when it became part of West Midlands). Likewise another subcat is Category:Bishops of Worcester; most are historical, some are recent and one is the incumbent John Inge, not yet historical. Occuli (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, which county the County Borough of Dudley (1965-1974) was in was extremely problematic. The County Borough performed all county functions, so that there was nothing to go on, except that writs of FiFa were executed by the undersheriff for Staffs. This continued within its area after 1974, on behalf of the Sheriff of West Midlands. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmmmmmmm In some parts (like the US) of the English speaking world 'Worcestershire' brings only thoughts of Worcestershire sauce, not a county in the UK. Like these people work for the sauce company, right? Maybe some notes are needed in these categories' inclusion criteria? Hmains (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Worcestershire as a county disappeared at that time. This is a particular problem in the UK, with counties appearing and disappearing, moving from England to Wales, etc. Some areas change their names entirely. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sounds like there should be a UK specific naming convention that deals with this 'problem'. Are you aware of one? Keeping one name for an article about 'different' places seems confusing at best, especially for those on the other side of the pond. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – rumours of Worcestershire's demise are greatly exaggerated - the West Midlands was created in 1974 centred on Birmingham. It was formed partly from Warkwickshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire, all of which continue to this day albeit somewhat reduced in area. So eg Ozzy Osbourne, born in Birmingham, Warwickshire, in 1948, is now from Birmingham, West Midlands. I don't think this can be expressed using category inclusions. Occuli (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MergetoCategory:People from Worcestershire. The "pre-1974" category can also be merged. The present Worcestershire has much the same boundaries as the pre-1974 county, except the loss of the old municipal boroughs of Dudley, Stourbridge, Halesowen to the West Midlands in 1974. The County of Hereford and Worcester can be regarded as a 20-year abberation and ignored. Nevertheless, we must not be too pedantic over this: there were previous boundaty adjustmetns in the 1840s (abolition of detached places) and 1930s (transfers to Birmingham and exchanges along southern border). I have frequently seen the "people from" category added to articles on historical persons on whom I have worked, and think this works well. I belive there are similar categories for other counties. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the comment about merging the pre-1974 category. Speaking for Northumberland there are some significant urban areas that have been moved from NBL to Tyne and Wear (and also for Durham). I agree it is a mess but we need to have some method of highlighting those areas whose county has changed. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
