Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 21: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Soccer174 (talk | contribs)
1,377 edits
Soccer174 (talk | contribs)
1,377 edits
Line 222: Line 222:


==== Category:Hakka Hongkongers ====
==== Category:Hakka Hongkongers ====
:[[:Category:Hakka Hongkongers]] - {{lc1|Hakka Hongkongers}}<br />
:[[:Category:Hakka Malaysians]] - {{lc1|Hakka Malaysians}}<br />
:[[:Category:Hakka Singaporeans]] - {{lc1| Hakka Singaporeans}}<br />
:[[:Category:Hakka Taiwanese]] - {{lc1|Hakka Taiwanese}}<br />
:[[:Category:Chaoshanese Hongkongers]] - {{lc1|Chaoshanese Hongkongers}}<br />
:[[:Category:Hakka Indonesians]] - {{lc1|Hakka Indonesians}}<br />




Revision as of 13:06, 23 October 2008

< October 20 October 22 >

October 21

OJ Simpson

Category:O. J. Simpson - Template:Lc1
Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Discuss - the parent cat was recently CFDed with a result of "consensus that two categories aren't necessary, no consensus as to what to do with them. Suggest renomination." Possible outcomes that I see are: 1) Delete Category:O. J. Simpson, retain Category:O. J. Simpson murder trial; 2) Upmerge the trial category to the parent; 3) Delete the parent category, rename the murder trial category to Category:O. J. Simpson trials to capture O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case; 4) Something I haven't thought of. I have a preference for deleting the parent, as merging the categories takes the murder trial category out of the parent . I have no incredibly strong opinion on the idea of renaming to "trials" to capture the robbery article, but as I said at the last CFD, I don't find it terribly necessary. Otto4711 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of complicated. Retaining both categories means that there would be two articles in the main "trials" category, Simpson's article and the Vegas robbery article. That seems unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:O. J. Simpson - this will enable articles relating to his distinguished sporting career to be included as well as ones to his subsequent (alleged) criminal one. I see no objection to this appearing in multiple categories including trial ones, despite trial not being part of the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There do not appear to be any articles about his football career. Otto4711 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region categories

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Categories are at two different forms of the name of this region, article is at a third, varying essentially according to degree of seemingly ad hoc anglicisation. I don't have a particular preference for which, as long as we end up with something consistent, for which there's reasonable evidence for common use in English. Alai (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename using "Magellan and Chilean Antartica Region" form as the best English translation of the Spanish name. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until all Chilean regions uses the same form. Currently the word Región is spelled in English at all articles and at most articles (with the exception of Santiago Metropolitan Region and Magallanes) the short version of the Spanish form is used. This is the current "maintream" translation in wikipedia. If Magallanes Region got an english name then Los Ríos and Los Lagos Region should be renamed to River Region and Lake Region? The same logic should be aplied to all Chilean regions. Dentren | Talk 11:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs about divorce

Category:Songs about divorce - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category, subject to original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chrono Crusade

Category:Chrono Crusade - Template:Lc1
Category:Chrono Crusade characters - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: delete: Unnecessary category that only contains the main article and the navigation template, which is itself at TfD. Note that I am also nominating the empty subcategory Category:Chrono Crusade characters. —Dinoguy1000 21:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for both, as per nom. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master 07:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reading Abbey

Category:Reading Abbey - Template:Lc1
Category:Saint Michael's Abbey, Farnborough Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just not big enough to warrant its own cat (and leaving on one side the unusual way in which it has been populated). HeartofaDog (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: added another for exactly the same reason, ie, too small to warrant its own cat HeartofaDog (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom; categories should not duplicate "what links here." Postdlf (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom, noting that the first classifies Henry I as a Grade I listed building. (Surprising burials at the 2nd, which is not yet tagged.) Occuli (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with some tidying-up. All of these articles are related to Reading Abbey, thus seems a good reason to have a category. EstherLois (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC) [creator of both cats][reply]
    • Comment: as per the two users above, I'm afraid - Wiki cats aren't just collections of random connections HeartofaDog (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that were all it took, every article would have a category containing every article it linked to or that linked to it. Some of the included articles here are places merely located near the category subject; it certainly does not define them. Please see relevant guidelines regarding overcategorization. Postdlf (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reading, which has enough articles to warrant a category. Not sure about Farnborough, where the links in the article are likely to be a sufficient navigational tool to link the contents. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:306 Entertainment albums

Category:306 Entertainment albums - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: There seems to be only one album released on this label, and the label itself does not have an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Americans of German descent

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, recreation. Postdlf (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Americans of German descent - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category was merged to Category:German-Americans a few weeks ago (see [1]), somebody recreated it. Wulf Isebrand (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2008 (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:Fictional Americans by state

Category:Fictional Americans by state - Template:Lc1
Nominated categories
Category:Fictional characters from Wisconsin
Category:Fictional characters from West Virginia
Category:Fictional characters from Washington, D.C.
Category:Fictional characters from Washington
Category:Fictional characters from Virginia
Category:Fictional characters from Vermont
Category:Fictional characters from Utah
Category:Fictional characters from Texas
Category:Fictional characters from Tennessee
Category:Fictional characters from South Carolina
Category:Fictional characters from Rhode Island
Category:Fictional characters from Philadelphia
Category:Fictional characters from Pittsburgh
Category:Fictional characters from Pennsylvania
Category:Fictional characters from Oregon
Category:Fictional characters from Oklahoma
Category:Fictional characters from Ohio
Category:Fictional characters from North Dakota
Category:Fictional characters from North Carolina
Category:Fictional characters from New York City
Category:Fictional characters from New York
Category:Fictional characters from New Mexico
Category:Fictional characters from New Jersey
Category:Fictional characters from New Hampshire
Category:Fictional characters from Nevada
Category:Fictional characters from Nebraska
Category:Fictional characters from Montana
Category:Fictional characters from Missouri
Category:Fictional characters from Mississippi
Category:Fictional characters from Minnesota
Category:Fictional characters from Michigan
Category:Fictional characters from Massachusetts
Category:Fictional characters from Maryland
Category:Fictional characters from Maine
Category:Fictional characters from New Orleans
Category:Fictional characters from Louisiana
Category:Fictional characters from Kentucky
Category:Fictional characters from Kansas
Category:Fictional characters from Iowa
Category:Fictional characters from Indiana
Category:Fictional characters from Chicago
Category:Fictional characters from Illinois
Category:Fictional characters from Idaho
Category:Fictional characters from Hawaii
Category:Fictional characters from Georgia (U.S. state)
Category:Fictional characters from Florida
Category:Fictional characters from Delaware
Category:Fictional characters from Connecticut
Category:Fictional characters from Colorado
Category:Fictional characters from California
Category:Fictional characters from Arkansas
Category:Fictional characters from Arizona
Category:Fictional characters from Alaska
Category:Fictional characters from Alabama
Nominator's rationale: Parent category was deleted via CfD. The same arguments apply here: reliance on original research and mutability of fictional characters. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore parent Category:Fictional Americans along with the other arbitrarily deleted nationality cats. Closing admin was wrong to delete those cats initially and compounding the error by deleting more categories is not the way to go. If anything, these categories are less mutable than their real-life counterparts, given the frequency with which real people move from state to state. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unclear on why it would take original research to determine that a fictional character was from a particular state or city. Postdlf (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What state is Batman from? How about the Flash? Attempting to categorise characters by whatever state we presume they live in "in-universe", is WP:OR, with very few exceptions. (Ask me, c'mon, you know you wanna ask me: Why are they WP:OR? And what are the "very few exceptions"? : ) - jc37 22:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what state Batman or Flash is from (although I seem to recall that Wally West was established as being from California but it's been a long time). Ask me what state Spider-Man is from. If we don't know what state a character is from, then don't include them in the category. DC characters from fictional cities within the United States don't need to be listed as being from a particular state. If only we had a general category for fictional characters from America... Otto4711 (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore per Otto. I think the OR involved is called 'reading' if it's a book or 'listening' if it's a film. Occuli (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment really causes me to wonder if you actually understand Wikipedia's policies on appropriate usage of primary sources... - jc37 22:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we cannot deduce from Lord of the Rings that Bilbo is a hobbit (say) then Wikipedia's policies on the matter are ludicrous. Occuli (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I understand them fairly well. For example, in Flash Gordon (film) when Dale Arden tells Flash that she's a "New York City girl" that pretty clearly establishes that she's a fictional character from New York. No OR required. Other iterations from the character may be from other states. If that's so, then the character can be listed in each state category that's verifiable. Otto4711 (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that any character has ever been known to lie or misrepresent information (or even be misinformed or mistaken) about themself... (At least Flash Gordon doesn't have Skrulls : ) - jc37 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We go by the best information that we have. If later information surfaces that Dale was lying about being from New York, then she can be removed from the category. Otto4711 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and overturn previous Cfd, per Otto & my comments below. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous CfD (And WP:DRV is that way in regards to the rest.) Noting also that there do not seem to be any more substantial comments this time around than last time... - jc37 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that a single character has been placed into any of these categories on the basis of original research, just like there was no evidence the last time. Any category that characterizes either real people or fictional characters may fall prey to OR. That someone might put a fictional character in the wrong state or make an assumption about the state the character is from is no excuse to continue the hack job that's being done on fictional character categories. Otto4711 (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and restore the parent category. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Americans by ethnicity

Category:Fictional Americans by ethnicity - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional African-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Arab-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Asian Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Cajuns - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Danish-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Dutch-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional English Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional European Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional French-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional German-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Greek-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Indian Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Irish-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Italian-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Polish-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Russian-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Scots-Irish Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Scottish-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Swedish-Americans - Template:Lc1
Category:Fictional Black Irish-Americans - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Parent category was deleted via CfD. The same arguments apply here: reliance on original research and mutability of fictional characters. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the subcategories appear to be tagged. Postdlf (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and restore Category:Fictional Americans. This was a bulk nom running together sensible categories such as this one with various comics and anime cats of a specious nature. It is ridiculous not to be able to categorise Americans in fiction as 'fictional Americans'. (I might well argue for upmerging all or most of the above into Category:Fictional Americans. Black Irish-Americans, indeed.) Occuli (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that you're preference is to "UpMerge all" to Category:Fictional Americans? - jc37 22:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - This is a terribly misbegotten nomination. I agree entirely with Occuli's comment with regard to the CFD that resulted in the deletion of Category:Fictional Americans (and all of the other nationalities) . However, I most certainly would not support upmerging these categories by ethnicity. Removing them would be a travesty of the first order. A huge part of American literature is populated precisely by characters of particular ethnicities. It is patently absurd to suggest that these characters are "mutable", or that "original research" is required in order to ascribe ethnicity. In most cases, the information is right there in the text of the story; where it isn't, the article can be removed from the category -- just as is done with any other category. Why should these categories be treated any differently?? Cgingold (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because something may be worthy of writing an article, doesn't mean that we should be categorising individual characters based upon presumed ethnicity. (Especially in cases such as comics where, especially often in the Golden Age, ethnicity was merely what shade or tint of colour happened to be used by a colourist.) - jc37 22:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I definitely agree with Occuli that the Fictional Americans category should be restored. The ethnic subcats may be less urgent, but I would argue that they help to illustrate how various groups have been depicted in literature, television, film, etc.Bjones (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and restored fictional Americans & all the rest - the nomination was to rename, an issue I for one had no strong views over. If it had been a Delete nom, I would certainly have opposed - did it go to review? I hope the closer here will overturn the previous decision. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I closed that nom but no, it never did go to review and I only had one inquiry about it, from Otto. I wouldn't oppose such a move for review; I expected that it would happen. You may have a hard time demonstrating that I "misinterpreted" the discussion :) (or not), but it may nevertheless be worthwhile if you think there's a consensus for re-creation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, like Johnbod I would have opposed a blanket delete vehemently. I do not even recall that cfd - if the nom is rename and the extent of the nom is hidden in default view then perhaps one can get all manner of things deleted surreptitiously (this was evidently not the intention of this particular nom as the nominator - otto - has protested at some length to the closer). James Bond for instance is now in no nationality cat (he was in an English one although he is patently Scottish) ... surely it cannot be OR to say he is/was British, that this is defining and should be categorised as such? Occuli (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm; I'm not sure I would agree it was in any way "surreptitious". It was opened, relisted, stayed open for over 1 month ... We can only do so much to let people know. No one has the magical power to know who "would be" interested and who is just ignoring it because they don't care. Also, the original intent of the nominator is irrelevant if consensus points a different way. Once the nomination is made all options are on the table. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except Category:Fictional Black Irish-Americans: I don't think that people (fictional or not) should be categorized by physical appearance. The article Black Irish describes a "dark brown or black hair phenotype appearing in Caucasian persons of Irish descent. This can be distinguished in contrast to the (lighter) brown, blond or red hair color variant, the latter stereotypically perceived to personify the look of typical Irish folk." --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, no, no, no -- the line you quoted has nothing whatsoever to do with this category, which is about people/characters who are of mixed African American-Irish American parentage. They are actually a significant ethnic sub-group in San Francisco and other cities. (There's a little bit on this at Black Irish#Other_uses). Cgingold (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that's very specific. Categories like "German-Irish Americans" were deleted, we could have hundreds of intersections for people with multiple ethnic backgrounds. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Fictional Black Irish-Americans per Wulf, noting also that there is not a corresponding categegory for real people. No comment on the remainder for now. Postdlf (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous CfD (And WP:DRV is that way in regards to the rest.) Noting also that there do not seem to be any more substantial comments this time around than last time... - jc37 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we are certainly seeing none from the deleters .... Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except Black Irish - there has been nothing presented here, just like there was nothing presented in the poorly-closed previous CFD, that indicates that even a single entry in any of these categories is based on original research. If any such examples are found, then remove them from the category. Certainly someone may indulge in OR when deciding to add a character but that is true of any category. The buzz saw that's being taken to the fictional character categories recently is a solution in search of a problem. Otto4711 (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on merits, but the related ethnicities should have all been changed to the form "Americans of Fooian descent" and should be renamed accordingly. I fail to see how one can have a Black Irishman, except by inter-racial marriage; this and German-Irish are triple intersections and should be deleted in any event. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Americans favoring drug legalization

Category:Americans favoring drug legalization - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization by opinion on a single issue. Whether someone wants to create a different category for drug legalization activists is a separate issue that shouldn't hold up getting rid of this category. Postdlf (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would agree that categories of this sort should focus on advocacy/activism. But in this case I think there's a larger problem: the term "drug legalization" covers an awful lot of ground. Are we talking about legalizing all drugs?? Or just one or more specific drugs? There's a substantial difference. So I'm not sure that we would want to lump them in together (even for activists). Cgingold (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How about this: Category:Drug policy reform activists. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and Cgingold. Overcategorization and too vague. Timeshifter's idea for an alternate category merits consideration, however.--JayJasper (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural economics

Propose renaming Category:Cultural economics to Category:Cultural economics; economic sociology; economic anthropology
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A couple of years ago, the JEL classification codes for JEL: Z1 { http://www.aeaweb.org/journal/jel_class_system.html#Z ) was renamed from "Cultural economics" to "Cultural economics, economic sociology, economic anthropology". This Category page needs renaming to reflect the change. Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No offense intended, Thomasmeeks, but it simply doesn't make any sense for Wikipedia to slavishly follow the JEL classification codes for our Category names. I've come across these JEL-derived categories before -- many times they make sense, but sometimes they don't. In any event, what's needed are categories/names which make good sense in terms of the Wikipedia category structure and naming conventions, etc. I can see how these three sub-fields are closely related to one another, but we can't just throw three terms together and call it a Category name. In short, the suggested rename is a complete non-starter that doesn't come anywhere near being a suitable name for a Category. In addition, we already have Category:Economic anthropology as a separate category (though we don't have Category:Economic sociology). If you feel that the existing categories are unsuitable, my suggestion is, please explain why and make the case for a better alternative. (One obvious possibility is merging the two existing categories, though we would have to settle on a name.) Cgingold (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. The proposal above was to match JEL: Z1 with the current name of that category per above. Agreed, though, no reason to dump existing cats together. The easier solution might be to unlink JEL: Z1 at JEL classification codes#Other special topics (economics) JEL: Z Subcategories from its currently anachrobnistic link. Perhaps a JEL note (like that at Category:Cultural economics) for Category:Economic sociology (to be proposed)) and Category:Economic anthropology would be in order (without any grand triad). How does that sound? --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. Of course, you're free to create & populate Category:Economic sociology any time you like -- there's no need to get approval for that. If you want to withdraw your renaming proposal, we can just close out this CFD. Cgingold (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brand name potato chips, potato crisps, and other potato-based snack foods

Propose renaming Category:Brand name potato chips, potato crisps, and other potato-based snack foods to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have no idea, but anything but this. Perhaps Category:Brand name potato snack foods, or Category:Brand name potato-based snack foods. I don't know, they're all too wordy... Katr67 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Educational institutions in Mobile, Alabama

Propose renaming Category:Educational institutions in Mobile, Alabama to Category:Education in Mobile, Alabama
Nominator's rationale: Rename to follow naming convention of parent category and its subcategories. Altairisfartalk 15:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - this search indicates that 'Category:Educational institutions in Foo' is not in wide use. Occuli (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hakka Hongkongers

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need this? I think it's getting a bit trivial. Dengero (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't understand what you mean by trivial. ~~Soccer174 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer174 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Leaving out the Hakka culture in Hong Kong is really racist. ~~Soccer174
  • Comment So are you saying all ethnic categories by country are trivial? 70.55.200.131 (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong is a city. Are we going to have Hakka Macauer's, Hakka Parisians, Hakka Berliners, etc etc etc? Or if it's by country, are we going to have Hakka Canadians, Hakka Australians, Hakka Germans? Dengero (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We don't need Cantonese chauvinism here. ~~Soccer174 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer174 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do we need Cantopop in Wikipedia? It is only followed by a small group of world's population in HK. It is definitely more trivial. Shall we remove Cantopop from Wikipedia? ~~Soccer174 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer174 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Hakka is a significant Chinese ethnicity. We have a lot of dual-national categories for expatriates. Most of these were changed a month or two back to the form, "Fooian of Hakka descent"; these were evidently missed. The same should apply to these ones and any others of the same nature. It is possible that so many Hong Kong people have this descent that it is not notable (I do not know), but the others certainly should be kept in some form. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hakkas and People of Hakka descent are different. Many overseas Hakka Chinese take pride of their Hakka culture. Having a Cantonese Cantopop contributer trying to belittle the Hakka culture is a great insult to us. It is like the English trying to belittle the Scottish. This is war. ~~ Soccer174
    • I feel like you're being a little POV pushing here. Cantopop is a genre of music approximately influencing millions of people, as it expands over not just Hong Kong, but also the general Canton area, and large overseas communities. As for your Hakka Hongkongers, which is just a section of specific 1st generations, represent only very tiny, literally hundreds of people in an area confined by your title. Like Peter said, perhaps nearly everyone have some sort of Hakka blood in them its hard to determine. So I support either delete or some serious renaming is required. Also, while this discussion is in place, please don't create more sub categories. Thankyou. Dengero (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps you have too high a regard for Cantopop. It is not even worth mentioning from the place I come from. I question your impartiality. I believe you are a young person, perhaps a student, who indulged in Canto/Cantonese culture, but have little knowledge or regard for the larger Chinese culture, of which Hakka is one of them. Stating "perhaps nearly everyone have some sort of Hakka blood in them its hard to determine" show how immature and narrow-minded you are. I will not allow the deletion or renaming of the category.

Category:The School Heroes

Category:The School Heroes - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Category related to AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Appleton. Not notable. Deadly∀ssassin 12:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Windows PET icons

Propose renaming Category:Windows PET icons to Category:Microsoft Office icons
Nominator's rationale: Google returns no relevant results for 'PET icon'. ffm 12:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blues-rock ensembles

Category:Blues-rock ensembles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Former Bahá'ís

Category:Former Bahá'ís - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale - this category has nothing useful with only one person in the category. It has been here for almost two months, but still only has one person listed. What use is a category with only one person?--Parthian Scribe 04:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. There may be only one person listed in the category now, but the nature of the category is such that it could have other articles added in the future. And we do have comparable categories for former members of other religions; see Category:People by former religion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per discussion referenced below by Good Ol'factory; we just kept this category less than two months ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We have a number of 1-article siblings to this category in Category:People by former religion. I have to say that I found it quite useful, as I just learned a highly interesting bit of information about professor Juan Cole as a direct result of this particular category. Cgingold (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments and 2008 SEP 1 discussion, which resulted in "keep". Not all editors are of the view that single-article categories are inherently useless, me included. I believe you should evaluate a category in its context within categories trees (or bushes, whatever), not in splendid isolation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the structure Category:People by former religion. I have just added a link to the old CFD discussion on the category talk page. It can be useful when closing admins to do this at the time. I'm also changing the template at the top of this nomination to link to the nominated category. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- a legitimate category with potential for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Penn & Teller

Category:Penn & Teller - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - the bulk of the category is improper person by project categorization. Removing those articles would leave nothing in the category but the articles for the two men and the joint article. The joint article contains a complete linked listing of all projects. Category not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this discussion from 2007. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As only two of the ten included articles are for the individual articles on Penn and Teller, I'm not seeing how the "bulk" of its contents categorize people by project. Furthermore, is person by project really inappropriate categorization? That's different than person by performance, and I don't see how categorizing Penn and Teller by their ongoing partnership, which has largely defined their careers, is overcategorization here. Postdlf (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see, you meant that this categorizes projects by people, not the other way around. But I'm not sure your film by actor analogy is on point, as the included articles are not just for otherwise unrelated series, films, etc., in which Penn & Teller appeared whether as stars or guest stars (such as a certain West Wing episode in which they played themselves), but rather for projects also produced, written, and/or named after Penn & Teller, reasonably definable as Penn & Teller projects. I'd consider this more analogous to a band category than an actor category. Postdlf (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:WAX. Oprah's shows shouldn't be categorized under her either. They should be in Category:Harpo Productions television series if anywhere. L&H's category does not contain any of their performances directly. They are categorized separately as a film series (something I also question since they were not a series but that's a nomination for another day). Otto4711 (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_21&oldid=247162141"