The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 20:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

There are discussions below about "Dracula actors" and the like. I'd like to make a new proposal that would clean out a lot of categories and possibly get us away from categories that attempt to unite actors by series. I believe that there are just a few dozen fictional (emphasis there) lead characters that have been portrayed by more than three actors. So for them we create or convert them into categories of "(character) portrayers," and then delete all "(character) actors" categories. These could all go under a category called category:Portrayers of canonical characters or somesuch. I'd start with Superman, Batman, Dracula, Bond, and the like. Thoughts?-- Mike Selinker 01:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. That category lists all actors who appeared in a Superman movie/cartoon, not actors who portrayed Supes. I say create a new category for the latter. Pikawil 02:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I do understand that. But a number of people seem to want these global categories to go away. I'm trying to make sure that what I see as useful--the categories about who played the lead role, are retained. Just my opinion. though.-- Mike Selinker 05:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The existing categories are bad, but this would not be an improvement. The smaller number of people involved could more easily be listed in articles. Bhoeble 07:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. I like this idea. - EurekaLott 17:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - this isn't a rename, it's a rescope. I'd say create the 'protrayers' category first, then we can have a look at it. and see which one is better (or if we should keep both). Also, some actors are famous for being in a series, e.g. several of the Bond girls - keeping a category for them would be sensible. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 04:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my comments on the Dracula vote. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify. Perhaps there should be a Category:Actors who have appeared in Superman media (or something more elegantly phrased). Her Pegship 19:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 19:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This category is very unlikely to grow and it is pretty useless in general. I suggest deletion. DarthVad e r 23:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete The only user in it is a user with a track record of opposing small article categories! He has his priorities in a twist imo. Bhoeble 07:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Wikipedian Monty Python fans. (It's a reference to the Cheese Shop sketch.) - EurekaLott 17:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - take your silly user categories to Uncyclopedia. -- Vossanova ^o< 14:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No need to have silly names for fan clubs -- this from a python fan. -- Coplan 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and eschew over-scrupulous invigilation of other editor's talk pages; who knows, dancing wikipedians may like it. Septentrionalis 02:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. Vegaswikian 16:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

They're really examples of propaganda Intangible 23:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 07:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 02:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 16:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Independent Norwegian record label with a grand total of 1 non-notable release to its credit [1]. Apparently created as self-promotion by User:Fenetre. Big Smooth 22:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I think you should wait until the AfD passes or fails. If the article goes away, we can delete the empty category. If not, it should stay in this category.-- Mike Selinker 01:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I actually prodded the article, but I see your point. - Big Smooth 17:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete category and remove reference from article. Even if the article stays it doesn't need its own category. Sulfur 20:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Keep until after AfD, per Mike Selinker's comment in another CfD nom. Sulfur 05:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete now that the category is empty. Sulfur 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Wait until after the AfD, per Mike Selinker. This is the way we categorise these things, so it shoudl only go if the article does too. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 04:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Well, the category is empty now. Can anyone remember what the article was? I'm guessing The Skywriter, but I'm not sure. Since the article's been deleted, the category might as well go too - Delete with no prejustice against recreation if a notable album article turns up. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It's now empty after the AfD passed, so the category can go.-- Mike Selinker 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 19:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a proposal to cleanup two Art / Visual arts categories. Please see the discussion at Portal_talk:Arts/Categories.

1. Merge Category:Art to Category:Visual arts & Rename the resulting category 'Visual arts'

Category:Art has already been de-populated of performing arts, lit, and so forth, which was a big problem before. The parent category Category:The arts also has a much better structure than it did before.

It's not realistic, or desirable, to rename each 'Art' category to 'Visual Arts'. So, I propose to just rename the main one & leave the rest as 'Art ____'.

The main category would live in Category:The arts.

steps:

• remove Category:Visual arts from Category:Art, so just lives at Category:The arts
• move Category:Art to Category:Visual arts
• place a category redirect on Category:Art to go to Category:Visual arts

This will result in: The arts

Visual arts

etc.

Clubmarx | Talk 20:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support But I still think the introduction of "Arts" to the category system and the point blank refusal of some users to use the normal everyday meaning of "art" are both very bad moves. 07:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. - Kleinzach 09:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Choalbaton 08:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge >>sparkit| TALK<< 17:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Hiding Talk 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support See also the discussion on renaming 'Category:The arts'. Bejnar 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Art movements. Conscious 19:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Just like the Art & Visual arts, the category Category:Art movements is sufficient. The parent category will be Category:Visual arts, but its subcategories will still be named 'Art ____' i.e. Category:Art exhibitions, Category:Art history, so keeping Category:Art movements is consistent with that.

Any pages that are just categorized under Category:Visual art movements, would get categorized as Category:Art movements.

So The arts

Visual arts

Art movements

etc

Clubmarx | Talk 20:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. I have placed this under a separate heading as it is a separate and much smaller issue than the discussion above and the existing layout was a recipe for confusion in the discussion. Bhoeble 07:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Puzzled by Bhoeble dividing Clubmarx's proposal in two and then writing "Rename per nom". What is the choice here? Would it be better to re-structure this as the proposer intended? Or would Bhoeble like to make his own proposal? - Kleinzach 17:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support moving all "Visual art movements" articles to "Art movements". >>sparkit| TALK<< 18:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Do not support having "Art movements" in only the "Visual arts" category. It fits in other categories as well, like music and architecture. >>sparkit| TALK<< 17:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment - There are different categories to address broader styles/movements. Category:Cultural movements specifically addresses this, and Category:Art movements is already a member of it. Also, other categories have their own styles/movements categories, see: Category:Architectural styles and Category:Music genres. Clubmarx 19:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support Hiding Talk 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 16:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

To bring the category name inline with other similar categories. Lady Aleena 19:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename as per nom. Pikawil 08:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Osomec 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Netscott 15:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• {{db}}ing at my request. This cat isn't needed. Netscott 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Nominated for deletion. Templates used on articles should not be categorizing articles. All categorization needs to be done explicitly, which also allows for a much finer level of control.

[Shared Navigation Guide Islam:] Many of the articles that were previously in this category were already classified in sub-categories of Category:Islam. This category just duplicated the "What links here" on the template. It's been removed from the template and is ready for deletion.

[Shared Navigation Guide Christianity:] This was originally created to categorize all pages which transclude Template:Christianity, but that is actually a really bad idea, so the category has been removed from the template and is now orphaned and empty.

-- Cyde↔Weys 16:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC) and 16:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete [both] as per nom. Valiantis 19:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete [both] per nominator; w:Category:Islam and w:Category:Christianity [are] sufficient. joturn e r 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both per nom. David Kernow 02:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• {{db}}ing at my request. This cat isn't needed. Netscott 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was relist on May 30. Conscious 12:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Was nominated for speedy rename to Category:Lists of fictional events, but seems redundant to numerous existing categories in Category:Fictional events. BD2412 T 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Lady Aleena 19:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Oppose This is primarily a Lists category under Category:Entertainment lists. If this category is redundant then all categories under Category:Lists are redundant. -- JeffW 22:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • By the way, I think if you're going to move it from speedy direct to cfd that you need to change the tag on the category. -- JeffW 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Quite right - done. Also, some articles in the category are a poor fit. List of alternate history United States Presidents is not a list of events, but rather a list of people described in fiction as holding positions they did not hold; Category:Fictional timelines seems the wrong way round to me, as events occur in the context of timelines (granted a timeline could be characterized as a "list of events"). BD2412 T 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Currently Category:Timelines is a subcategory of Category:Lists by form because, as you noted, a timeline is a form of list with dates and events. And your right that List of alternate history United States Presidents is in the wrong place, it should go somewhere under Category:Lists of people. I just moved List of fictional revolutions and coups from Category:Lists of fictional things since it is about events and not things. -- JeffW 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Actually, the question of whether a real person in an alternate timeline is still a real person is a subtle one. I'd say that in the alternate timeline context that he is a fictional person and belongs in the fictional character category. Therefore I've now moved List of alternate history United States Presidents to Category:Lists of fictional characters. -- JeffW 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
          • I could be wrong. Have been before! ;-) BD2412 T 23:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 16:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The double name Srem/Srijem was a NPOV naming attempt, which has since been superceded by using the english name for the region, Syrmia. Rename the category to match what happened to the articles. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)}} reply

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Equivocal categorization. Intangible 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Ambiguous and POV. The article has problems too. CalJW 16:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Ethnic groups in Greece. Vegaswikian 17:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Should be deleted for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is already a Category:Ethnic groups in Greece which incluces all the groups mentioned in the newer category. Secondly, the new category title means nothing in English. Damac 15:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Just because they are an ethnic group does not mean they don't identify with Greek nationality. - FrancisTyers 15:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Ethnic groups in Greece. POV. CalJW 16:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Ethnic groups in Greece. Doesn't seem to be a good way of addressing what are most likely complex issues. Bhoeble 07:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per CalJW and Bhoeble. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Even though I can understand the desire of Greek editors to circumvent alternative categorization schemes involving "minority" or "ethnic groups". Background for non-Greek observers: There is a widespread and rather irrational prejudice in Greece that the term "minority" means for a group to be politically oppressed by the majority, and/or disloyal to the nation state. Also, there is no conceptual distinction in the Greek language between "national" and "ethnic" (Greek "εθνικός" actually meaning "national".) Thus, Greek editors have been hesitant to apply such terms to groups like the Arvanites or Vlachs, linguistic minorities who undoubtedly have a strong desire to be identified as part of the Greek nation. But the current alternative formulation here strikes me as artificial, stilted, and inherently POV. This is the English Wikipedia and we should make it clear to our Greek friends that "minority" and "ethnic group" can be used in the neutral, non-offensive sense these terms have in English, so the existing category "Ethnic groups in Greece" is quite sufficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge or Delete. I don't get the difference between the two options (since after deletion one can still categorize the articles of the deleted category to the new one, effecting essentially a merge). Be aware, however, that there are many sources and arguements provided in most of the said articles which support that the vast majority of the members of these ethnic groups (thankfully or regretfully) do self-identify as Greeks. Also keep in mind that the words "national" and "ethnic" are considered synonymous by most Greeks (and the members of those groups), hence the urge for such a category, which I hope you will understand and excuse.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The sub-cats of all the following categories are named "Nationality x", as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Categories by nationality - Socio-cultural topics. As we would not have a parent named "by nationality" for a subject that is named by country, it remains equally inconsistent to have a parent named "by country" for subjects that are named by nationality. Therefore, the following seven renamings are proposed:

• Category:Films by country to Category:Films by nationality
• Category:Forms of media by country to Category:Forms of media by nationality
• Category:Magazines by country to Category:Magazines by nationality
• Category:Media by country to Category:Media by nationality
• Category:Newspapers by country to Category:Newspapers by nationality
• Category:Radio by country to Category:Radio by nationality
• Category:Television by country to Category:Television by nationality

-- Kurieeto 14:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Note: It looks like this proposal will fail, so I wanted to post notice that I will take this as an indication that the current by nationality naming convention as published on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) no longer has consensus behind it, and so I will move the categories proposed for renaming above into the "undecided" section. Kurieeto 16:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep My impression is that films are categorised by country as this represents roughly-speaking "country of production". Often the country of production is quite distinct from the culture in which the film takes place. So for example The House of the Spirits (actually an American-Danish-Portuguese-German co-production) is currently in Category:Danish films (presumably on account of its Danish director and the fact it was filmed primarily in Denmark), but is an English-language adaptation of a Spanish-language novel set in Chile. What nationality is this film? The socio-cultural aspect of films is somewhat better covered by Category:Films by language; this is more an issue of production, which means industry, which means "by country". This would if anything mean renaming all the subcats Category:Films of Denmark etc. but this seems an affront to the English language, so I have to vote for the slight inconsistency. The same logic applies to the other audiovisual and print media (if generally slightly less forcefully). I would suggest we move the description of the correct naming for these cats into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "nationality x" where there are already several areas that take the form "nationality x" even though they are by country. Sorry, language is not maths and these things can't always be neat. Valiantis 19:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Could we not rename to for example "Films produced in x"? If we keep it by nationality as things are now, I'm questioning if Category:Films by country is fundamentally grounds for speedy deletion to Category:Films by nationality, as would be any other deviance from a naming convention established at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Kurieeto 13:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose These are based on country of publication/broadcast and are fine as they are. Bhoeble 07:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment If that is the case, why are they named by nationality and not by country? Kurieeto 13:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose These are based on country of publication which is precise and definable whereas 'nationality' is not. Changing them is risky especially when one country has more than one language. We should avoid getting involved in linguistic/nationalistic disputes unnecessarily. Saga City 12:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Based on that, would you support a change to a by country naming convention, instead of the Nationality x convention said to be used at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)? Such as, instead of Category:Canadian films, Category:Films of Canada, Category:Films in Canada, Category:Films produced in Canada, etc.? Kurieeto 13:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Yes; taking the Canada example we'd have problems with the nationalism in Quebec otherwise Saga City 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support. We've done this dance a couple of times. Media broadcasts have been deemed by the UN and WTO to comprise cultural industies, subject to different international legal regime than conventional goods. Cultural topics follow nationality-based naming rubrics. Media sorting is not currently based on cut-and-dried geographical delimiters (ie, newspapers with printing presses in territory x, or newspapers with holding corporations incorporated in country x, radio stations with antenna located in country x, television programs whose executive producers have their parking stall in country x) but based on somewhat irrational gut-association with being part of a particular cultural discourse--the BBC is British even when it's being produced and aired in America the same way The Beatles are a British band even if they're being recorded in an American studio and Thai food is thai food even when being cooked in a Colombian kitchen. The Tom 01:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Nationality should refer to people, or elements thereof. It is not a characteristic of anything else. So this whole nationality convention here is plainly wrong. If you want to know the status of these above subjects, check the copyright notice. Intangible 21:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Saga City -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, unlike "nationality" country is well defined and not disputed. Pavel Vozenilek 19:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. Vegaswikian 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

To match other members of Category:People by city. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawn; see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_10#People_by_city_from_Fooian_people_by_city_to_People_by_Fooian_city -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 17:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Spanish-British. Virtual recreation of previously deleted cat "Spanish-British people". See here.
• Category:British people of German descent. Virtual recreation of previously deleted cat "German-British people". See here.
• Category:German British people. A redirect to and subcat of Category:British people of German descent. Virtual recreation of previously deleted cat "German-British people". See here.
• Category:British people of Cypriot descent. Virtual duplication of cat "British Cypriots" which is still up for discussion here. Pre-empting the vote as a rename to this title was one of the propositions in the discussion.
• Category:Serbian British people. I think this is a new cat, but it has exactly the same issues as all the cats of the form "Fooian British" where Fooian is another nationality and which have been previously debated here.
• Category:British Swedish. Virtual recreation of previously deleted cat "Swedish British people". See here.
• Category:Turkish-British people. Again I think this is a new one, but it suffers from the same issues as previously discussed here.
• Category:Russian-British people. Empty. (I removed its solitary occupant Roman Abramovich who has business dealings in the UK but is clearly primarily resident in Russia where he is governor of Chukotka). The usual issues apply and I consider the inclusion of Abramovich in this cat demonstrates one of the very many problems with it.
• Category:Croatian British people. Virtual recreation of previously deleted cat "Croatian-Englishes" (sic). See here. Valiantis 14:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all to "cat:British people of fooian descent" as there is an obvious will to have "ethnic" cat pages. it s nonesense really that the U.K. be the only country not to have them. the answer is to name them in a less ambiguous and American way, set a 1/4 or 1/2 descent rule (i favour 1/2), and let them be Mayumashu 15:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment There isn't "an obvious will". These are the work of about three or four people only, including yourself. When many of these cats were previously listed before being recreated, it was an option to rename "of Fooian descent" but the strong consensus here was to delete entirely. As for the suggestion that only the UK is without these spurious "nationality of forebears masquerading as ethnicity" cats, I have also nominated or voted on similar cats from other countries and they too have been deleted. With regard to descent, as I commented in a previous discussion, "descent" is a wholly ambiguous term and setting a "descent rule" is original research (i.e. "it introduces a theory or method of solution" and "provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms"). What do you mean by 1/4 in any case? I presume you mean if a person has a Fooian grandparent; what if that Fooian grandparent's parents were Barian and Humbugian? Would that grandparent be Fooian or Barian-Humbugian (etc etc back to the dawn of time).

Furthermore, this assumes that nationality and ethnicity are more or less the same thing. Clearly they are not. For example, a French citizen might be black or white, gentile or jew, Basque or Breton (or some combination of the above). If that French citizen fathers a British child you would put them in a category "British people of French descent" which tells us next to nothing about their individual ethnicity, but merely the citizenship of their forebears. Even if we accept that the term "of Fooian descent" is sufficiently precise to form the basis of a category (and I do not) then I would suggest that it is generally inherently trivial. We categorise people primarily by occupation and nationality. We don't have cats like "People with a parent who was a scientist" so why have a cat which is in effect "People with a parent who had Serbian nationality".

Classification by genuine ethnicity is not unreasonable (though it can be problematic) but this will vary from country to country as ethnicity is essentially a human construct. In the US, large numbers of people do consider it meaningful to describe themselves (or others) as, say, Italian-American; there are Italian-American organisations, Italian-American pressure groups etc, and most Americans (and those of us foreigners with a passing familiarity with American culture) could probably run off a stereotypical description of an Italian-American. Although my POV is that this whole hyphenated-American concept is fundamentally mistaken, I can't deny that it is a way people view themselves as a group and if I act from a NPOV I have to acknowledge that the term is given genuine meaning by its everyday use and a rough-and-ready agreement about what it means. If we take the case of, say, "Swedish-British" there is no corresponding group of people who call themselves that, form organisations under that name, and whose "ethnic" characteristics are recognisable by themselves and by other Britons. This is not to say that there may not be individuals who describe themselves as Swedish-British, but they do not constitute a definable group. So far we seem to be in agreement on this, but you propose to have a cat "British people of Swedish descent." I have no doubt that the (theoretical) individuals who describe themselves as Swedish-British might think their Swedish ancestry significant, but other individuals of similar ancestry might think it insignificant. In what way is it therefore less trivial than, say, the non-existent Category:Short people? A minority of short people might consider their lack of stature to be defining in some way, or others may think it about them (e.g. was Napoleon's desire for power based on his supposed shortness), but for most it's an irrelevancy which has no bearing on what they are notable for. My question then is simple. In what way is "British people of Swedish descent" (and by extension similar cats) not trivial? Valiantis 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the detail you ve given your arguments here. one clarification - by 'will' to have these pages i meant encyclopedia-wide, including users who have created pages for countries in the Americas, not just in reference to the sub-cat pages here. i don t disagree that this is significantly largely trivia to most users, but would insist that most things - one's nationality, the name of a river in Tenbucktu, the 88th chemical element, and whatever fact you consider are mere trivia to most people as well. i do see your point now though how setting an artificial line is akin to original research where i didn t before. for me the issue boils down to inconsistency where some ethnic cat pages are held legitimate because they have an organization with a website say or a popular stereotype in movies people can identify with and others are not because they lack such things. the solution we would agree on then is not to have any ethnicity cat pages (beyond those for emigrants, a clear-cut definable category), but as you ve mentioned, users in the Americas would vote to keep. at any rate, my interest is human migration, so i ll go about firming up the emigrants cat pages (reverse my move to move Category:Emigrants by nationality to Category: People by ethnic or national descent and then at some later point move to delete non-emigrant ethnicity pages with your arguments featuring prominently. Mayumashu 04:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• delete per nom. See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 20#All ethnicity category pages which I think includes a lot of these, and which Mayumashu is i think also behind. It is just creating a vast network of categories of no validity..-- Smerus 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • comment would voters here please also vote on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 20#All ethnicity category pages Mayumashu 02:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

    refactored for clarity. -- William Allen Simpson 10:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete all ethnic cats for all nationalities, including Americans. They represent a POV which is extremely marginal to the encyclopedia and create category clutter. Bhoeble 07:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom QuizQuick 15:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom Kleinzach 16:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all and listify. -- William Allen Simpson 10:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• 'Delete all per Bhoeble. Pavel Vozenilek 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 17:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty cat. Already covered by Category:Cinema of Germany. No Cinema of East Germany article. Corresponding article Cinema of Germany covers both East & West German cinema (as well as pre-1945 and post-1990 cinema). Valiantis 13:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:American Indian reservations. Everyone agreed it should be renamed, and this name seems to address most issues raised in the discussion. Conscious 20:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

US->United States — Markles 10:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Alternative rename to Category:Indian reservations. Previously discussed here without consensus (or indeed a clear proposal as to the intended rename). It appears no other country has Indian reservations (Canada has Indian reserves), so the United States tag is superfluous. Valiantis 13:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Alternative rename as per User:Valiantis. Mayumashu 15:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Indian is too vague without the United States qualifier. Indian can refer to the people of India, so the noiminators specificity is correct, IMO. Lady Aleena 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment All the other members of Category:Subdivisions of the United States take the form "... in/of the United States". If the "United States" is considered necessary, then shouldn't this be Category:Indian reservations in the United States? I was trying to avoid this unnecessarily long title. They don't have Indian reservations in India, so I'm not sure this is a real issue. Valiantis 19:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. There are two problems here. The first is replacing U.S. in the name. Can we all agree on this change? The second is what the name should be. I suspect this will continue to result in a no consensus vote. Supporting the proposed rename fixes the first and leaves the second to be proposed if and when consensus can be established, maybe by a discussion on the talk page. If we don't fix the first, this will likely continue to be nominated. Vegaswikian 21:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:American Indian reservations -- Sorry, no! The US government has (mostly) standardized on "American Indian and Alaska Native" (sometimes "Native Alaskan"). To follow official sources, this would be "American Indian reservations in the Continental United States", but since it is already a subcategory of Category:Native American, we can leave off "in the Continental United States". -- William Allen Simpson 01:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support expanding U.S. to United States. Otherwise, I don't wish to get involved. Bhoeble 07:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Native American reservations, otherwise Category:American Indian reservations. Suggest Category:Indian reservations avoided, as the name suggests there may be (or have been) reservations in India. Reagrds, David Kernow 02:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• I suppose if I wanted to rent the Black Hole of Calcutta for a few nights... nevermind. Category:American Indian reservations is most likely the best choice. — May. 23, '06 [14:49] < freak| talk>

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Note I was a party to this discussion. The consensus is to rename, but there is some difference over what the name should be. The nominated rename eliminates the abbreviation but leaves open the question of there being a better name. So doing the first rename will fix one reason for renaming and still allow for discussion on the latter. Vegaswikian 17:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

US->United States — Markles 10:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Alternative rename to Category:Indian reservation seats of government. Previously discussed here without consensus (or indeed a clear proposal as to the intended rename). It appears no other country has Indian reservations (Canada has Indian reserves), so the United States tag is superfluous. Valiantis 13:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Rename. Vegaswikian 15:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Lady Aleena 19:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment As per my comment above, if we want consistency with other members of the parent cat and the "United States" is felt necessary for dab purposes (I don't agree), this should be Category:Seats of government of Indian reservations in the United States. Seems awfully long. Valiantis 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Tribal governments of American Indians -- following the practices of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) -- William Allen Simpson 01:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Category:Tribal governments of American Indians per W.A. Simpson. — May. 23, '06 [14:45] < freak| talk>

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 17:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

US->United States; capitalization. — Markles 10:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Lady Aleena 19:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Rename. Vegaswikian 19:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Move to speedy. David Kernow 02:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. As opposed to U.S. Routes, parkways in the United States aren't labelled "U.S. Parkways" so the rename makes sense. -- Vossanova ^o< 14:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to category:Administrative divisions of the United States by state. Vegaswikian 17:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

US->United States, similar to other subcats of Category:Categories by state of the United States. — Markles 10:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename but it should be of the United States in line with the convention for subdivisions. Bhoeble 13:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Alternate rename Category:United States administrative divisions by state. Lady Aleena 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename category:Administrative divisions of the United States by state, which best reflects normal practice. Sumahoy 12:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Lady Aleena's suggestion seems neater and generally applicable ("French administrative divisions by département", "Japanese administrative divisions by prefecture", etc...?) so – deep breath – time to review "normal practice" and/or make exception...?  Regards, David Kernow 02:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Too many exceptions -- William Allen Simpson 10:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Agreed; countries and category names are melting my brain... Thanks, David 08:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename Category:Administrative divisions of the United States by state -- using "of" -- William Allen Simpson 10:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Administrative divisions of the United States by state per Sumahoy and WAS. David Kernow 08:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 19:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

And all its subcats
US->United States; capitalization. — Markles 10:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all per nom. Bhoeble 13:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:U.S. Routes by state to Category:United States highways by state, and the subcategories change the U.S. Highways in (state) to United States highways in (state). Lady Aleena 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, "U.S. Route" is the official designation for these roads. — May. 20, '06 [10:27] < freak| talk>
• Oppose. This is not a case of us using "U.S." as an abbreviation, but of AASHTO, FHWA, and state Departments of Transportation all using "U.S. Route X" much more than the expanded form. As for capitalization, this is a specefic class of highways, one step below Interstate Highways, not just routes/highways in the United States. I'd cqmpare it to Washington, D.C., which is not at Washington, District of Columbia. -- SPUI ( T - C) 11:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per the other two oppositions above. All the articles within are correctly named "U.S. Route ###", so the category and subcategories should be consistent. -- Vossanova ^o< 14:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 19:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

And all its subcats
US->United States; capitalization. — Markles 10:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all per nom. Bhoeble 13:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Rename. Vegaswikian 15:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Lady Aleena 19:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:United States Numbered Highways to match the topic article. Leave the subcategories alone, because "U.S. Route XX" is the official designation for each individual road, and the other subcats deserve separate scrutiny. — May. 20, '06 [10:26] < freak| talk>
  • Comment: Category:U.S. Routes sounds good. — May. 25, '06 [08:47] < freak| talk>
• Oppose as above. No opinion on United States Numbered Highways, though I believe I did try to get that changed a while ago and failed. Category:U.S. Routes is another possible name. -- SPUI ( T - C) 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:U.S. Routes. -- Vossanova ^o< 14:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 19:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

US->United States; capitalization. — Markles 10:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all per nom. Bhoeble 13:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Lady Aleena 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as above. Possibly rename to Category:U.S. Bicycle Routes. -- SPUI ( T - C) 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. feydey 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Category:U.S. Bicycle Routes would be better. — May. 22, '06 [05:06] < freak| talk>
• Rename to Category:U.S. Bicycle Routes to be consistent with articles contained within. -- Vossanova ^o< 14:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 19:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

A totally non-standard, inappropriate abortion of a category, and empty too.

• Delete. CalJW 09:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC). reply
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep It wasn't empty 8 hours ago. -- evrik 13:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 14:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Osomec 10:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 19:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

There was a proposed merger of Category:Philadelphia culture and Category:Arts and Culture of Philadelphia that sat unopposed for more than two months. After I went ahead and started making the change, then people started acting. I created the People, cuisine and culture category to try and set arts and culture apart from those things that are uniquely philadelphia. Again, no one said anything until I made the move.

A better grouping needs to be devised. Under the old categories the Mummers Parade, Baby New York and Wing Bowl were grouped under the same heading as the Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts.

-- evrik 13:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. [city] culture and culture in [city] are the standard names of categories in Category:Culture by city. (We should probably pick one or the other, but that's a discussion for another time.) - EurekaLott 14:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a standard category. There is no problem with the items listed being in the culture category as they would all belong in by topic subcategories of category:American culture. CalJW 16:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment There is no template for the categories that a city's categories are set up. There should be some way to differentiate between Arts and Culture and Popular Culture. -- evrik 00:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There most certainly should not as that is purely a matter of point of view. Bhoeble 07:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Everything here is POV. Unless you can show where your opinion is documented by policy, it too is just a POV. Please show me where sub-cats for cities is laid out as a policy or a template. -- evrik 14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Philadelphia culture. Conscious 19:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

usual naming scheme, capitalization. Circeus 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose The category Category:Philadelphia culture was proposed to be merged to Category:Arts and Culture of Philadelphia. This was to differentiate it from Category:People, culture and cuisine of Philadelphia. Would not oppose Category:Arts and culture of Philadelphia -- evrik 04:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is the user who tried to change the categories without coming here to get consent. Bhoeble 13:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• For considering that the current categiry should not be used anyway, it was created today and was depoulated today w/o a cfd or discussion on the related talk pages the correct category that the cfd should be for is Category:Philadelphia culture and not Category:Arts and Culture of Philadelphia, the move would only go to correct via the mos.-- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Wrong on the facts Boothy. It was created in March. A proposed merger sat unopposed for more than two months. -- evrik 14:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I don't know what that means. Perhaps you just didn't bring the discussion to the right forum. Anyway, a delay doesn't make a bad move good. It is a sad fact that categorisation is neglected so damage is often not corrected promptly. CalJW 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

*Support Category:Arts and Culture of Philadelphia and Category:People, culture and cuisine of Philadelphia are both totally inappropriate, non-standard abortions of categories. CalJW 09:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• • Non-Standard abortions? - evrik 00:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Philadelphia culture. CalJW 16:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Philadelphia culture, which is the existing category which has been trashed. Bhoeble 13:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Bhoeble. - EurekaLott 14:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment The arts and culture should be separate from thos things that are uniquely Philadelphia Culture. -- evrik 14:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Why? This hasn't been a problem for any other city or country. You just have an unusual personal perspective. CalJW 16:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If you look at Wikipedia:Browse at the top ten categories there is a clear difference between the arts and society and people. Making a simple change would not be difficult and could be done to track back to the 'big' categoreis. -- evrik 00:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • That is no reason to make random combinations for a random city. Category:Arts and Culture and Category:People, culture and cuisine do not exist. Bhoeble 07:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Tie the arts and culture into Category:Arts in the United States or Category:American culture, but things like wing bowl should go elsewhere, perhaps Category:Personal life, which falls under Category:People and Category:Society, they are different things. -- evrik 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Philadelphia culture. Osomec 10:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge and protect page. Vegaswikian 17:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The this was changed from "Subdivisions" to "Administrative divisions" without being brought to this page a few days ago, which was highly improper. There are subdivisions categories for over a hundred countries, this is the only "Administrative divisions" subcategory, and the suggestion to rename them all was rejected. Revert to standard name; delete category:Administrative divisions of Spain and block recreation to prevent a repeat of this irregular renaming. CalJW 09:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename/merge per nom. Bhoeble 13:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep The World Factbook calls provinces, states, territories, and districts Administrative divisions. The word subdivisions is a bit vague. Lady Aleena 20:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • But we've had that debate and did not change the others. We are not obliged to copy another source. There is no reason not to be consistent. Bhoeble 07:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- Administrative divisions is correct, see our own article Politics of Spain, IndexMundi, or Encarta. -- William Allen Simpson 01:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Which provides no support for keeping it as it is whatsoever. Spain in not an English speaking country and there is no tier specifically called "administrative divisions". Bhoeble 07:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Twittenham 12:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Choalbaton 08:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Osomec 10:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge; I support the wholesale renaming of Subdivisions to Administrative Divisions or to the (translated perhaps) native nomenclature (Provinces, Autonomous Regions, what-have-you; but my position was in the minority when last debated and if we are going to permit dissatisfied people working against consensus and willy-nilly ignoring it we'll have a mess. Nip this in the bud and save the big issue for a later date when the current consensus fails us. Carlossuarez46 19:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 17:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Davao is too ambiguous. There is no "Davao" province per se (although there are Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur and Davao Oriental). This is also to make it inline with Category:Filipino people by province. -- Howard the Duck | talk, 09:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensous. - TexasAndroid 13:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• • Closer note: Between this debate and the one over here, which have large areas of overlap to each other, I see strong opposition to the deletion. But beyond that, those that protest the lack of complete tagging are correct. For a proposal of this scope, every category affected should be tagged, and all should be listed here so that anyone wishing to debate the proposal can see exactly what is being proposed. - TexasAndroid 13:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Undefined category together with a host of undefined sub-categories and sub-sub-categories (e.g. Category:Spanish-British) all of which should go. Many of these sub-sub-categories are unpopulated. Others seem bizarre or meaningless - e.g. Category:People of United Empire Loyalist descent. Nearly all are potentially infinite in scope and thus not properly maintainable - after all what is 'descent'? - it could go back 100 generations - therefore thry will always be a source of disputes. There are plenty of 'reputable' ethnic and nationality categories on Wikipedia; this bunch is superfluous. Hence delete the whole lot.-- Smerus 08:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete all per nom. Bhoeble 13:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, although given how ethnicity is defined, a rename to Category:People by ethnicity would be an improvement. Ethnic groups are defined variably - sub-nationally, supra-nationally, as well as nationally. and this is where the "'reputable'" ethnic cat pages should collect - they have been incorrectly linked to Category:Emigrants by nationality - a problem with this is that many bios linked to emigrants by nationality are not emigrants, but descents of emigrants. a second issue is why keep separate national and non-national ethnicity cat pages. ethnicity as it is defined is infinite-like in scope - the question is therefore whether any ethnic group in questions is deemed prominent enough to warrant an article ie. if such an article page is voted to be deleted or not, and this is how the scope of this cat page too should be handled. i don t see the need to separate national and non-national ethnicity cat pages (into Category:People by national ethnic descent and Category: People by non-national ethnic descent that would feed Category:People by ethnic descent) finally, the question of what to feed Category:People by ethnicity needs to answered - Category:Australian people by ethnicity, Category:People of Australian ethnicity, or both? Mayumashu 15:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Question I am a little confused. You favour a renaming to Category:People by ethnicity but it looks as though you created many of the "People of Fooian descent" cats that populate this cat and you express elsewhere a preference for the form "People of Fooian descent". Are you equating "ethnicity" to having a (great)(grand)parent of Fooian nationality. Canadian, for example, is a nationality but I am extremely sceptical that it is an "ethnicity". A person with a (great) (grand)parent of Canadian nationality might belong in Category:People of Canadian descent (if we accept that this is a reasonable category - not that I do) but do I understand you propose renaming the parent cat so that effectively having a Canadian (great) (grand)parent is now classed as making you part of a Canadian ethnicity? Valiantis 19:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

this is consistent with the description that "ethnicity" is given on page ethnicity - Canadian is an ethnicity as such. and when i created these descent pages i wasn t wholly aware that national origin is a form of ethnic origin (or the description given on the page is wrong, but i don t think that s the case) i have now rethought my position though in light your akin to original research argument for setting an artificial limit on descent and think the focus should be limited to catting emigrants (with the perhaps fanciful hope to delete all other ethnicity cat pages) Mayumashu 04:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete all per nom. -- Nikai 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Do not change: No category should be considered for deletion until each and every one of the categories has been been posted with a 'consideration for delete' notice and each and every one of the categories is listed herein as proposed for deletion. As written, the proposal does not show its possible benefits or lack thereof for the Wikipedia reader. Thanks Hmains 02:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment the proposal seems to apply to a singular category, is there more here that is at stake? Carlossuarez46 20:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• There may be hundreds of categories involved; the nominator does not say which they are. Editors are adding people to these categories all the time; what Wikipedia policy is there that would deny the editors the right to use such categories if they want to do so. Thanks Hmains 02:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete all and listify! See also the umbrella nomination Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 20#All ethnicity category pages -- William Allen Simpson 10:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Still very much opposed. Proponents of this change have still failed to properly advise editors of this proposed change. Posting a notice of deletion only on the topmost category and saying it is a mass deletion [of the hundreds of categories below it] is insufficient, if not a violation of process. It will certainly also be a surprise to all the editors of articles who have placed their bio articles into these categories and who will have no notice that the categories they use are about to disappear. This whole proposal should be set aside until, and if, an adequate notification system for mass category deletes is determined and implemented. Thanks Hmains 01:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 19:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.