June 16

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Ameba Content Catalog

Category:Ameba Content Catalog - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: A WP:SPA account is adding references to film content available via Ameba, which does not have a Wikipedia article as yet but it is a Winnipeg-based IPTV system for kids' entertainment. Being listed in Ameba's catalog is obviously not a defining characteristic of these films -- and this brand new editor likely doesn't realize how categories should be used. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This Category is inline with other specific categories such as: Programs broadcast by Treehouse TV, Disney Channel Shows, YTV shows, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekgear (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is. Those categories group shows produced or commissioned by those networks. Your category is for archival programs that Ameba has licensed non-exclusively, for a little known IPTV service. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The assumption of "produced for" or "commissioned by" is not correct. Also, licensing and notoriety of a service should not be the means test for the creation of a Category. Tekgear (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're right on the first point. However, I disagree with your second: it's unlikely we'll retain this category if Ameba isn't notable enough for a parent article, according to the guidelines in WP:COMPANY. I do see a few news hits, basically the press release licked up in a few trade publications, that might indicate it would squeak by. If Ameba isn't notable on its own, then being shown via its IPTV cannot be considered defining. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So if they get a parent article, then the category will be approved? Tekgear (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but this looks like clear cut WP:LINKSPAM. Every edit by Tekgear so far has been to promote this service. Creating a new article about - guess what? - Ameba would risk speedy delete for conflict of interest. Cards on the table here, are you linked to Ameba in any way?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect he or she is. But per WP:COI, if so, and the editor wants to declare an affiliation, I'd offer to help him or her draft such an article in a WP:NEUTRAL manner, as a sign of good faith. Still opposed to this category but I'd help with an article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ameba probably fails WP:GNG at the moment. It is hard to find out anything about in on Google beyond the official website.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My Googling did turn up these news hits in key animation and film trades. They're all bylined, too. I think it would pass. What do you think? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Passable, but not hugely notable. Ideally an article about the site from a newspaper etc would help, rather than online press releases.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – there are categories such as Category:BBC television programmes but I hope these are for programmes commissioned by the BBC rather than merely broadcast. Category:Programs broadcast by Treehouse TV sounds dubious to me. Occuli (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by schools in Pakistan

Propose renaming Category:People by schools in Pakistan to Category:Former pupils by secondary school in Pakistan

Nominator's rationale:' as per below nominations and UK language specific Mayumashu (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:People by school in Sierra Leone

Propose renaming Category:People by school in Sierra Leone to Category:Alumni by secondary school in Sierra Leone

Nominator's rationale: the one school listed is a secondary school. (This nomination too in conjunction with those below.) Mayumashu (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by secondary school in Canada

Propose renaming Category:People by secondary school in Canada to Category:Alumni by secondary school in Canada

Nominator's rationale: as per noms. below Mayumashu (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by high school in Romania

Propose renaming Category:People by high school in Romania to Category:Alumni by secondary school in Romania

Nominator's rationale: as per below Mayumashu (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by high school in Taiwan

Propose renaming Category:People by high school in Taiwan to Category:Alumni by secondary school in Taiwan

Nominator's rationale: as per other nominations listed below Mayumashu (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by schools in the United Kingdom

Propose renaming

• Category:People by schools in the United Kingdom to Category:Alumni by secondary school in the United KingdomCategory:Former pupils by secondary school in the United Kingdom
• Category:People by school in Northern Ireland to Category:Alumni by secondary school in Northern IrelandCategory:Former pupils by secondary school in Northern Ireland
• Category:People by school in Scotland to Category:Alumni by secondary school in ScotlandCategory:Former pupils by secondary school in Scotland
• Category:People by school in Wales to Category:Alumni by secondary school in WalesCategory:Former pupils by secondary school in Wales
• Category:People by school in England to Category:Alumni by secondary school in EnglandCategory:Former pupils by secondary school in England

Nominator's rationale: as per nomination below, schools listed are primarily secondary level and only should be, and teaching staff etc should not be included Mayumashu (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My only concern here is that alumni is ambiguous. It can mean people who attended the school in some cases and in others people who graduated. So at a by country this is probably not ambiguous since attended vs graduated varies only by country, I think. So is now the time to see if there is a better way to handle this? 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I d say encourage comment on this matter while also working on tidying up what does exist now of this cat tree. Graduates are a sub-set of alumni, so I might suggest possibly having Category:Graduates of Eton College as a subset of Category:Old Etonians, though I don t know if it is in fact necessary. 'People' is even more non-defining as it can include teaching staff if not others too. Mayumashu (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The terms "alumni" and "graduates" are not used of former school pupils in the UK. They are only used of former university students (since one does not "graduate" from school in the UK - one simply "leaves"). Schools use the terms "former pupils" or "old boys/girls". So the nomination is fundamentally inaccurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you suggesting Category:Pupils by secondary school in the United Kingdom or Category:Former pupils by secondary school in the United Kingdom? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter is probably preferable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment just to support Necrothesp comment Alumni normally relates only to universities. Also note one of the parent cats is Category:People by educational institution in the United Kingdom which includes staff/teachers so do we have a reason to exclude non-pupils. If not then leave as was as it might mean sorting a very complicated category tree. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However non-pupils are, for the most part anyway, separately subcatted under Category:People by educational institution in the United Kingdom, at Category:Academics by university in the United Kingdom etc. There may be a few prominent teachers listed amongst the students for a few lists and where this is the case, a 'People by ...' supracat can be recreated. Very few secondary school teachers however are WP:Notable for being teachers, but there are a few, admittedly. Mayumashu (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nomination now ammended for UK-specific language use. Mayumashu (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now the next question, does this only apply to the UK or do other countries have similar usage? Anyone? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment dont object to re-naming, but looking at the Category:People by school in England and the suggestion it is changed to secondary school most of the schools in the current category are non-state schools and somebody English would not think of them as secondary schools in the general sense as the expectation that it would included the local state secondary school, most would consider it wierd that Eton for example (and most of the schools in the category) is categorised as a secondary school. Would it be a lot easier to have Category:Former pupils by school in England a fairly simple change on the original category. Also note that it is very rare that primary schools would be notable to have Category:Former pupils by primary school in England which doesnt leave a lot of other schools. I know this is getting into ENGVAR issues but the categories are meant to be to help readers find stuff not to confuse them. MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by school in India

Propose renaming Category:People by schools in India to Category:Former pupils by secondary school in India

Nominator's rationale: listed are alumni by secondary school, and not staff or other people or alumni by elementary or primary schools (and UK-specific term used) Mayumashu (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by high school in the United States

Propose renaming Category:People by high school in the United States to Category:Alumni by secondary school in the United States

Nominator's rationale: the intention is to list alumni and not to include teaching staff or other people connected to high schools or other combined grade schools that include the high school grades. Mayumashu (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni by school

Propose renaming Category:Alumni by school to Category:Alumni or former pupils by secondary school

Nominator's rationale: current name can be taken to be synonymous, in casual terms, with Category:Alumni by educational institution, its supracategory (at least in North American English). Any alumni/former pupils by (strictly) primary or elementary schools should most likely be deleted, should they be listed in subcategories for this page Mayumashu (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Territorial Decoration recipients

Propose renaming Category:Territorial Decoration recipients to Category:Recipients of the Territorial Decoration

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with other similar categories in Category:Recipients of United Kingdom military awards and decorations and Category:Recipients of United Kingdom civil awards and decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:George Medal recipients

Propose renaming Category:George Medal recipients to Category:Recipients of the George Medal

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with other similar categories in Category:Recipients of United Kingdom civil awards and decorations and Category:Recipients of United Kingdom military awards and decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mission Inn

Category:Mission Inn - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The category currently contains the main article on the Mission Inn, a song written at the Inn, a book taking place at the Inn and the author of a biography of the Inn's builder. In other words, these are very very loosely associated topics and this does not warrant a category. Pichpich (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep—very, very few hotels/inns can claim such fame as having songs written in them etc. Useful and interesting category. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 09:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – these just seem to be articles mentioned in the Mission Inn article. A category with no parents tends to be difficult to defend. Occuli (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added two parents, so your point is now  Fixed – ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately neither parent is valid as the hotel is a hotel and its category contains non-hotels. Eg a book is not a hotel, heritage or otherwise. Occuli (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So what? Category:Barack Obama has, as its parent, Category:21st-century presidents of the United States, yet not every page within is that of a President. This is normal with categories. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That is also wrong, as are many category inclusions. There is no need to copy errors. It is quite straightforward: Mission Inn has various properties so it goes in various categories. A subcat of Category:Hotels should include articles about hotels only. Category:Categories named after hotels would be an obvious parent but even Hotel Chelsea has no associated category. Occuli (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Inn sounds like a fascinating place but I agree it doesn't merit an eponymous category. The connections are much too tenuous imo. Zona Gale because she once wrote a biography that had "Mission Hill" in the title? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belarusian pop groups

Propose renaming Category:Belarusian pop groups to Category:Belarusian pop music groups

Nominator's rationale: To match the rest of Category:Pop music groups Pichpich (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency. Wonder if ultimately this group of cats shouldn t be Category:Fooian popular music groups? Mayumashu (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wonder if ultimately ... " - This may well be the case: "popular" but not "pop" artists from such places are AFD firewood. Follow the rules and wikipedia coverage is limited to two extremes, either the eurovision crap or the cream of classical music. The world of music between usually fails notability guidelines. East of Borschov (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia featured desktop backgrounds

Category:Wikipedia featured desktop backgrounds - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: This category consists almost solely of pages which are cross-namespace redirects to it ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 07:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2012 millenarianism

Propose renaming Category:2012 millenarianism to Category:2012 phenomenon

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of the main article, 2012 phenomenon. Note the previous discussion just ended without a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match the category name to the article name, which in light of the recent move request is not changing. I made this rename suggestion at the last discussion and was told that it would not work because confusion might result with the 2012 Olympics. I never really understood that, since I'm not aware of anyone anywhere referring to the 2012 Olympics as the "2012 phenomenon". This name seems as good as any to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages of Pakistan by province or territory

Propose renaming Category:Languages of Pakistan by province or territory to Category:Languages of Pakistan by administrative unit.

Nominator's rationale: This would be consistent like other national division cats in Category:Categories by administrative unit of Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in Balochistan

Propose merging Category:Populated places in Balochistan into Category:Populated places in Balochistan (Pakistan) and rename Category:Union councils of Balochistan (which is a subcat) to Category:Union councils of Balochistan (Pakistan).

Nominator's rationale: All the cities listed in this category are in the Pakistani portion of Balochistan (region). The category Category:Populated places in Balochistan should have little or no articles at all since the Balochistan region is divided between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan - hence the cities can correctly/geographically be sorted rather into their own respective country categories. In the case of this redundant category, all of the articles that are categorised here belong to Pakistani Balochistan. Hence they should all be merged into Category:Populated places in Balochistan (Pakistan) as that is geographically correct/accurate. You may also notice that someone has already made the redundant cat a soft redirect into the latter. The subcat Category:Union councils of Balochistan (which is a subcat of this) should also be renamed into something like Category:Union councils of Balochistan (Pakistan) as all the union councils listed in here are in Pakistani Balochistan Mar4d (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cantonments and military bases of Pakistan

Propose merging Category:Cantonments and military bases of Pakistan into Category:Military facilities of Pakistan.

Nominator's rationale: The former is redundant and both are categorised under Category:Military facilities by country. Mar4d (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cantonments and military bases of Sindh & Category:Cantonments and military bases of Karachi

Delete Category:Cantonments and military bases of Sindh & Category:Cantonments and military bases of Karachi

Nominator's rationale: As you may notice, both these categories are subcats of the one I have proposed above for merging. These categories should be deleted as they are useless - and are based on administrative divisions of a country. You will notice that no country category under Category:Military facilities by country has divisional sub-cats within it i.e. the United States does not have a category like Category:Military facilities of New York City etc. Also, since this is a military category belonging to a country, you can't have something like this (as it doesn't make sense). You cannot have "Military facilities of New York City" but rather "Military facilities in New York City" - and no such subdivision cats exist in the first place anyway. So no justification for these sparsely populated categories Mar4d (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clothing for men

Category:Clothing for men - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a follow-up nomination to the recently deleted Category:Clothing for women. (This category was created while the one for women was being discussed.) The same rationale that supported deletion there applies here: this is an arbitrary collection and depends quite heavily on the cultural biases of the person doing the categorizing. What is considered men's clothing in one time and culture may be unisex clothing in another and women's clothing in yet another. Amusingly, the current contents include Apron, Bathrobe, Bermuda shorts, Bloomers (clothing), Capri pants, Coat (clothing), Costume, Diving suit, Jeans, Safety pin, Shirt, Shorts, Skirt, Straitjacket, T-shirt, and Trenchcoat. Women don't wear any of those, right?

Even the subcategories are misnamed and/or consist of arbitrary groupings: Category:Men's skirted garments contains, among others—Hakama, Lava-lava, Longyi, Lungi, Sarong, Ta'ovala, and Wrap (clothing)—all of which are worn by men and women. This is, as the closer said in the previous discussion, all "hopelessly arbitrary". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hong Kong people of Shundenese descent

Category:Hong Kong people of Shundenese descent - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a follow-up to this discussion, where Category:People of Shundenese descent and its subcategories were deleted. This one was omitted from that nomination and should be likewise deleted. For the other nationalities, we upmerged to the category for "Fooian people of Chinese descent", but for good reasons there is not a Category:Hong Kong people of Chinese descent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Those listed come from or have forebearers from Shunde district, regardless of ethnicity (Canton, Teochew, Hakka, etc.) An equivalent would be Category:Canadian people of Long Island descent or sth. Mayumashu (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A bad idea. Occuli (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country to Category:Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal by country

Nominator's rationale: This category breaks down its supercategory ("Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal") into its country-by-country instances (e.g. "Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States"); it covers something broader than particular cases of abuse (e.g. responses to abuse are also included). So the most consistent naming would be "Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal by country". TheGrappler (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal by country. This is a 'by country' subcat scheme for Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. (I think 'Church' is needed.) Occuli (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Jews by national origin

Propose renaming the following:

• Category:Canadian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Canadian origin
• Category:Mexican American Jews to Category:American Jews of Mexican origin
• Category:Czech-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Czech origin
• Category:Latvian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Latvian origin
• Category:Lithuanian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Lithuanian origin
• Category:Iraqi American Jews to Category:American Jews of Iraqi origin
• Category:Moroccan American Jews to Category:American Jews of Moroccan origin
• Category:French-American Jews to Category:American Jews of French origin
• Category:American Jews of European descent to Category:American Jews of European origin
• Category:British-American Jews to Category:American Jews of British origin
• Category:English-American Jews to Category:American Jews of English origin
• Category:Scottish-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Scottish origin
• Category:Portuguese American Jews to Category:American Jews of Portuguese origin
• Category:Spanish American Jews to Category:American Jews of Spanish origin
• Category:American Jews of Middle Eastern descent to Category:American Jews of Middle Eastern origin (parent cat Category:American people of Middle Eastern descent)
• Category:American Jews of North African descent to Category:American Jews of North African origin (parent cat Category:American people of North African descent)
• Category:Egyptian American Jews to Category:American Jews of Egyptian origin
• Category:Syrian American Jews to Category:American Jews of Syrian origin
• Category:Italian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Italian origin
• Category:Romanian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Romanian origin
• Category:Hungarian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Hungarian origin
• Category:Greek-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Greek origin
• Category:Russian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Russian origin
• Category:Slavic American Jews to Category:American Jews of Slavic origin (parent category Category:American people of Slavic descent)
• Category:Polish-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Polish origin
• Category:Austrian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Austrian origin
• Category:German-American Jews to Category:American Jews of German origin
• Category:Swiss-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Swiss origin
• Category:Tunisian American Jews to Category:American Jews of Tunisian origin
• Category:Ukrainian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Ukrainian origin
• Category:Belarusian-American Jews to Category:American Jews of Belarusian origin

Propose upmerging the following:

• Category:American Jews of Baltic descent to Category:American Ashkenazi Jews (no Category:American people of Baltic descent)
• Category:American Jews of Latin European descent to Category:American Jews of European origin (no Category:American people of Latin European descent)
• Category:American Jews of Germanic European descent to Category:American Ashkenazi Jews (no Category:American people of Germanic European descent)

Nominator's rationale: hyphenation ambiguous, could be taken to mean a few different things (dual citizens who are Jews, Jews who are citizens of these countries with American origins, vice-versa, or whathaveyou) and for this reason hyphenation for subcategories of Category:People by ethnic or national origin was deleted in favour of a naming that spells out what is meant. This is a sub-set that has been left over and an attempt to rename using the term 'descent' was rejected as suggestive of Booian ancestry (and thereby not Jewish ethnicity) - see this discussion - here, 'origin' was proposed as being not too suggestive of Booian ancestry. (To be clear, what is listed are Jews with American citizenship who were once settled in Booia or citizens of Booia or whose parents or forebearers were.) Mayumashu (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/upmerge per nom. This proposal reflects the rough consensus that was arrived at in the DRV when the discussion drifted towards what could or should be done with these after the undiscussed speedy rename changes were reversed, which they were. I support this choice for the reasons discussed there and because it is clearer than what exists now and it seemed to have majority support in the DRV. A few other users have strongly criticised using "descent", so "origin" seems like a good compromise. A few users even preferred the retention of the hyphenated compound adjectives, but they are hopelessly ambiguous, in my opinion. If you ask 4 different people what they mean, you could easily get 4 different answers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All. Firstly because Mayumashu trivializes and misrepresents this matter by focusing on mere "citizenship" when anyone should know that regarding the matter of Jews' identity its complex and involves both an ethnicity and belonging to a religion, in this case Judaism. Furthermore, the names of the categories that Mayumashu and Good Olfactory propose give no inkling that they're just about "citizenship" alone. In addition, the consensus at the recent DRV was to overturn Mayumashu's and Good Olfactory's handiwork and keep the original old category names that were fine for years, but that they now wish to overturn yet again with the same illogic against the consensus at the very recent Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent (which was clearly not the way that Mayumashu and Good Olfactory allege now -- just read it) and that opposed the changes that both users Mayumashu and Good Olfactory engineered and had taken it upon themselves to make without any wide consensus originally, and as they now continue to do without even bothering to inform the larger numbers of Judaic editors, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism for example, especially who have a deep knowledge of this subject matter. So Users Mayumashu and Good Olfactory now add insult to injury (that was fortunately overturned at the DRV) by misrepresenting what happened at the DRV when the consensus there was, not as they incorrectly claim here, but was strongly opposed to them, and was heavily in favor to overturn their changes and to NOT institute either "Category:Jewish people of fooian descent" or "Category:Jewish people of fooian origin" because both the words "descent" and "origin" create the identical problems of mis-identifying and implying Jews as either "descending" or "originating" from non-Jewish nationalities, ethnicities, groups among of which the majority of non-Jews are either Christian (in European areas) or Islamic (in Oriental areas) and to claim that Jews are either "decsended" or "originate" from these Christian majorities is not just totally false but patently absurd and a violation of WP:NEO; WP:NOR; WP:NOTMADEUP and a few more problems as fully explained in the lengthy DRV, see it all at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: Regarding:
  • Category:American Jews of Baltic descent to Category:American Ashkenazi Jews (no Category:American people of Baltic descent)
  • Category:American Jews of Latin European descent to Category:American Jews of European origin (no Category:American people of Latin European descent)
  • Category:American Jews of Germanic European descent to Category:American Ashkenazi Jews (no Category:American people of Germanic European descent)
• Simply because these few latter categories are clearly based on purely LINGUISTIC criteria (i.e. Latin European; Germanic European) that is one valid way of categorizing Jews without confusing their "descent" or "origins", and GEOGRAPHIC criteria (Baltic; Middle Eastern) that is another valid way to categorize Jews. With both language and geography, when clearly stated and understood, being valid criteria and that do NOT confuse complex ethnic or religious descent or origins, which is why they should be also be kept, regardless of what other categories they may not suit because Wikipedia does not require total and absolute uniformity and conformity of category names according the the dictates and wishes of Mayumashu and Good Olfactory who are known to work without consensus and who specialize in making mass nominations and then executing speedy changes that create more problems than they solve. IZAK (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several contributors in the DRV discussion besides Good Ol'factory and myself suggested using 'origin' and not 'descent' and suggested having a CfD on this matter, hence this nomination. There has been, in fact, a fairly developed consensus here at this project, cats for discussion, for having people categorised by ethnic or national origin/descent without using hyphenated adjectives, because of the ambiguity hyphenation convey. User:IZAK fails to explain how a name such as Category:Russian-American Jews is any better at conveying that listed are not, firstly, Russian Americans who practice Judaism and are, the intended, ethnically Jewish whose family a generation or more in Russia. (In fact, the category should allow for both types of people to be included.) That is, the hyphenated name is no better in emphasing Jewish ethnicity over "Russianish" (Russian nationality, ethnicity, citiznenship, etc.), to take an example. 'origin' is not the perfect term either in emphasing Jewish ethnicity over Russian, but it is better in showing that what is not meant is dual Russian-American citizenship or Russians of American origin/ descent who are Jewish. As for User:IZAK's comments critical of GOF's and my work in editting category names in general, not that we need to defend ourselves, but GOF has always gone about this work going through the proper channels and procedures, from what I ve seen, and I think I ve done so too, though I ve probably goofed up a few times here and there. Category pages are shared by users of different interests because they interconnect - the pages in question here are not the sole domain of Judaic editors, but also for those interested in human migration and for anyone with general interests too of course. Pages are tagged to let all those interested in them know of nominations. As for the attempt to speedily rename these pages before, again, they were done in good faith following correct procedure, as I interpreted it (based on the naming structure of parent categories and renaming precedent). Mayumashu (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! The issue is not the hyphen, some are and some aren't, nor is it about "tracking citizenship" as if Wikipedia is now some huge "passport control agency" tracking human migrations alone, rather the issue is how to retain the clearest description of a complex sub-group such as the Jews who, while they exhibit definitional elasticity for purposes of Wikipedia categorization as Mayumashu and Good Olfactory are proving with their never-ending handy-work, yet nevertheless there is a vital need to have clarity and specificity. It is precisely because Wikipedia has clearly defined articles/subjects/categories about Russian Americans that it is logical and possible to add it to the subject about Jews so that Russian American+Jews="Russian American Jews" just as the accepted term "Russian Jews" means Jews from Russia and no normal person or scholar uses the circumlocution of "Jews of Russian origins or descent" (do you want Wikipedia to come across as sounding like a crazy fool? violating its own rules of WP:HOAX and WP:NONSENSE?) Likewise no one in real life or in academia uses the term "American Jews of Russian origins or descent" as if they are terms detached from the way language and terminology is used by normal humans. Wikipedia is user, meaning reader, friendly, it does not want to foist and create its own Wiki-sociological-mumbo-jumbo-jargon based on silly arguments. No one refers to Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin as "(Singing?) Americans of Italian origins or descent" but as "Italian Americans" and ditto for their kids and grandkids even if born in America. Believe it or not Lady Gaga is an Italian American, check it out. Categories should correspond to terminology in articles! So likewise with Jews, while they are American Jews, they are something else first, such as "Russian American Jews", "Polish American Jews", actually to be specific there is no harm or insult to call them they are "Russian Jews" or "Polish Jews" or "Hungarian-Polish Jews" no matter how many generations on they have lived in America, it's the way Jews and scholars refer to them as well quite often. In Brooklyn you have "Syrian Jews" and "Hungarian Jews" even though they have been in America from 50 to 100 years. It is incredible that we have to actually discuss such obvious matters and it is absurd and ridiculous the lengths to which Mayumashu goes to uphold fake rules that have nothing to do with real life, history or reality. This is not about favoritism for Jews. This is about that Mayumashu, Good Olfactory and Cyde have taken on themselves "the job" to change all categories of humans as they please, without getting comprehensive input from every group they change to their liking which they then claim is "what Wikipedia wants" which it is most decidedly not! IZAK (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "fake rules" as you call them is convention that has been established on this project page, over the past few years with the input of some forty or more contributors/users/readers in the case of 'people by ethnic or national origin'. Fine, strictly speaking, the issue is not about the hyphen but compound adjective use (which typically uses a hyphen) - Russian American Jews (or Russian-American Jews) can be taken to mean, depending on what English you use, Russian citizens who are American Jews, American citizens who are Russian Jews, or dual citizens who are Jews, as already said. Sure, to Americans amongst Americans, mostly no discussion on what is meant by a name isn t necessary but, obviously, non-American users read WP too. Admittedly, compromising naming pattern and style to suit and make it comprehensible to most, no matter which English one uses, can result in a degree of wordiness and names that are somewhat less natural or normal to some - isn t this needless to say? But, honestly, how is the name 'American Jew of Russian origin' any less comprehenible to an American than 'Russian(-)American Jew'. Mayumashu (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, please keep me out of your conspiracy theorist rantings. As you've been told numerous times, I had nothing to do with nominating the categories the first time or this second time. Feel free to continue to express as much paranoia as you wish, but with regard to my actions, please at least make an attempt to refer to facts based in reality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per IZAK. 75.150.187.201 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Category:Former populated places in Scandinavia

Propose merging Category:Former populated places in Scandinavia to Category:Former populated places in Europe

Nominator's rationale: I suggest this should be upmerged; there doesn't seem to be any logic having a distinct "Scandinavia" subdivision (it doesn't have any Scandinavian parent categories); the depopulated places are unambiguously within Denmark/Norway/Sweden and can also be categorized as such. TheGrappler (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Move articles to Category:Former populated places in Norway, Category:Former populated places in Denmark, Category:Former populated places in Sweden, Category:Former populated places in Finland then delete. P.S. is there a consensus to place stone age archaological sites into "populated places" (see Kierikki)? East of Borschov (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honorary citizens of Vienna

Category:Honorary citizens of Vienna - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The normal practice with "honorary citizenship" categories has been to essentially treat them as awards and therefore to listify them. This one is already listified at List of honorary citizens of Vienna, so I think the category can be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent

Propose merging Category:LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent to Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No other category categorizes LGBT people by a specific national descent. Do we really want to start doing this? Categorizing LGBT people by nationality is sensible, and perhaps by general ethnic group is OK (Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people), but in my view this is starting to slice things a bit thin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Against merging. While it is useful and valid to have a Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people, it is also important to recognize the specificity of LGBT Puerto Rican people in the United States and to be able to easily identify them in relation to LGBT people from Puerto Rico. I created this category after another Wikipedian deleted all of these names from the Category:LGBT people from Puerto Rico. Consult scholarly works such as David William Foster's Latin American Writers on Gay and Lesbian Themes and Lawrence La Fountain-Stokes Queer Ricans: Cultures and Sexualities in the Diaspora for rationale behind having LGBT Puerto Ricans in the US be identifiable and linkable to LGBT people in Puerto Rico, and why it is important to be able to distinguish between Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Mexican Americans, and others in the US. Another relevant scholarly source is "Puerto Rican Queer Sexualities", special issue of CENTRO: Journal of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies (Spring 2007). Finally, identifying Puerto Ricans in US as separate and also as part of bigger category of Hispanics or Latinos is consistent with many general Wikipedia editing practices for this specific group.--Lawrlafo (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We're talking about two different layers here. If they are Puerto Rican, they should go in Category:LGBT people from Puerto Rico—I have no problem with that. But if they are only of Puerto Rican descent, why is it important to have the intersection of ethnic descent and LGBT? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Because LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent in the US identify as (or are considered) Puerto Rican and American (being both, as Puerto Rico is a non-incorporated, colonial possession of the US, and all Puerto Ricans are US citizens except those who explicitly reject this citizenship and accept that of another sovereign nation), and most leading scholars and activists commonly see the links and circular migration patterns between the two. It is not easy to account for this in Wikipedia. AIDS researchers and many others also distinguish between the broader panethnic labels ("Latino, Hispanic") and specific country of origin (such as Puerto Rican), because of the great limitations in these broader categories. This is why it makes sense to have an easily-identifiable category for LGBT people of Puerto Rican descent.--Lawrlafo (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That didn't really answer my question. Why is this particular intersection important to maintain? I realize that it's important to retain the category Category:People of Puerto Rican descent as well as Category:LGBT people—but why the combination of the two? There are hundreds if not thousands of similar intersections we could concoct in the category system—but why this one? It's not part of an overall scheme. It's just "out there" as a one-of-a-kind intersection. The Puerto Rico/U.S. situation with nationality and ethnicity complications is far from unique in the world. Do you think we should have Category:LGBT people of Montserratian descent, for example? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Against merging, however why not just rename "Category:LGBT people from Puerto Rico" to "LGBT people from Puerto Rico and of Puerto Rican descent"? Lawrlafo, did make a valid point in that many U.S. born people of Puerto Rican descent simply identify themselves as Puerto Ricans. It may also seem strange but, there are some Puerto Ricans who are so "Americanized" that they do not consider Puerto Rico a "Latin" country and therefore do not consider themselves and recent to being called Latins. That's politics for you, you go figure (smile). Tony the Marine (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, setting aside whether we should maintain Category:American people of Puerto Rican descent, which is not the focus on this nomination. Catting by sexuality and ethnic or national descent is WP:OC to me, as well. Mayumashu (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. There is no connection between sexuality and ethnic/national descent as far as I know. And Category:LGBT Hispanic and Latino American people is not otherwise subcatted. (If there is a notable connection between LGBT people and those of Puerto Rican descent, an article should precede the category. There seems to be an underlying assumption that these people are all American - do Puerto Ricans not travel?) Occuli (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]