Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2 May 4 >

May 3

[edit]

Category:African-American brass musicians

[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 members moved to Category:Brass musicians and Category:African-American musicians.--Salix (talk): 18:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: last-rung-of-the-ladder again. Also, not sure if there is encyclopedic value in capturing this - we have many other super-cats of African-American + music, but down to a brass instrument, I'm not convinced. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course there are lots of African americans who play brass instruments. But is this defining? It doesn't really matter how many articles there are. the guidance at WP:EGRS is rather clear. If you can't fully diffuse, then you shouldn't create ethnic cats. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that WP:EGRS is "rather clear" on this pecise point. It's very confused on the matter. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the following guidance, at the end: "Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory." I suppose you could make the argument that Category:Brass musicians is itself fully diffusable since it contains all possible brass instruments, so maybe my issue with this cat is another one that I can't put my finger on - perhaps its the DEFINING question? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "fully" bit that is the issue and at the core of some of the disagreements that have been raging. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, now looking at Category:Brass musicians it does seem to diffuse pretty well. Ok, I will strike the guidance argument for now. Still worth discussing however, given that we have higher-level african-american + music cats, not sure if this particular one is defining. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ghettoization is undesirable but can be avoided by applying WP:EGRS -- meaning, adding in the specific topical subcategory and its non-ethnic parents. Redundant categorization. -- Lquilter
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:Hauptbahnhof

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm really not sure what to do with this category, but I'm leaning towards deletion. No other countries seem to have their central railway stations categorized apart from other railway stations. And the names of this category and its subcats are off—"Hauptbanhof" should really be replaced with "Hauptbanhofs," "Hauptbahnhöfe," or "Central stations," per the Hauptbahnhof redirect. We could go with the latter if we want to start separating central stations in their own category, but I think the simplest solution would be to delete the categories in question. BDD (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards delete I'm ready to hear the arguments in favor of this categorization scheme but this really seems like a categorization by shared name. Of course, your average Hauptbahnhof is larger and has more traffic than your average run-of-the-mill Bahnhof but that's not very meaningful. I think the best argument against this category is the case of Berlin. If we turn back the clock to 1987, Berlin Zoologischer Garten wouldn't have been categorized as a Hautbahnhof despite the fact that it was not only the central station of West Berlin but in many ways its only station. Meanwhile Berlin Ostbahnhof was being renamed Berlin Hauptbahnhof with great fanfare but somewhat limited change in its actual importance, especially after reunification. Now we have a new Hauptbanhof in Berlin and Berlin Ostbahnhof is Berlin Ostbahnhof once more. In any case, if we keep the category, calling them "central stations" would make more sense for our readership. Pichpich (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete From what I can determine Hauptbahnhof appears to mean a consolidated station for a large city. There's no American equivalent because "central station" in the US normally means that one of the tenants/owners used "Central" as part of the railroad name. I don't think it corresponds to union station either, as I gather that the unification of lines progressed further and more quickly than in the USA. So at present it seems to be a shared name category that is limited in scope by the fact of it being a non-English word and therefore of limited geographical scope. Mangoe (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering putting the ostensible main article up for deletion, as it says little more than "a lot of places have a central station, whatever that is." Mangoe (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to properly nominate it for AfD, but you would have my !vote to at least replace all the meaningless text in that article with a disambiguation page which lists stations called "foo central station". - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "Central stations in..." which is what they are. The reason no other countries have these categories is probably numerical. Germany has 122 - other countries have far fewer. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in fact the term means very little - when towns are above a certain size they feel they need to promote their bahnhof. Leoben Central Station looks pretty small to me (the town population is c. 25,000), even in the German article. Defining "central station" for categorization also has problems. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hauptbanhof means "head train station" (literally); in the olden days in big cities this meant no through lines - all trains came in one way and went out backwards the same way (like many of the train stations in London and Paris still do). But alas, those were the olden days and it doesn't seem a defining characteristic to be the "end of the line" physically but not logically. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What you mean is a "Kopfbahnhof" (literally: "head train station", practically: "terminus"; check at Kopfbahnhof). I agree that foreigners often do wrong translations into English, but as far as I know Germans would never ever translate "Hauptbahnhof" as "head train station", this is nonsense. Most likely we would translate "Hauptbahnhof" as "Main train station" (that's what we learn at school; also as "Haupt-" has to be translated as "main" ist most cases, some other common translations are "principal" or "primary", depending on the context). Of course, some would also translate it as "Central station" knowing that this proper English and most common in Britain. Other non-native speakers often associate "Central station" with "most centrally located station", though. So I personally also prefer to translate "Hauptbahnhof" as "main train station". Translating "Haupt" as "head" is only appropriate, if you carefully choose your words and use "Haupt" as a synonym for "Kopf". --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - people may also be interested in the semi-related WP:Articles for deletion/Central station. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 19:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards delete, precisely I should say: Delete or keep, but don't rename. It seems to me that this category was created when most articels categorized in here where articles about "Hauptbahnhöfe", nowadays it doesn't make sense to me having articles about "central stations" in a "Hauptbahnhof" category, so I am for deleting. I strongly oppose renaming in "Central stations in ..." for two reasons: firstly we don't have such categories for any other country, so I don't support no special treatments for Austria, Germany and Switzerland. The "railway stations" categories shall be enough even in those three countries. Secondly, there have been intense discussions about renaming Hauptbahnhof-/Central-station-articles (e.g. Berlin and Zurich) or are still going on (Leipzig). There have been (or will be) decisions by majority, but there has obviously not been a consent. So I don't think it would be wise to create new categories, which are likely to be next topic for discussion. As mentioned above I am convinced that several non-native speakers associate "Central station" with "most centrally located station", so I don't share the opinion of "this is what they are". So if you don't want to keep those categories, please delete them. If you don't want to delete them: keep them (which would also be reasonable as most articles at least say "Foo Central station (German: Foo Hauptbahnhof)". But please don't rename these categories! --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't really care whether the category gets deleted or not, but we need to be aware that Hauptbahnhof both means and literally translates to "main station"; it does not mean "central station" in the way that "central station" is used in British English to mean a station which is centrally-located and/or was owned by a company with central in its name.Wheeltapper (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Orthodox Jews in London

[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jews in Jerusalem

[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: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 13:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or based on the rhetoric we have had on some other discussions "no reason for the JEws to be ghettoized in their own category". Orf couse this just points out that the same thing can be a distinction or a marginzalization based on how you look at it. And yes, I do know that talking of Jews being "ghetoized" is probably invoking bad images, but it should with any other place as well, so maybe we should stop saying categories ghetoize people, becaue they clearly do not penialize people for being outside the gates after dark.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the argument about ghetoizing in categories. I see every separate category as a mark of distinction for the subject, group, or even individual covered. If they don't have a category, someone didn't think them interesting/worthwhile enough to have one. I just don's see the point of splitting categories on the historical population of a city by religious affiliation. Dimadick (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Jerusalem is also part of Category:Israeli people. In general we put lots of people in the people from x city cat who do not belong in the related nationality category, I am sure some in Category:People from Paris would not qualify as being French. We have long accepted this situation with Category:People from Gdansk which has both Polish and German parents. Realistically, there were no Palestinian people as such before 1900 (or maybe even later), but we have people from long before that in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sound of Contact

[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. Neutralitytalk 14:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This is way premature. This band has not even released its debut album yet. The category consists only of two articles on the band members and the albums subcategory. There's no reason to expect that it will grow beyond that for the foreseeable future. Pichpich (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, way premature. The band is new, their first album isn't released yet, they've never had a hit single. The only claim to fame they currently have is that two of the band members have extensive professional musician history/experience and one of them is Phil Collins' son. Band members aren't the band and on its own, the band hasn't really done anything notable yet except make an album. A lot of bands make one album, that doesn't make them more special than others. I certainly don't think it makes them special enough to have their own Wikipedia category. Winkelvi (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cuisine of Dayton, Ohio

[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. Neutralitytalk 14:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. After removing the 3 restaurant chains/companies we are left with two articles. Follows similar nomination for Cuisine of Cleveland, Cuisine of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Cuisine of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, on second thought, that category does not exist, so I think we should delete this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Unreleased music videos

[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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't think that a song with a video that was never released is a defining aspect of that song. Looking at the contents of the category, some of the videos may or may not exist, may or may not be authorized, are tangential to the history of the song (an interesting tidbit, but again not defining), and/or are not well sourced. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:John G. Clark Award recipients

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by award. The award is described as: "The John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies, is an award created by the American Family Foundation, in honor of noted Harvard psychiatrist, John Gordon Clark, M.D." Award recipients include various academics who are no doubt pleased and honored by the award, but the award serves to recognize their notable achievements, not confer a separate axis of notability. Non-defining and better handled as a list in the award page, where discussion of the reason why they won the award can be included. I've gone ahead and added the current members of the category to the article, but more information would probably be helpful. I also note that in a "cultic studies" field it's probably especially helpful to have references, which articles can accommodate but categories cannot. -- Lquilter (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're all in the article in the award section. With the sole exception of the named honoree, and I haven't been able to find any documentation that he was actually awarded the award itself. --Lquilter (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:James Madison Freedom of Information Award recipients

[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. Neutralitytalk 14:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#Award. Overcategorization by award. The EFF, Daniel Ellsberg, and Lawrence Ferlinghetti were all properly recognized and honored by this Bay Area-based award, but the award itself does not define an activist organization, a whistleblower/First Amendment litigant, and a poet/bookstore founder. Award-winners should be (and are) listed at the James Madison Freedom of Information Award, where some context and information about the reason for their award can be given. --Lquilter (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Adams Prize recipients

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by award. This is an annual prize for early career work in mathematics. It recognizes good work & the potential for more good work, but while it is an honor to receive it and on Wikipedia offers evidence of notability of the award-winners, it is not by itself a defining attribute of these mathematicians. Award-winners should be (and are) included as lists on the Adams Prize page. Lquilter (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If had at all awards cats should be for the pre-eminent position in the field, the Adamas Prize is not even the top prize in British mathmatics. We generally should not categorize by awards that have an attainment criteria as being "young".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: Creator notified. --Lquilter (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the notification. The Adams Prize is interesting in that they tend to go on the great things. I was hoping the category makes it easier to see how true this is. I know we don't like category clutter but I hope it enables one to determine intersections such as "how many Adams Prize winners born before D also won prize P". If we dont have such a field in the entry we will never be able to do such a search. Billlion (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ability to make category intersections is currently being discussed at WP:Category intersection -- hope you join us. I agree that being able to pull up intersections of a lot of attributes will be very helpful. But categories as they currently are, IMO, are not well-suited for capturing intersectional information, unless it's highly notable/defining; and the "defining" attribute has to be very limiting in order for the category clump at the bottom of the page to be remotely navigable, and to be able to remotely police inclusion/exclusion. It's all quite unfortunate because, as you say, it would be great to be able to have a system to navigate a much wider variety of attributes. I really hope the software can be fixed to permit something more workable that meets this needs. Maybe Wikidata is the answer? ... anyway until then my own position is that we have to be quite restrictive on categories. --Lquilter (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rachel Carson Award laureates

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OVERCAT#Award. The Rachel Carson Prize (environmentalist award) is a significant honor for environmental activists, such as Lester Brown and Maria Rodale, but it serves as a recognition of an achievement, rather than defining an additional axis of notability. These activists are better listed on the award page, as they already are. (I also note that there are several Rachel Carson environment-related prizes, and this causes some confusion; the category already needs to be purged of recipients of the other prizes, like Sigourney Weaver & the founder of the Aveda Corporation). -- Lquilter (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rožanc Award laureates

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization by award. This annual award for best Romanian essay collection is notable but not defining, and is more appropriately treated as a list within the Rolf Schock Prizes entry. Lquilter (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Registered Banks of New Zealand

[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: rename. (I'm assuming that the comment by Peterkingiron was misplaced.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. According to both the Reserve Bank of New Zealand[1] and New Zealand Government[2] capitalisation (no pun intended) of the word "banks" is unnecessary. Both Television New Zealand [3] and the country's biggest newspaper[4] seem to agree. Grutness...wha? 12:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Films based on comics characters

[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: Not renamed --Salix (talk): 09:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match parent Category:Films based on comics, and the corresponding categories for each character within Category:Video games based on comics. This follows prededents for Doctor Who here and others listed in that discussion. WikiProject Comics did not object to these proposals here. – Fayenatic London 12:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • mmmmmm, not seeing this as is I'm inclined to oppose this since nearly everyone talking about these films, and especially the people who make them, refer to them as "character name films". But in any case these are not based on the characters, but on the comics in which the characters appear. So for instance if renaming is really felt necessary, we ought to end up with Category:Films based on X-Men comics. Personally I prefer the present names, which have nothing obviously wrong with them. The video game category names are not good models and really ought to be change in one direction or the other. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I ordinarily like consistency in naming, but like Mangoe, I'm not sure this is a good change. It's wordier, which is bad unless it brings something to the equation. But what it brings is actually something a little vaguer. "Based on FOO" is an atypical phrasing that leads the reader to wonder, "how is this different than a Batman film? Is it the expanded universe version? Does it mean the parodies of it, which are certainly 'based on'?" And so forth. So unless this does mean to include the expanded universe & unauthorized parodies, then it seems unnecessarily vague. --Lquilter (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, some of these film categories already have subcategories for "fan films" that could reasonably cover parodies. I am not certain whether "expanded universe" really applies here, since "film" only covers one aspect of the respective franchises. Dimadick (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While there is a clear connection between the Batman films or the Superman films and the comics of the same name, people do not refer to them in this way. The comics may have been made first, but people clearly refer to these as Batman films or Superman films, and so I think we should follow common usage in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nobody calls them that. The proposed wording is awkward. The proposed wording is also unclear. It could include parodies and many other arguable things the categories are not meant for. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see CFD 2012 Sept 1 for the precedent to rename the video game categories, e.g. Category:Spider-Man video games to Category:Video games based on Spider-Man. As in those cases, the old names could be redirected to the new ones, and I would support this. – Fayenatic London 19:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a video game specifically based on the film "Superman Returns". So would that go in Category:Video games based on films based on Superman. I think the reality of how these things are viewed and interacted with goes against using the "based on" form here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no need for small intersection categories; Superman Returns (video game) would stay in Category:Video games based on Legendary Pictures films as well as Category:Superman arcade and video games. Sometimes sub-cats are justified, e.g. Category:Video games based on Star Trek (film franchise) helps to divide the many games within Category:Video games based on Star Trek. – Fayenatic London 19:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Public holidays named after countries

[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: Speedy delete. Green Giant (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This appears to me to be a categorization by shared naming characteristic. I get the idea—these are holidays to celebrate the foundation of the entity—but if it's not named after the entity, it can't go in the category, so it's not categorizing by what the holiday is for, it's categorizing by the type of name the holiday is given. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Founding Fathers

[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. The multiple lists within the article Founding Fathers of the United States are more useful than this could be. – Fayenatic London 20:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Presumably this is a category for the Founding Father of the United States. The problem is—this isn't a group with a well-accepted definition, as the article discusses. We are much better off just with the list in the article and with categorizing these people using more objective definitions, such as the signers of the US Declaration of the Independence, the US Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's discussion. Plus a few more: (1) It's going to be largely redundant of other categories relating to early American history; (2) It's vague & ambiguous since it's not entity-specific in the title; and (3) Elaborating on the nominator's rationale, categories with vague or amorphous boundaries are often better handled as lists, so that elaborating notes and context can be applied. --Lquilter (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename This could serve as a useful parent category for all the subcategories mentioned by Good Olfactory. But rename to match the main article Founding Father of the United States. When I first saw the title I thought someone made a category to match List of national founders. Dimadick (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds like a reasonable thing to do -- there surely have been lots of scholarly work done on various aspects of "Founding Fathers" about which articles could be written. But in practice I think it would be very hard to keep editors from adding this category to individual biographical articles and basically treating it as an attribute of some individuals. We would need something to denote that it was about the topic of "the Founding Fathers", rather than an attribute of individual FFs. But I can't come up with anything. --Lquilter (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article gives us very good, defined lists. The term itself is very vague. Some people sometimes seem to want to use it almsot for anyone who fought in the American revolution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The category has to pick an unambiguous criterion for inclusion. Even if editors agreed on that, we would still have problems because readers are not typically aware of that definition until they actually go to the category page so they. I get Dimadick's point about keeping it as a container category but I think that would just perpetuate the problem without that much benefit. Pichpich (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for vague inclusion criteria. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Rename to Category:Founding Fathers of the United States to match the title of the parent article. Every category has potential ambiguity and shades of gray, including categories organized by gender, nationality and ethnicity. This is a rather strong and defining characteristic, for which questionable entries should be addressed at the article level without destroying an effective aid to navigation across articles for individuals with a significant common characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, it's true that every category has potential ambiguity and shades of gray. But this category has, in the lede, multiple overlapping definitions:
"The Founding Fathers of the United States of America were political leaders and statesmen who participated in the American Revolution by signing the United States Declaration of Independence, taking part in the American Revolutionary War, and establishing the United States Constitution. Within the large group known as the "Founding Fathers", there are two key subsets: the Signers of the Declaration of Independence (who signed the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776) and the Framers of the Constitution (who were delegates to the Constitutional Convention and took part in framing or drafting the proposed Constitution of the United States). A further subset is the group that signed the Articles of Confederation.[2]" ... and
"Some historians define the "Founding Fathers" to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians, jurists, statesmen, soldiers, diplomats, or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America.[4] Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.[5]"
That's a bit more than the ordinary "shades of gray" issue with most categories. Given that any of these definitions might be applicable and all have current recognition in scholarly and public discourse, it would seem completely arbitrary for Wikipedia to just pick one and run with it. Which definition do you, Alansohn, favor, and why is that the best definition for the category, and how can we reasonably ensure that it is maintained? (Remember it's difficult to "follow" a category in the same way that you can follow a page.) --Lquilter (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. This seems to be a parent for categories relating to US Founding fathers. As often the criteria for inclusion may be fuzzy, but that is something to be argued over on the category talkpage not at CFD. It should be possible to find a robust definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it's possible to agree on a robust definition? Even in serious history literature, there's no agreement whatsoever on a definition, let alone a robust one. This is almost as bad as finding a robust definition of "superstar", "American hero" or "serious illness". Pichpich (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Native American children's writers

[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: Keep but with {{distinguished subcategory}}--Salix (talk): 19:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Last rung of the latter - shunts these off from the main tree - per WP:EGRS. The Native American writers head cat is sufficient here - a sub-slice like this only serves to separate. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've pasted the relevant guidance here:

Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory. For instance: if Category:American poets is not realistically dividable on other grounds, then do not create a subcategory for "African-American poets", as this will only serve to isolate these poets from the main category. Instead, simply apply "African-American writers" (presuming Category:Writers is the parent of Category:Poets) and "American poets" as two distinct categories.

This guidance exists to prevent exactly the sort of ghettoization everyone is up in arms about. If there were other ways to diffuse Category:American children's writers, then ethnic/gendered/etc cats could be created. However, if the *only* way it can be divided is on ethnic/gender lines, then the natural tendency, in spite of all of our rules, will be for white males to congregate in the head category, and everyone else is shunted to the sub-categories. I've looked at dozens of examples, and the result is always the same - that's why the last-rung-of-the-ladder rule was created. If you look at Category:American politicians, that is the opposite case - since you have so many sub-cats to diffuse into, there is no-one in the head cat, and there is less of a chance that women in Category:American women in politics would nonetheless not end up in non-gendered subcats of the politicians. You are right though, that in the Category:Native American writers tree, childrens writing is a valid sub-category that further specifies - the problem is, this is also in a non-ethnic tree (Category:American children's writers, and in that tree, it violates the guidance, which again, says never. If you have a proposal on how to diffuse the childrens writers (by century?), I'm all ears. Also take a look at Category:Singaporean poets for another way - shall we pilot that here in this tree - to do category intersection with Category:American children's writers and Category:Native American writers? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I DO see your point of the danger of "white males here and everyone else to the back of the bus" problem. I guess I'm surprised that American children's writers is not already diffused...seems pretty vast; should contain hundreds of authors, surely they can be broken down by genre, centure, something? Sometimes too, there is a place (as I commented at your talk on a different issue) for the "allinclude" template allowing both a mass parent cat AND as many subcats as people desire... I guess WP:IAR suggests "never say never." Montanabw(talk) 21:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the {{distinguished subcategory}} can be used instead of allinclude (which allows for diffusing and non-diffusing sub-cats). In the case of childrens writers, one could for example separate them by century, if you think we have people from 18th/19th/20th centuries - I'm not sure - and there are 1200 writers, so it could be workable. If we did that, and diffused on century, then we could keep ethnic cats like this one, as there'd be another way to divide.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-division and diffusion by century/era and/or by genre would be very appropriate. --Lquilter (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American children's novelists

[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: merge to Category:American children's writers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Anyone who writes a novel for a child is likely going to write other things as well - so I'm not sure its worth distinguishing childrens novelists from childrens writers. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Young adult literature is often considered to be quite distinct from children's literature, wherein the former is aimed at teenagers later in their teens and the latter is aimed at actual young children. SilverserenC 01:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Children's literature is a significantly distinct genre of writing. I would suggest, however, to be more distinct, to change the category title to "American children's literature novelists". SilverserenC 01:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true - but do we need to separately categorize the writers of children's literature from children's novelists? I can't imagine there are many who wrote a children's novel who didn't also write things that weren't novels, and thus they would always belong in the parent too.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment before we get too attached to this category, allow me to point out it didn't exist until a week ago. OTOH, Category:American children's writers has existed for a lot longer - since 2004 - and obviously has a lot more people in it. Finally, if you take our most famous so-called Children's novelist, J.K. Rowling, today she is in Category:English_children's_writers and Category:Writers of young adult literature (notice: she is in both cats - and she is not in a childrens-novelist-cat). The British don't even have a young-adult tree, and if you read Young_adult_literature, you'll see the following quote: "The distinctions among children's literature, YA literature, and adult literature have historically been flexible and loosely defined.". Finally, there are No *other* countries which have a "children's novelists" category. Many of the books listed by TK above are also called out as "young adult" fiction. Perhaps because of the close connection, we could make a combined category of novelists in this domain? But again, I'm not even sure we need to call them out as novelists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If merged we should not put the people into ;Category:American novelists if they are already in other dispersing sub-categories of it. In the past when we upmerge various American musicans by given descent categories we made Category:American musicans which is meant to largely be a holding category into a huge category by merging lots of articles there that were already in one and in many cases multiple other sub-cats of that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Category:American children's writers only. Children's (fiction) literature is not merely a subset of novels. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these people are identified as novelists, so why not merge it to Category:American novelists as well?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chemical compounds found in Theobroma

[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: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 13:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unnecessary layer in category tree. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Awake (TV series) characters

[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. Wizardman 16:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:SMALLCAT this is a cancelled TV series that lasted one season. Highly unlikely to gain any more character articles, the main category Category:Awake (TV series) can carry the characters without need for subcategorization. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nuxálk

[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: rename There was general consensus for the name without accents. The head article change midway meant Category:Nuxalk Nation was no longer a suitable title. --Salix (talk): 10:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Though not as arcane a usage as the St'at'imc and Sto:lo categories, this category name still requires the use of copy-paste and cannot by typed easily. Normal usage in British Columbia omits the accent-a, it's not standard in the (now common) English adapation of this name. Skookum1 (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Nuxalk Nation per head article Nuxalk Nation. If the only problem with the accented title was that the accent is hard to type, then the simple solution would be to create a {{category redirect}} from the unaccented title. However, the category should be rename3d to match its head article, which appears to have been stable at the unnaccented title since it was renamed in 2008. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article name is for the government, and there's a "gap" in Wikipedia coverage here, as it's normal for there to be separate ethno/people articles from government articles. Naming the category for the government isn't the right approach to take, what's needed is a separate ethno article; including "Nation" in the category name is a mistake, that article belongs in Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia, but compare that to Category:First Nations in British Columbia, which has the ethno-article-named cats all listed.....if it makes you happy I'll make Nuxalk people today....problem there is because the ethnolinguistics crowd deemed it necessary to change language, then ethno, articles, to their 'common English form", that's going to wind up as Bella Coola people, I fear.....e.g. St'at'imc is now at Lillooet people but that shouldn't be the ethno category-name; there's existing guidelines about indigenously-correct/suitable cat names in {{NorthAmNative}} somewhere, don't think "we" ever codified them, though.....as noted in the related CfRs, the point of these is to remove the diacriticals, not to harmonize them with main article titles, which are problematic for a wide variety of reasons.Skookum1 (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. If the article titles are wrong, then fix the article titles. (If your desired changes are controversial, then use WP:RM).
        However, it's important that category titles follow article titles, because otherwise editors have a hard time figuring out the category name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it'd be nice if User:Kwamikagami had thought about before changing all the article names; I've advised him of this problem, ditto the one on Category:Squamish the CfR for which is on the May 4 blog. But as there, and as I've been informed, the "guideline" is NOT a "rule" and there are exceptions; both WPCAN/WPBC and NorthAmNative are quiet right now, a proper set of guidlines for use for aboriginal categories is needed as "globalized" names e.g. "Bella Coola people" for the Nuxalk, is just not acceptable in modern terms and the current polity. Same as forcing USian or British English on topics where Canadian English is expected/valid. In fact, it IS the WP:CANENGLISH rule, as these are normal names in Canada now.......but why should *I* have to do an RM when the person moving all these didn't have to? More procedure to make up for a bad mistake.Skookum1 (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the pages were moved recently without a discussion, then treat that as a WP:BOLD move and revert the moves per WP:BRD. In that case, the other mover will need to use WP:RM. However, if the pages have been stable at the current location for some time, then the current location is the status quo ... and since you know that your desired changes are controversial, you would need to open the RM.
            If you want to open an RM, then the CFD can be put on hold pending its outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I just reviewed when Skwxwu7mesh got changed, it was in November 2011; it had been stable at that since, oh, 2007 or so (it may have been created as that, I haven't looked that far back; Squamish Nation, the band government article, is I believe older. Your point doesn't apply here, since Nuxalk people was just created (yes, by me but not because of this CfD) and is currently stable; unless someone tries to change it to Bella Coola people which would be a bad move for a number of reasons, including the implied 'people from Bella Coola but also because that name is from the Heiltsuk language, which is unrelated though neighbouring.Skookum1 (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • the Squamish article was created as Skwxwu7mesh (with diacriticals and remained at that, with much background discussion viewable on its talkpage, from creation date on January 13, 2007 until it was moved on November 30. 2011 and yes, there was an RM, I was "off wikipedia" at that time or would have opposed it; it was probably a bulk RM across-the-board and many articles were affected by such changes; with the result of the 'mandated' category-changes resulting another BIG reason why they should have been opposed. There's a section C in the Speedy CFD page which, to me, indicates that the existing norms for ethno categories in Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada and its provincial subdirectories, in this case Category:First Nations in British Columbia in particular, that should have ruled out a speedy, but that section's import appears to have been completely ignored by the nominator and anyone who may have commented there; those catnames and the convention for ethno article-titles already in place should have overruled all these speedies, and called into question the decision on the RMs. That these changes have caused controversial and difficult-to-solve category-name problems is fairly obvious by now, doncha think??Skookum1 (talk)
  • comment Q for BHG (and others) - what is the general guidance on diacriticals in category names? I thought they were generally avoided but I don't remember.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To remove them.....as was done with Category:Sḵwx̱wú7mesh which is now (badly) renamed as Category:Squamish and should either be Category:Squamish people but that has issues, and is a demonstration of why the ethnonames should trump the main-article guideline as explained above and below re "St'at'imc" vs Lillooet people; the better alternative is to follow the NorthAmNative guidline and revert to the non-diacritical version Category:Skwxwu7mesh. A catname like that infers "people from Squamish" and "people from Lillooet"....but note that neither Squamish nor Lillooet have the ethnic group as primary meanings; Category:Skwxwu7mesh people therefore works for individuals from that group; and NB the '7', which is a glottal stop, is unavoidable and not really a diacritical but a special character. That category was changed by Cydebot as assigned by User:The Bushranger and User:The Man in Question, both of whom I'll ask if they knew anything about the people or the towns whose categories those are.Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skookum1 claims that there is guidance to remove diacriticals from category names, but AFAICS, this is wrong. WP:NCCAT does not mention diacriticals, and WP:NCCAT#General_conventions says that "standard article naming conventions apply". The guidance at WP:TSC is that if diacriticals (or other "characters not on a standard keyboard") are used in a page title, then a redirect should be created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Claim no, just going by the discussions about the diacritical form that can be found on the talkpage now at Talk:Squamish people (OldManRivers had to do some interesting codework, as I recall, to be able to get them to work). And at least one of the category redirects I've encountered doesn't work as a redirect, it gives a link to the current one; not sure which of the five or six related CfRs is is, I'll check around. In this case I could live with Category:Squamish people as there are precedents for other FNs and FAs, the issue, such as it is, is that "Squamish" (like Lillooet though moreso) is a very notable town-placename in BC; there's only one Squamish Nation, not separate bands within it, so there's no need for a "FOO governments" category; which if it did exist here, if "Squamish people" were the parent, would have to be "governments of the Squamish people"; it's also necessary for Category:Governments of the Lillooet people....more like Category:Governments of the Lillooet peoples, meaning Ucwalmicwts-speaking peoples (that's the overall endoynmic name used by its various tribal councils, organizations, and bands, not all of which are in the Lillooet Tribal Council....and many would not use "Lillooet" for themselves; that's an imposed "white man's name". Anyways I'll try and figure out which of the supposedly redirect categories didn't function right and will be back.Skookum1 (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I'm neither for nor against the use of diacritics in article titles. I've been trying to figure out the WP:Common name (I know that is mainly for article titles) but was unable to come up with anything. So I looked at what is the official name. That was somewhat easier and both the people themselves, Nuxalk Bation, and the Government of Canada, Aboriginal Affairs and Health Canada, use Nuxalk. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename: The real issue is ethnic respect, calling people what they want to be called. (Think, for example, of "inuit" versus "eskimo" - inuit people consider it a slur to be called "eskimo", though Google hits probably would be higher for the offensive term) There is an ongoing discussion about this across multiple articles, but it is primarily being prolonged by a single editor who persists in baiting Skookum in a "green cheese" argument. The category rename does not have to hinge on the article rename, as the article renames are easy to do, category renames less so. Montanabw(talk) 16:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia cannot right great wrongs. This points out why straigh google searching is never the answer. What should be done is searching in reliable, contemporary works. These will clearly show a preference for "Inuit". Those are what we follow. This is partly because what a group actually calls itself and what they say they want to call themselves are not the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point is, Wikipedia should not perpetrate them also; retrenching the old-era names is more than questionable, it's irresponsible. In this case "Nuxalk" is very well-established, at least. The point montanabw makes that "category rename does not have to hinge on the article rename" is somehow lost on many people, who have used, as with the Squamish category, a rename of the main article to change the category; this is also my worry about the effect of leaving those items in the RMs at the moment the way they are; people treating guidelines as rules, who don't themselves follow the guidelines (e.g. moving things unilaterally without discussion, knowing they were controversial, then digging in and being obstructionist/rejectionists in the ensuing CfDs and RMs.....). In this case' "what a group actually calls itself and what they want to call themselves" ARE the same.....though in their language their term is Nuxalkmc for "Nuxalk people".Skookum1 (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also please note the contents/subcats of Category:First Nations people and, by implication, how many of those would have to change to who-knows-what if "Foo people" became a standard for aboriginal ethno categories......Skookum1 (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom to match head article name (but without the 'people'). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sťáťimc

[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: rename to Category:St'at'imc to match main article after the RFD there.--Salix (talk): 10:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As wit the Sto:lo category, this category name requires copy-pasting to be able to use. Most modern sources including media regularly use this in the form "St'at'imc", as does the St'at'imc Nation tribal council (aka Lillooet Tribal Council) in its media releases, if not maybe on its own site where the native-correct diacritical version may be used; arguments about using the native orthography have been made before re the article, though that is now titled St'at'imc and hm now may be a redirect to normal-English "Lillooet people". The /t'/ remaining is still a diacritical with non-English meaning, i.e. [lh] or [tlh] but the "St'at'imc" usage is now current and most common. And easy to type. Skookum1 (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the target name is a redirect category.Skookum1 (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Should this just be renamed to Category:Lillooet since the article is Lillooet people? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Lillooet people to match the article name. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I just checked google for results for Tshilhqot'in and Chilcotin people that were very revealing and puts the lie to the claim that that name-change was MOSTCOMMON (it also ignored CANENGL), a similar happenstance is here; "St'at'imc" (without quotes, or else the result is 26,000,000) yields 200,000 results, "Lillooet people" yields only 5,130. I'm kinda done with wikipediafying for the day....my guitar and the beach are calling me, but seems that another RM is needed to correct St'at'imc back from Lillooet people. I get the feeling that a similar set of results will be had from checking "Secwepemc" and "Shuswap people" and others that were changed at t he same time.Skookum1 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename probably. Like the previous I was unable to come with a common name. However the official name is also unclear. St'át'imc seem to be the name used by http://www.statimc.net/ and http://www.statimc.ca/ making it a little confusing. I would note that Sťáťimc seems to be little used though. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sťáťimc is the proper orthography in St'at'imcets but "St'at'imc" is the usage in English, as can be found not just by googling but also by searching major media outlets....and also Indian and Northern Affairs Canada cites.Skookum1 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename: The real issue is ethnic respect, calling people what they want to be called. (Think, for example, of "inuit" versus "eskimo" - inuit people consider it a slur to be called "eskimo", though Google hits probably would be higher for the offensive term) There is an ongoing discussion about this across multiple articles, but it is primarily being prolonged by a single editor who persists in baiting Skookum in a "green cheese" argument. The category rename does not have to hinge on the article rename, as the article renames are easy to do, category renames less so. Montanabw(talk) 16:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Lillooet people to match the article name and how they are generally refered to. We use "common names" not correct, official names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's that myth that it's the "common name", it's not anymore. And damn, if you can't spell it right, you're not qualified to say......read the "IPA is wrong" section on Talk:Lillooet people about why it's wrong/old and now in disfavour, as if I hadn't said what's there before. And the complications of a Category:Lillooet like what's going on also at the Category:Squamish cfD are many and various; this whole problem started because "someone" moved long-established article names over to the "[old-fashioned usage] people" format, and triggered off the Squamish CfD, and now, frighteningly, others that are going to be very awkward, and if matching the article name is going to affect the Category:Nlaka'pamux category and make it into Category:Thompson people. Those confusions are among the reasons why Canadian media, educators, the peoples themselves and their governments, etc etc moved over to the new usage over twenty years ago.Skookum1 (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is under that name. If you want to get something changed, get the article changed first. Your attacks on people for typos are also not in line with wikipedia guidelines on being civil.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry if you took my criticism of your use of "Lilloet" as a "personal attack", it pales in comparison to the nasty remarks fired at me in all these RMs, and is the kind of thing those who are habitually in attack mode against me here would jump all over ME for. As for your real point, I'm quoting montanabw here: "The category rename does not have to hinge on the article rename, as the article renames are easy to do, category renames less so" and don't know where to go within the guidelines proper to find the "official" phrasing of that. The article name, as you are well aware by now, is being fought tooth and nail right now; it may reach its resolution soon, as a host of official sources are on side with what I know to be the correct modern and accepted usage (somehow me being from there is regarded as discounted in value). This CfD's purpose was only to get rid of the St'at'imcets form of the name, which is with the diacriticals (including a special [t'] character) and replacing it with the English form of the name. Which is common to the point of the "Lillooet people" being viewed as archaic, and which also has "colonialist" origins. Certain other official sources I've approached I'm waiting on a reply from; in the case of the CBC I got this from my contact there last night (one of the CBC Vancouver radio hosts, who's a friend): "The CBC database is accessed through an internal news/current affairs software system...so can't share a link outside of that." so that's a dead end. The main point of this response is what montanabw said, and which I've heard before (in fact I heard it also when the endnoym category tree that's in Category:First Nations in British Columbia was first evolved four or five years ago by consensus. but somehow people like to take guidelines, put blinkers on, and run with them as though they're hard and fast RULES. But they're not.Skookum1 (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JPL here - there is a reason we try to match category names to article names, and one of them is that article RMs usually have different (and sometimes more informed) participation from subject matter experts, and article names are what are seen by google and by readers vs category names which are very rarely seen at all. Thus, getting article names correct is a tricky business. I would suggest putting this particular CFD (and any others) on temporary hold, pending completion of any RMs that have been initiated - then come back here and report the results of those RMs. If for example, the article already *had* the name you wanted,you could rename the category to it with a speedy. Also another point - per your nomination, "As with the Sto:lo category, this category name requires copy-pasting to be able to use." - my understanding is, this is not true - apparently there is a bot, so if you put it in a non-diacritics version, the bot will move it. You can test this yourself - move a few articles into the category without diacritics and see if the bot moves them. That doesn't mean you should have the cat with or without diacritics - but I do think the cat should match the article name - if the article name has the diacritics, the cat should have them too (and let the box fix the naming)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's that damned unconsulted and arrogant speedy at the main article that "Lillooet people" has come up; this CfD I started before trying to get that "reverted" to the non-diacritical form, which is the English version of the name which in St'at'imcets has those diacriticals; when it occurs in English-use sources, it's in the non-diacritical form. All these CfDs appear to have been pending the results of those RMs. But please tell me where the "rule" is that article name and category name MUST match, as noted over time I've heard lots that they don't have to.Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few places where this is discussed. First, at WP:Categorization: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "Civilization", "George W. Bush"." - when these sorts of things do correspond, they are called eponymous categories - special rules around them are here WP:EPON. You'll also notice here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Speedy_criteria that one of the speedy criteria is to match an article name - that implies that matching a cat to an article name is so common that we allow it without any discussion at all, so that to me is an implied consensus that they should match. In any case, you'll note I never said they "must", I just said we "try" to match them. I'm not sure of the logic, but I think it's probably because it's felt that the article name carries more weight, and the category should follow that. If you want these to be on hold until the RMs finish, I'd state that explicitly in the title to a wandering admin doesn't come by and close them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
also please note the contents/subcats of Category:First Nations people and, by implication, how many of those would have to change to who-knows-what if "Foo people} became a standard for aboriginal ethno categories......and re your suggestion, should that be added to the "lede" for each of these CfDs? And doesn't that put the onus on the RMs to even more than they have been doing (which is zilch zip nada) acknowledging the problems for category-names that may result (which is counter-advised on the usual "move page" page); note that in all of t hose cases, only the title was changed, no effort at all was made to change even so much as the lede in those articles.Skookum1 (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated elsewhere, this 'people' issue is due to a namespace collision. We have on one hand, categories called X people. On the other hand, we have articles that are broadly about a given indigenous group, but they have the word 'people' appended - and this causes confusion, as there are now two categories X and X people, but the head article about X is actually called X people. So I think the solution is to come up with a better name for the articles - instead of Lillooet people, we should have Lillooet tribe or something similar.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That won't work at all; "FOO tribe" is used for federally-recognized tribes in the United States and though you do see it in Canada, it's not standard usage and has loaded meanings, or band-specific names like Cowichan Tribes. Note that a lot of those "FOO people" articles, when indigenous in content, were changed for the most part from their original stand-alone versions, and the categories followed suit as they so (often and annoyingly) do, without stopping to think of the complications, or t he impact on articles mentioning all the peoples in question. It'd be interesting to see a compared list of the two types of "FOO people" categories and how many there are of each.....and how many indigenous articles and categories don't have "people" on them.Skookum1 (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum, I know you mean well, but I feel like you're not listening to what people are telling you, and then responding with walls of text. I am trying to help you, and I have no beef with the arguments you've made and I'm sympathetic to your POV. However, most people voting here swing by, see a matching head article, and vote to rename to match the head article - it's just the way things go here - like it or not. I didn't say we had to use the word tribe, that was an example, an opening, to provide a better term. If you think the head article should just be called St'at'imc, then rename it first, then come back here. If tribe doesn't work, rename it as St'at'imc peoples) or St'at'imc ethnicity or find a better name, then once you get the article renamed, the category will follow.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's "Skookum1", not "Skookum" btw.....like a CB handle. You are aware of the RM at Talk:Lillooet people, aren't you? Last night the Thompson/Nlaka'pamux, Chilcotin/Tsilhqot'in and Shuswap/Secwepemc ones were resolved in favour of the endonyms, I don't know why the same admin (User:David Jonathan I think) didn't also resolve the Lillooet/St'at'imc RM and the Kutenai/Ktunaxa ones also I don't know, I've asked him, perhaps just an oversight. As you noted elsewhere about another item, maybe the Tsilhqot'in one, not sure, you recommended "without 'people'", there is no need for +peoples or +ethnicity here....nor on any other endonym where "+ people" has been added unnecessarily. That's just not the way these terms are used, or have to be used. "Ethnicity" is an awkward term for FN peoples, also, IMO, at least for use in titles.Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just received a reply from author and reporter Terry Glavin, who used to write for the Vancouver Sun and is a very notable writer on First Nations and other aboriginal issues. This is a direct quote from his reply: "What a profoundly exotic line of argument, and against this? "The St'at'imc, Tshilqot'in, Secwepemc, Ktunaxa and Nlaka'pamux names, if not so much Skwxwu7mesh, are now a standard part of Canadian English and the accepted norms." That sentence is completely and unambiguously and (one would have thought) uncontroversially true. These (except for perhaps Skwxwu7mesh, I don't specifically recall) were the correct spellings at the Vancouver Sun while I was covering aboriginal affairs more than 20 years ago for goodness sake. The Vancouver Sun isn't exactly a linguistics newsletter." The profoundly exotic line of argument he's referring to is the "it's not English because nobody knows how to pronounce it" and "we don't do official names" criticisms of the proposed version(s). Also received a note from my CBC reporter contact that the CBC's name/pronunciation system is an internal database and can't be linked/quoted easily. Still awaiting word from the Counsel-General (who's back at work today) and CTV. But between federal and provincial government citations and documents, two or three crown corps, munis/RDs and the government sites of the peoples themselves, I have yet to see any citation proving the other claim that the archaic/discredited names are "most common" or that "these terms don't belong in English-language Wikipedia".Skookum1 (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also very relevant to these matters, and though Wikipedia is not bound by UN declarations, Article 31 of the UN's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples deals with language and culture issues and calls for respecting the wishes and such of indigenous peoples about those issues; I can find a direct quote if need be, but suffice to say there's an international standard about this that Wikipedia should heed.......Skookum1 (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is offtopic for here - if you want to heed to an international standard re: naming of ethnic groups / indigenous peoples, even if consensus is that common usage in sources points another way, then you need to change the guidance on article names - so bring your ideas to that forum.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am becoming progessively more opposed to this with more and more attempts to force us to use the "correct name" that ignore the rules that we should use common names. The fact of the matter is that Ojibwe just might count as common name, but in my experience people of that ethnicity are probably more likely to call themselves Chippewa. These claims that some obscure, unpronounceable string of characters is the "common name" just do not ring true to actual usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Your many assumptions about these terms, St'at'imc in particular, including your just-now comment that they are "obscure and unpronounceable" flies in the face of real facts and the many cited sources that show that this term is the COMMON usage, and is not just the "correct" version........where are your cites re Ojibwe people "are probably more likely to call themselves Chippewa" (which is not the case at all and that's a decidedly USian usage nowadays)?? I'm not offering "opinion", I'm producing cites, what are you doing other than saying "in my experience"? In my experience, the St'at'imc and their white neighbours DO use "St'atimc" and rarely if ever use "Lillooet people" in any context other than "people from Lillooet"..."Lillooet Indians" now means "Indians who live in/near Lillooet" and specifically people from the T'it'qet band (old name Lillooet Indian Band. The common name now in media, education, government and beyond is now "St'at'imc". I invite you to start an RM at Ojibwe to change it to Chippewa "based on your personal experience" and see what happens....and don't forget to invite users who frequent WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe and its many, many subarticles......Skookum1 (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My "agenda" is to restore order and consistency and modern usages to articles and categories changed by people unconcerned with such matters.Skookum1 (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've received a reply about these matters from the BC Attorney General's ministry's Legislative Program Coordinator in the Office of the Counsel General, who is responsible for the government's style and usage guide. I'll quote it verbatim rather than try to summarize it, and she pretty much covers all the ground, including cites, I've already posted here and elsewhere.
As we know, orthography is a system used to standardize how a particular language is written. The problem with aboriginal languages has a lot to do with three things. The first is that the aboriginal peoples did not have a written language, it was all oral and their history was passed down through their stories. The second point is missionaries were the ones to write down the language. They created the written form while sitting there and listening, and applied this method to all aboriginal languages . While this is not entirely accurate, I would suggest that phonetics sometimes had their place, as has Anglicization of words. The third point is that though some have adopted the international phonetic alphabet, there are many in British Columbia that have their own orthographies. There is an interesting description of “current” versus “other” names at this page: http://maps.fphlcc.ca/language_index_other
The B.C. Government, through the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the Ministry of Education, has recognized the rights of First Nations to develop and educate their children in traditional languages. A common goal in B.C. and other jurisdictions is promote self-government. Of interest to this issue would be these pages—
In addition, when my office is working with aboriginal names and naming, it is necessary to have the orthographic character as used by that aboriginal peoples. While my office works with Queen’s Printer for this, we do often refer to sites like this one to find what we need: http://www.languagegeek.com/index.html The purpose, of course, is respect for the First Nations peoples language and sensitivities. This is often a negotiated thing, particularly with parks, conservancies and reserves.
There is a statute that guides British Columbia: First Peoples’ Heritage, Language and Culture Act, see section 6. Under this Act is the establishment of the First Peoples’ Cultural Council. The website for the Crown Corporation: http://www.fpcc.ca/, I think you will find this page most interesting: http://www.fpcc.ca/about-us/Publications/
And if you’re looking for examples of usage of regionalism, go to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, where you will find names that identify parks, conservancies and reserves that are in both regional and aboriginal references.

From that point on she lists park names that exist either in both languages (whichever language it is), legally and formally, and some that have only native names; it's a set of HTML boxes, most reflected already in Category:Provincial parks of British Columbias many titles. If anyone needs "proof" of this email or thinks I fictionalized it, "email this user" and I will gladly forward it.Skookum1 (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of current usage, and I didn't listen closely enough to see if they speaker says "St'at'imc" (ambient yard-noise around me right now, i.e. lawnmower) but note that the "Lillooet Declaration" of 1913, which this is the centenary celebration of, is now referred to as the "St'at'imc Declaration", this video was posted by the Bridge River-Lillooet News today (on FB) and NB the signs in English using "St'at'imc".Skookum1 (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main article RM has now been completed, to St'at'imc. Can this CfR please be closed now?Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further re the diacriticals, since there is a demonstrable English version of this name i.e. "St'at'imc", the St'at'imcets form of the name, with the diacriticals and also the special t-apostrophe character, should not have primacy in English Wikipedia. I don't buy the "there can be a category redirect" argument, given the prevalence of the non-diacritical form in English (see the RM, especially the last few sections).Skookum1 (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent article. This probably should have waited until after the parent article was put at the desired outcome.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sto:lo categories

[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: rename both per nom.--Salix (talk): 11:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stó:lō people to Category:Sto:lo people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The use of the diacriticals is only favoured by one tribal council, not both. Common usage in media sources and most other publications is to use simply "Sto:lo" without diacriticals. Changing this to an easier-to-type version also means that it is easier to add this category, vs having to copy-paste the diacriticals.Skookum1 (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the main article for both is Sto:lo people, which already is diacritical-free, as are other subcategories.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/clarification per my most recent comment in reply to Obi Wan Kenobi, below, the main article was changed by a certain rogue-like editor without discussion and should have remained at Sto:lo, which is also where the parent category here should be (without the diacriticals, which are not universal and rarely used in English, other than by the one tribal council and by academic circles (where they have the font faces capable of doing so).Skookum1 (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I'm confused. Did you or did you not nominate a rename of ::Category:Stó:lō people to Category:Sto:lo people? (as well as the parent)? I don't think you can argue that "X people" is a bad framing, when such cats exist and you are proposing to continue having them - so your argument is confusing here (JPL may have been confused as well, and not realized there was a subcat in play with that name already) In any case, if you look at Category:Ethnic_groups_in_Africa_by_country, the norm is just to have the name of the group as the topic category, even if the article itself has "people" in the name. This is probably an artifact of a namespace collision: we normally use "X people" as a category for people who are X, but we also use "X people" as an article name to describe certain ethnic groups, their practices, politics, religion, dress, culture, etc - this namespace collision leads to the results as noted above. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's try this explanation again; the subcategory "Sto:lo people" like the one it's meant to replace, with the diacritical form, is for the people who belong to the Sto:lo, it is NOT meant as the article-name for the people. The addition of people was not done by RM, it was an across-the-board without speedy, and not announced so far as I know in {{NorthAmNative}} ([[WP:IPNA}}) who obviously should have been consulted. The main category should be, as with others in Category:First Nations in British Columbia, simply the endonym without "people" (as the main article title is now), and the "FOO people" construction is for "people from the FOO" where "FOO"=[endonym]. I.e. "people who belong to the [endonym)". Seems pretty clear to me what I'm asking and also what the bad problems are with "FOO people" having been made an across-the-board without any speedy; if that's a WP:WikiProject Ethnic Groups guideline, it's clearly in conflict with the Canadian and NorthAmNative conventions, which were derived by necessity exactly because of these compications caused by what you call a "namespace collision". ALL of them should be reverted back to plain old "[endonym]" from "[endonym] people", and any affected categories also reverted, if changed. There are special cases like Mohawk people (read the talkpage there) but that's not an endonym anyway, but an English word. In that case, as with Norwegians, "Mohawks" is preferable and more functional. Or maybe "Mohawk peoples" ...what the category there is I'm not certain, but that may have imposed political complications in the Mohawk world and may not be suitable. In this case, however, this is not one people, but a group of peoples....some divided into groups of bands, some distinct unto themselves (e.g. the Katzie. This CfR has now gone on for six weeks.....and shouldn't have gotten bogged down like this; the reasons, to me, as someone who has lived alongside this group/these groups his whole life, and seen how the terms are used in modern English, the case is clear. I can't close do a non-admin closure here, or for the even-better argued/justified/cited case of the St'at'imc, also started on this same day, where at least the article is simply "St'at'imc" and not "St'at'imc people" (which is redundant)...and looking back I see it was Kwami, who caused all the other endonym CfDs because of a similar undiscussed speedies on all of those, also without RMs, and the current Sto:lo people title should be reverted to Sto:lo, and then this protracted category rename can be simplified. Clusterfracking of important endonym-names and, in the Skwxwu7mesh/"Squamish people" case, also still unresolved since the speedy article rename followed by speedy cat rename, by someone doing things unilaterally, by reference only to his own talkpage (see the edit comment on that link) should not be tolerated, and the confusing consequences reverted, and these CfRs closed.Skookum1 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, I did ask for that rename, but not as the parent category, but for "people who belong to" as is also what you'll find at, I believe, Category:Cree people or Category:Mi'kmaq people or Category:Tsuu T'ina people or Category:Dakelh people or various others (I could make a fairly long list). That should not be the form for the main category title. Some standard within indigenous-peoples categories needs to be set, and IMO the "people" rider should be used for "people from/belonging to" rather than as an unnecessary name-dab for what are commonly in use as stand-alone names for the peoples. And just to note that the "Sto:lo people" category is rather underpopulated, not sure why as there are various people who should be in it, though I suppose many of their prominent writers and artists and politicians and stuff may not yet have bios....I've been meaning for a while to do one on Whattlekainum, the mid-19th C chief of the Kwantlen, also connected to the Katzie and Tsawwassen, whose name is spelled variously but who is also the namesake of Whatcom County. Largely it's a lack of modern bios that's the issue with that; I'll look around and see who does have articles, or should....for such an important and populous and influential group of peoples it's strange that there's not more. And note "Sto:lo peoples" is my suggestion as an alternative to the confusions of "Sto:lo people". The existing standard is for "FOO people" in Canadian categories as per the examples given, and in most Native American ones, when it's "people from" not as meaning "FOO people" when "FOO" suffices just fine in all cases, though there may be exceptions to that, I'll look around. Appending "people" to native-name articles has been going on for a while; Tlingit is still I think stand-alone, I haven't looked lately. Haida people now is what Haida used to be, that may be a dab now, but Category:Haida people is decidedly for people who are Haida. Then there's Category:Chilcotin people, who are people who are connected with or from the Chilcotin region, vs Category:Tsilhqot'in people for people who are Tsilhqotin. You see the problem? Skookum1 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note re the Chilcotin/Tsilhqot'in categories, there's a CfD re Category:Chilcotin (region) to amend that simply to either Category:Chilcotin, to match Category:Cariboo and Category:Okanagan and the like, or to "Chilcotin region" but then that implies those others need changing the same way; the move to Category:Chilcotin (region) was my own request, trying to fix Category:Chilcotin District which had been another based-on-main-article move, but that was unsuitable because capital-D "District" in BC has implications/connotations; it had been at Category:Chilcotin Country which is what I originally established it as; but again, the capital-C "Country" is problematic and hard to cite, though easily citable in lower-case forms. Some capital-C forms like Category:Bridge River Country are citable though I've never dug those cites up; it's a common usage and is in teh same ilk as writing "Fraser Canyon" rather than "Fraser canyon".Skookum1 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the subcat names at Category:First Nations in British Columbia and also in the various subcats at Category:First Nations by province or territory (NB in Alberta, "Blackfoot tribe" cat started out stateside not Canuck-made and should probably be changed because of the governmental meaning of "tribe" in the US). The old consensus about not using "people" on any of these is why they were made the way they are; in some cases it's linguistically redundant, which was the opinion shared by those participating in those deliberations, not sure which talkpage or where in teh NorthAmNative archives that might be...it's been a long time since then. Some - many - of the main articles have been changed to "FOO people" but so far, at least, the cat names haven't changed; partly because of the existence of subcats within them such as Category:Gitxsan people and the like. Others in one of these RMs or CfDs have insisted on the irrelevance of the native names containing "people" within their meaning, but I have yet to see a guideline mandating/ordering that and the complications posed by how to change Category:Sto:lo people (needs diacriticals for that to work...) and Category:Secwepemc people and more like that are very problematic. There is no reason to object to the stand-alone forms IMO. No valid one, that is. Noting also US-side categories such as Category:Native American tribes in Washington (state) where e.g. Category:Klallam and others exist, and that in American usage/categories the meaning of "tribe" in some is that of a federally registered tribe, vs others were an ethnic group is meant....that's a somewhat different issue but points to the governments/ethnic groups/reserves-reservations separation that was another concern of the long-ago deliberations on how to organize NA/FN articles and categories.Skookum1 (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
also please note the contents/subcats of Category:First Nations people and, by implication, how many of those would have to change to who-knows-what if "Foo people} became a standard for aboriginal ethno categories......Skookum1 (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education

[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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify. Overcategorization by award. This is a fine award to receive, but Paolo Freire, the World Organization of the Scout Movement, and Mother Theresa are not defined by having received this award; rather, this award serves as well-deserved recognition of their accomplishments. A list is the most appropriate way to collect this information (and indeed the category is described as "A list of recipients of the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education", suggesting some confusion in the category creator between lists and categories). Lquilter (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Filipino victims of crime

[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: Keep --Salix (talk): 19:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A sole container for the Filipino murder victim cat. Do we need this layer of categorization (several other cats suffer the same problem but we'll test this first - if your objection is why just one, nominate the rest and spare us the drama). Being a crime victim (generally) is not notable, and probably would include nearly every person in many countries. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to misunderstand - I intend to get all the series deleted; please read the nomination. Your argument is a straw man. Most people notable or not have been victims of some crime or another, it's trivial that someone had their wallet pickpocketed, or were overcharged in a market or were victims in the Enron collapse or of Madoff's doings. Pure trivia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Jerusalem

[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: do not split. As for WP:SUBCAT, it is a general guideline which needs exceptions in practice, and this one should remain within both the Israeli and Palestinian parent cats. – Fayenatic London 20:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split the current parenting of the everyone from Jerusalem is problematic in that it puts Palestinians from Jerusalem into the Israeli people by city tree which leads to Israeli people, etc. Similarly, the Israeli people from Jerusalem puts them in the Palestinian tree. The current "Jews from Jerusalem" doesn't solve matters because Israelis need not be Jew nor are all Palestinians Muslim or Non-Jewish - it's nationality not religion here. After the split, the Israeli people can be parented in the Israel tree and the Palestinian people cat can be parented in the Palestinian tree. The current cat can be kept as a container cat, but not parented in either the Israel or Palestinian tree so as to avoid the inaccuracies mentioned above. A third category Category:People from Pre-Partition Jerusalem can also be created for the various people who are from Jerusalem but are neither Israeli nor Palestinian (like Ottomans, Kurds, Canaanites, Bible folks, etc.) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede to Mubarak Awad calls him Palestinian-American not Jordanian-American, so you ought fix that. In any event, the status quo shows he's Israeli because he's in a daughter category of Israeli people by city. Clearly inaccurate in a BLP to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are also lots of expatriates from various countries in Jerusalem. Many non-Jewish Americans (I make this distinction, because if they were Jewish they would probably be considered Israelis) have spent large amounts of time there, some of whom might qualify as being from there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_3&oldid=1127484456"