Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 113: Line 113:


:::Yes, there is a specific legal status for such communities in Quebec, and during the megacities merger process, there were some governmental assurances given to communities that after merger would become more francophone (which have since been abrogated). One of the legal definition requires that 50%+1 of the population is non-Francophone, which means the community is allowed to offer certain services in English. If there is less than that, then the community can get a visit from the language police for being insufficiently francophone in their services, IIRC. It's rather simple to look up, but I didn't when I lodged this opinion, so I'm relying on my memory. -- [[Special:Contributions/70.49.127.65|70.49.127.65]] ([[User talk:70.49.127.65|talk]]) 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, there is a specific legal status for such communities in Quebec, and during the megacities merger process, there were some governmental assurances given to communities that after merger would become more francophone (which have since been abrogated). One of the legal definition requires that 50%+1 of the population is non-Francophone, which means the community is allowed to offer certain services in English. If there is less than that, then the community can get a visit from the language police for being insufficiently francophone in their services, IIRC. It's rather simple to look up, but I didn't when I lodged this opinion, so I'm relying on my memory. -- [[Special:Contributions/70.49.127.65|70.49.127.65]] ([[User talk:70.49.127.65|talk]]) 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

::::Here's a news report on the town of Huntingdon being charged with violating the Charter by providing English language services, when only French is legally allowed. [http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-quebecoise/201203/06/01-4503096-loi-101-pas-question-douvrir-la-charte-dit-quebec.php], and that not just arrondissements and municipalities, but that sectors can also have bilingual status. [http://www.lapresse.ca/la-tribune/201203/09/01-4504014-lennoxville-peut-rester-bilingue.php] And the abrogation of grandfathering for Aylmer. [http://www.lapresse.ca/le-droit/actualites/ville-de-gatineau/201110/02/01-4453526-loqlf-a-gatineau-a-loeil.php] which also includes the spokesman for the OLF stating that such services are only allowed for officially recognized communities. And that grandfathering is from [http://www.lautjournal.info/default.aspx?page=3&NewsId=3626] Bill 86 (1993). -- [[Special:Contributions/70.49.127.65|70.49.127.65]] ([[User talk:70.49.127.65|talk]]) 09:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


*'''Keep''' restrict to the Quebec government's legal definition, instead of the common definition found in Quebec, (which end up with visits from the language cops to city hall, (there was one of those just this year, when a town in l'Estrie wasn't sufficiently francisized in its services, and the francophone mayor defied the OLF) ) -- [[Special:Contributions/70.49.127.65|70.49.127.65]] ([[User talk:70.49.127.65|talk]]) 05:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' restrict to the Quebec government's legal definition, instead of the common definition found in Quebec, (which end up with visits from the language cops to city hall, (there was one of those just this year, when a town in l'Estrie wasn't sufficiently francisized in its services, and the francophone mayor defied the OLF) ) -- [[Special:Contributions/70.49.127.65|70.49.127.65]] ([[User talk:70.49.127.65|talk]]) 05:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:34, 9 July 2012

< July 2 July 4 >

July 3

Category:Romanian people of Hungarian descent

Nominator's rationale: Rename/Split to match the main article Hungarian minority in Romania and to provide more accuracy. People listed under this category are ethnic Hungarians from the populous minority group in this country. They are Hungarians, not some people "of Hungarian descent". We can have both categories like Category:Polish Jews and Category:Polish people of Jewish descent. Darwinek (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a difference between citizens of Romania with Hungarian descent, and citizens of Romania who are Hungarians. Citizenship and nationality are two different things is Central and Eastern Europe. That's why we have national minorities here. - Darwinek (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Ethnic Hungarian citizens of Romania (or at least Category:Ethnic Hungarian Romanian people) for clarity, and check to see that all listed are indeed ethnic Hungarian and not Romanian with (some) Hungarian ancestry. (And recreate this category if there are any individuals with just ancestry.) Mayumashu (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the attempts to distinguish the gradations of Hungarianess among citizens of Romania is built around an assumption that the lines of Hungarianess and Romanianess are clear and distinct, while in reality there is no easy way to tell the difference between a Hungarian who is a citizen of Romania and a Romanian who had Hungarian ancestors. Ethnicity is too fluid to meet such precise categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment before placing a vote, I'd like to be more acquainted with this. You are aware that "Romanian people of Hungarian descent" might include people who might've had Hungarian parent(s) or grandparent(s) but they even distance themselves from the Hungarians (and don't even speak the language anymore), right? Because I think that if you'd put them into a category together with e.g. László Tőkés, they might take offense (especially since it happens that while giving up their Hungarian roots they become avid Romanian nationalists in the process too). Thus I suggest creating the new category, moving the Hungarians there, and leave the rest in this category (i.e. those who do have Hungarian descent, but don't consider themselves Hungarian). What do you think? -- CoolKoon (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very logical, as both mentioned groups are distinct and deserve own categories. - Darwinek (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are people in Romania with Hungarian descent. Csendesmark (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Encyclopedias on fictional worlds

Nominator's rationale: I see no need, at this time, to limit the scope of this category to encyclopedias of fictional worlds, such as Pandora or Middle-earth, as opposed to encyclopedias of fiction in general, inclusive of works of fiction, fictional characters and places, and the like. The precise naming format—Encyclopedias on... versus Encyclopedias of...—should reflect the outcome of the main discussion and should be decided there, not here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Encyclopedias on science and mathematics

Nominator's rationale: Although there is some overlap between the topics, they are sufficiently different and most articles clearly belong to one or the other. If there is no consensus to split, then I propose changing the order of the topics per alphabetical ordering: Category:Encyclopedias of mathematics and science. The precise naming format—Encyclopedias on... versus Encyclopedias of...—should reflect the outcome of the main discussion and should be decided there, not here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - While there is definitely some overlap, I suppose dual categorisation could work. If kept, renaming for math to be first (for alphabetic reasons) per common practice.- jc37 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized encyclopedias

Nominator's rationale: Encyclopedias are of various topics, not on them (particularly odd in the case of "Encyclopedias on ficitonal worlds"): e.g., Encyclopedia of Albanian Art, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Encyclopaedia of Islam. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Also support: Category:Encyclopedias concerning X, for improved clarity. Weak support to use "covering" instead. Though I chuckle when thinking of Encyclopedias covering sexuality  : ) - jc37 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brickyard 400 winners

Nominator's rationale: This comes very close to a "performer by performance" category, which is something we simply don't do. Now, it's true that some races are defining enough to a driver's career to be categorised - the Daytona 500 and Indianapolis 500, for instance - but the Brickyard 400 does not rise to that level. (One might well argue that the World 600 is more significant...). So this should simply be a list in the Brickyard 400 article - which it already is - and not a category. The Bushranger One ping only 16:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. The Brickyard was never at the top level of its sport. I work on Golf tournament articles and winners aren't categorized for winning the Phoenix Open or Corning Classic. None of these are define the athlete....William 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sensu stricto, The Brickyard is and has always been at the top level of its sport. Just not the top level of NASCAR. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reference types

Nominator's rationale: A number of empty maintenance categories. Never used in the past as far as I have checked now and then; the instructions given for using them don't work, adding a type parameter has no result in the templates. More than a year old. Fram (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All-Ireland Senior Camogie Championships navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. Upmerging is also possible. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All-Ireland Senior Ladies' Football Championships navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. Upmerging is also possible. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demographics of Canada by province

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 rename (CSD G7: category creator consents to the change). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think that we should expand the scope of this category to include Demographics of Northwest Territories, Demographics of Nunavut and Demographics of Yukon, which currently are categorized in the 'demographics of Canada' category. Most other categories of this sort do so already—see Category:Categories by province or territory of Canada. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename Examination shows that 'by province or territory" is the usual form. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debate not really necessary on this one. I'll speedy rename it right now. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2012 (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:Quebec communities with significant anglophone populations

Nominator's rationale: What is the threshold for a "significant ... population"? Should we consider raw numbers (e.g., more than 1,000 people) or population percentage (more than 10%)? The problem with both is that, ultimately, virtually any specific threshold will be arbitrary and likely not defining: compare the hypothetical situations of 1,000 English-speakers in a population of 100,000 (i.e. 1%) versus 10 English-speakers in a population of 20 (i.e. 50%).
We could restrict the scope of the category to communities with majority Anglophone populations. This threshold, while arbitrary, at least is somewhat natural. However, such a category would need to be updated constantly to reflect demographic changes. Alternatively, we could avoid this problem entirely by choosing to forgo a precise definition and to rely on (near-)explicit identification by reliable sources (e.g. "Foo (is/was) an Anglo-Quebecer community"). The problem here, of course, is that different sources will use different definitions and criteria.
Therefore, I believe that the best option is to listify this category to List of Anglo-Quebecer communities (or its talk page, so editors can format and source it). The ideal solution, in my opinion, would be delete both the category and list and, in their place, to create Language demographics of Quebec by community as an extension of Language demographics of Quebec.
If there is no consensus to listify, then the category should be renamed to one of the following, in order to capitalize 'Anglophone' and/or reflect the 'populated places...' wording that has been adopted for settlements: Category:Anglo-Quebecer communities, Category:Populated places in Quebec with majority Anglophone populations or Category:Populated places in Quebec with significant Anglophone populations. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that the current name is problematic (I've actually raised that issue more than once in the past, but it didn't end up going anywhere). Part of the problem is that the category appears to be a bit of original research collated by applying an arbitrary cutoff to a raw statsdump of language demographic numbers. Unlike the situation in Ontario, where there's at least an actual legal designation for communities that have a large enough francophone population to warrant the provision of French language provincial government services and the corresponding category simply collects those designated areas, I'm not clear whether Quebec has a specific legal designation for communities with sizeable anglophone populations or not. Accordingly, I don't think categorization is appropriate in this case, although the list is acceptable. Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a specific legal status for such communities in Quebec, and during the megacities merger process, there were some governmental assurances given to communities that after merger would become more francophone (which have since been abrogated). One of the legal definition requires that 50%+1 of the population is non-Francophone, which means the community is allowed to offer certain services in English. If there is less than that, then the community can get a visit from the language police for being insufficiently francophone in their services, IIRC. It's rather simple to look up, but I didn't when I lodged this opinion, so I'm relying on my memory. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a news report on the town of Huntingdon being charged with violating the Charter by providing English language services, when only French is legally allowed. [1], and that not just arrondissements and municipalities, but that sectors can also have bilingual status. [2] And the abrogation of grandfathering for Aylmer. [3] which also includes the spokesman for the OLF stating that such services are only allowed for officially recognized communities. And that grandfathering is from [4] Bill 86 (1993). -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep restrict to the Quebec government's legal definition, instead of the common definition found in Quebec, (which end up with visits from the language cops to city hall, (there was one of those just this year, when a town in l'Estrie wasn't sufficiently francisized in its services, and the francophone mayor defied the OLF) ) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What is Quebec's official definition? I searched Quebec's Government Portal but could not find a relevant page or document. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well,

    Avant ces nouvelles dispositions, une municipalité était reconnue comme bilingue lorsqu’elle comptait plus de 50 % de la population «en majorité d'une langue autre que française». Dorénavant, une municipalité devra, pour obtenir le statut de ville bilingue, compter, selon l’article 6 de la loi, «plus de la moitié des résidents de son territoire [...] de langue maternelle anglaise». Autrement dit, les allophones ne pourront plus être comptabilisés comme «anglophones».

    according to Laval Unveristy [5] ; the law is the Charte de la langue française but various bills have modified it, so depending on what time period it was, status recognition was granted under different criteria. Some municipalities have been grandfathered in, even though they no longer meet the cutoff, others have had their status revised. Some arrondissements have kept their bilingual status even though they were merged in the megacity merger bill that forcibly merged many Quebec cities. Though municipalities have to apply for status. The periods to deal with are 1974-1977 (Bill 22);1977-1993 (Bill 101); 1993-2001; 2001+; IIRC. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename if this was Category:Quebec communities with anglophone majority populations it would be workable. It would then be roughly equivalent to such categories as Category:Populated places in Michigan with African-American majority populations. However the term "significant" just turns this into an amorphous, undefined category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it can be reformulated to Cateogry:Quebec communities with bilingual legal status (communities lacking such status would make it illegal to provide certain services in English, those must be provided in French), so would be a much more significant distinction than your example from Michigan, which carries no legal ramifications. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All-Ireland Minor Football Championships

Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content at this time to justify a separate category for articles about individual championship years. This set category can be upmerged into the parent topic category for the Championship as a whole. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hopefully in time we will have sufficient information, but until then, I'm afraid I have to agree. Mac Tíre Cowag 20:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Franco-Ontarian education

Nominator's rationale: There does not exist, as far as I know, a distinct category or type of education known as "Franco-Ontarian"; rather, the scope of the category is French-language education in Ontario. The current name was, I think, based on Category:Franco-Ontarian culture; the proposed name matches the format of Category:French-language education in Canada. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Members of the House of Commons of Canada and, more generally, Category:House of Commons of Canada and House of Commons of Canada. If there is consensus for the change, I will nominate the remaining subcategories at WP:CFD/S. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only significant change is "province" to "province or territory", which expands the scope of the category to include the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon and follows the convention of Category:Members of the House of Commons of Canada by province or territory. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_3&oldid=501371024"