Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 8 November 10 >

November 9

Category:Michelin Guide starred chefs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. My understanding is that stars are awarded to restaurants, not to individual chefs. If a chef leaves a starred restaurant the star does not follow the chef to his next job. If I am mistaken about this then I will withdraw the nomination but if not then people shouldn't be categorized by awards that aren't actually theirs. Buck Winston ( talk) 22:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Michelin stars are indeed given to the restaurant, but based on the work of the head chef. It is the quality of the food (= the quality of the chef) that is awarded. When a head chef leaves, the restaurant will (in 98% of all cases) loose its star(s). See for example Parkheuvel, that lost two of its three stars when the head chef left. As a recurring theme, I have summerize some comments here: User:The Banner/Michelin restaurants. On the other hand: a chef formerly awarded and now working in another restaurant, is far likely to get his star back quickly. Example: Hof van Sonoy >> Sonoy or Le Mérinos d'Or >> Herberg Onder de Linden. Michelin knows the quality of the chef, so they follow him/her. Another clear example: Henk Savelberg The Banner talk 23:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
So I am correct that the star does not follow the chef to the next restaurant, yes? The two stars that Parkheuvel lost were not re-assigned to the head chef's next job? Buck Winston ( talk) 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Correct, because the head chef retired. And the new head chef, although formerly cooking at 2-star level, had to proof himself again so got just 1 star (and 2 years later his second, just as before) The Banner talk 23:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
As you can see in the article about Henk Savelberg: restaurant Vreugd en Rust lost its star after head chef Savelberg left. But it got is star back after Savelberg had proven still to cook at 1-ster level when he returned. Restaurant Seinpost lost its star in 1989, when Savelberg left. It took the restaurant to 2006 to get the star back... So: no chef, no star. In effect, it is the chef who gets the star. The Banner talk 23:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this looks at best like an award category, and we do not do award categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with JPL Delete MaybeMaybeMaybe ( talk) 02:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the earning a Michelin star is a notable event in the history of a chef and a restaurant, but the way things work, this is better as a list, considering it is the combination of a chef and a restaurant that holds the stars. -- 70.24.186.245 ( talk) 06:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Alternative proposal Rename to "Head chefs working in Michelin starred restaurants" (or something like that). It is only the head chef/executive chef that matters to Michelin for a Michelin star. And although it is commonly taken as a reward to the chef, it is indeed given to the restaurant. The Banner talk 13:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the category is based on an arbitrary opinion of one publication. The stars do not connote any standardized metric that can be quantified, as such. The category should be moved to a list, if that. -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 20:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (1) it is far too common: in France a vast number of restaurtants will have a star rating (2) it is restaurants that have stars not chefs, though this will clearly be due to the quality of the chef's cooking. (3) In France Michelin is the leading guide, so that its view is probably the leading one. Elsewhere, it is merely one of a number of guides, and we should not single it out. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: We have made exceptions for certain awards - various British knighthood-type stuff, medals of honor or bravery, VCs, and the like from various nations, Nobel prizes, grammys, emmys, oscards, etc. Most of these chefs, like members of the other exceptional categories I outlined, are most notable for their Michelin stars (or VCs, etc.). If you take away the category as a non-notable achievement, one wonders how long the chefs' articles retain a claim to notability. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if we look at one example Restaurant Gordon Ramsay at Royal Hospital Road: to whom do the three stars belong? The article on Gordon Ramsay claims them for him, but he doesn't cook there any more. The article on Clare Smyth claims the same three stars for her. Or do they really belong to Mark Agnew, the executive chef? To me this suggests that this category is a "current award holder" type of category, which we usually dispose of. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 23:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women at Princeton editathon

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No need for this category, which includes only a single meetup page. The meetup page is already categorized by year and geographic location. What purpose does this category serve? Another Believer ( Talk) 22:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Various American musicians of x descent cats

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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Amerian musicians of European 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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Subiaco, Western Australia

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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Over categorisation. Subiaco is an inner city suburb that just happens to have Perth's two biggest maternity hospitals in it, so lots of people are born in Subiaco and then have nothing else to do with the suburb in their entire life other than watching football there. Upmerge to Category:People from Perth, Western Australia The-Pope ( talk) 17:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Despite being the editor who asked the nom to bring it to CFD (instead of blanking it and then going to speedy deletion), and despite having reverted him a few times, I have no strong opinions on the category itself. Only I am not sure the rationale makes sense: if lots of maternity hospitals are in there and lots of people are born there, then by definition a lot of people happen to be from there. That it's just due to the concentration of hospitals, or whatever, changes nothing for us -the only unambiguous definition of "being from X" is "I am born in X". -- Cyclopia talk 17:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Way back when, the people born in categories we killed for pretty much this reason. You may not be born in the place where you reside and you may only be in that place for a very short period of time. So how is that defining? Your question is another take on this. Right now there is no criteria to say when a person should be listed in a people from category. It is normal for someone to grow up in one place, but be born in another simply because the hospital is closer. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • "It is normal for someone to grow up in one place, but be born in another simply because the hospital is closer. " - Sure it is, but I feel this is irrelevant -you can be born elsewhere for any possible reason, still this doesn't change the facts you are still born there. My girlfriend is born in Manhattan, but she lived in New Jersey. She still is from Manhattan, however -she's born there. What are the criteria for the "People from X" category? -- Cyclopia talk 19:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I was born in Waratah, New South Wales and spent 6 years in that suburb being educated at Newcastle Boys' High School but I don't consider myself "from" there for any reason. For the first 18 years of my life I lived in New Lambton South (7 years attending New Lambton South Public School) and while I am "originally from" there, I consider myself to be "from" Raymond Terrace, New South Wales because that's where I've lived for the past 20.6 years. In the days when people were born, grew up and lived their lives within miles of their birthplace (and often were born at home), claiming to be from somewhere because you were born there may have had some meaning. Today though, some babies spend as little as a day in the local public hospital before going home so the suburb of birth means nothing and simply being born in a suburb doesn't make you from that suburb. Cyclopia's comments about his girlfriend demonstrate a fundamental difference in the way that being "from" is applied. Manhattan is a borough covering an area of 59.5 km2 (23 sq mi) with a population of almost 1.6 million. It's not at all similar to Subiaco, Western Australia, which is a tiny Australian suburb covering only 3.2 km2 (1 sq mi) with a population of just over 8,000. To claim "my girlfriend is born in Manhattan, but she lived in New Jersey" is more like claiming "My girlfriend is born in Perth, but she lived in South Australia" than "my girlfriend is born in Subiaco". -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subiaco may be called a "suburb" but it is the disntinct area of the City of Subiaco. On the issue of fromness I was born in Warren, Michigan and my family lived there for the next 11 months, but I was raised in Sterling Heights, Michigan and so am clearly from Sterling Heights. My little brother who was born in Detroit is clearly not from Detroit, he is from Sterling Heights as well. He just happened to have been born at a hospital in Detroit. Fromness is something you know when you see it, but it is hard to define. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
And the City of Subiaco may be called a "city", but is really just a local government area the manages a few suburbs within Perth's metropolitan region - City of Subiaco's 2010 population was approx 20,000 over an area of 7.0 km² (2.7 sq mi); compared to Perth: 2011 population 1.74 million over an area of 5386 km² (2,079.5 sq mi), both figures inclusive of the City of Subiaco. (naming standards dictate that WA LGAs are named "City of", "Town of", or "Shire of"). Anyway, the category is people from Subiaco, Western Australia, not the City of Subiaco. - Evad37 ( talk) 01:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Ok, it seems this is the consensus interpretation here and it's fine by me. That said, what are the objective criteria for "people born in x"? I am sorry if I was confused about this, but I don't know what is the guideline about that. Thank you! -- Cyclopia talk 20:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- "People from" categories get a wide interpretation. Nevertheless, we should expect some substantial connection with the place. Spending the first few days of life in a maternity hospital there ought not to count; being educated at a school in that suburb, while living in another should also not count. If the school is a High School the educational status would (or could) be reflected by an alumni category. On the other hand, we do have categories for suburbs of large cities (e.g. Category:People from Moseley), so that this is not an illegitimate category, provided the suburb's extent is clear. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sexton High School alumni

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Montenegrin people of Albanian 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: no consensus.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Russian people of Latvian 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: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Chechen emigrants to the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Emigrant categories are indeed by country, not nationality.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pyramids albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Pyramids (band) albums. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Stumbled across this albums-by-band category while doing some work in Category:Pyramids, where it had been placed by mistake. Would WP:SMALLCAT not apply? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anime films by date of first release

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename with "debuts" in final six categories.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 09:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: To match the naming schemes of Category:Films by date, Category:Japanese films by date, and every other Category:Works by date subcategory. While these categories were originally conceive to include only the years of the first release of the works, editors got carried away and added started adding the subcategories for every spin-off, sequel, re-make, etc. That is because anime and manga articles will cover multiple media with each media release being categorized. For example, Mardock Scramble is a manga series with three film adaptations that were released over a period of three years. A similar example is Shugo Chara! which has three anime adaptations, and three different magna series. All of which are included in one more more subcategories of the above categories. Thus "of first release" is now misleading. — Farix ( t |  c) 22:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I would support an alternative rename to shorten the anime and manga categories to match the worldwide ones in Category:Television series debuts by date, i.e. Category:Anime debuts by date, Category:Anime debuts by decade, Category:Anime debuts by year, Category:Manga debuts by date, Category:Manga debuts by decade, Category:Manga debuts by year. Comics categories use "debuts" in each year category, but the parent is simply Category:Comics by year. For magazines, the equivalent is Category:Magazines by year of establishment; I do not suggest that manga should follow that form as it is more longwinded, and is intended for publications that typically run longer than manga. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted from CFD 2012 October 31 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American people of Asian 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: keep. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Yes, there are exceptions, but that is only because they have not been sorted to the "Booian of Fooian descent" format. In a few cases, such as the "Kurdish people of Turkey" (which would probably be better than Category:Turkish Kurdish people), that standard needs to be adjusted. The Kurds are an ethnicity split between at least three nation-states. The fact that exceptions exist is no reason to perpetuate them. WE had a long series of noms 2 or 3 years ago, which converted most of these dual natioanlity categories to the "Booian of Fooian descent" format. We should stick to that. Category:French Armenians ought to be renamed to Category:French people of Armenian descent. On my talk page you raise Israeli and Iraqi categories. They are clearly on the continent of Asia, but might be better in a category from the Midlde East. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
As you will see in some cases we have both. People have thought over the terms and realized the the x people of y descent does not always work. The French Armenians and French people of Armenian descent categories give explanations of why we have both. We also have Category:British Asian people as a sub-cat of Category:British people of Asian descent. That is a bigger mess because the British census uses Asian and Chinese as two different terms. There are other categories like Category:American Romani people. That should clearly not be renamed because it is for ethnic Romani in the US, not just people who have some Romani ancestry. The argument here is that there is a distinction in kind between being of a given descent and being of a given ethnic group. This is why we have Category:Pennsylvania Dutch people and Category:American people of Pennsylvania Dutch descent. Also with the Metis people and Metis descent categories. In general we do not split people so finely, but some ethnic groups so clearly exist in some countries that such distinction is workable. See also Category:Russian people by ethnic or national origin to get a fuller sense. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment just to make this more completed, there already is Category:Asian-American women with Category:Asian-American sportswomen, Category:Asian-American women in politics and Category:Asian-American women activists among its sub-cats. There is also Category:Asian-American tennis players. So the categories clearly are not consistent at present. I guess if we do not do this change we probably should rename those. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • do not rename The current name is consistent with the subcat names in the relevant parent category: Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. No valid reason is offerred as to why this subcat name should be any different than the rest. The category did have some non-bio subcats and articles in it. I just fixed that by moving them to other locations within the parent category Category:Asian American where they actually belonged. Anyone working on categories should first understand the structure and then try to improve the contents of the existing categories before undertaking changes to them. Also, there is no incompatibity here in the use of 'Asian'. It refers to the Asian geographic region which runs from Turkey to Japan, Indonesia and so on, as Asia states. There is no reason to create a problem here where none exists. Hmains ( talk) 23:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • However there is a problem. It would help if people actually paid attention to the links used. This cateogory does not say it is for people from Asia, it says it is for Asian people. That article exists and makes it clear that US definitions of the term exclude Southwestern Asia. Beyond this in the US when people use the descriptor "Asian" for a person they almost never mean the person is from Iraq or Israel. I am not creating a problem, the problem exists in the descriptors used in the category heading. Just because some editors want to pretend they are not there does not make them go away. There is a problem there, and it has to be reconciled in some way, just claiming it does not exist does nothing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete like the European descent above. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose rename. I think nominator should stop proposing renames for single categories when renaming them would make them different than all other similar categories. I sense an attempt to make category names scientifically precise; that is not the point of categories. The point is to have a consistent naming system that does a decent job of helping users navigate and find articles that have some relation. The current system does that well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw No one seems to even want to pay any attention to the potential probelm of this being a racial cat, or to the problem that grouping people by continental orign is not grouping them by ethnicity. It is very frustrating to spend time trying to express ideas and then having the attempt to understand things totally ignored. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American actors of Asian 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: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Asian American movement activists

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: no consensus. (But renaming to Category:Asian-American movement activists just to clean up the capitalization and hyphenation issues. If anyone wants to scream at me over this, scream away and I will revert it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Category:Asian American Movement activists
  • Nominator's rationale. To begin with the rules for categorization tell us " Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not." A look at the article Asian people makes it 100% clear that this is a racial classification, not an ethnic one. There still might be some sort of salvagable Asian-American people as an ethnic group though. However there are two other proglems. We do not have an article called Asian American Movement to explain what these activists belong to. Worse still the headnote says "This is a list of activists who have been involved in the Asian American Movement, with "American" defined for the purposes of the page as including North and South America." In wikipedia we use American to refer to United States nationals, not to refer to people from anywhere in the American continent. This is just a total mess, and the best option is to delete this, and try to start with something workable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. There is a lot of good sense in the nominator's rationale, but I think the situation is a little more complex than it first appears. We did very briefly have a head article Asian American Movement; it was an unreferenced essay created on 30 November 2009, WP:PRODded 2 minutes after creation, and deleted on 7 December 2009. I think that PROD was a little hasty, as well as being horribly WP:BITEy of the new editor who created it; the head article was indeed very poor, but the topic seems potentially notable: 38,000 ghits. The article also refers to the "Asian-American Political Alliance", which gets 99,00 Ghits and 1500 hits on News.
    So it seems that somewhere in here is the germ of a notable topic. I don't know how much (if any) of the category should survive, but the first thing is to do more research on the topic. Sadly, we are unlikely to have the assistance of the original editor, who understandably gave up after hir only edit was insta-PRODded. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Can we at least as a minimum limit this category to United States of America nationals, so that its use will be in line with all other American categories? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment 'American Nationals' has nothing to do with anything as I pointed out to you on your talk page. The only American Nationals who are not US citizens are those few people who come from American Samoa. Hmains ( talk) 23:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • delete The purpose of this category is to navigate to 'Asian American movement activists'. The trouble is 'Asian American movement' is not defined, referenced and has no WP article so this whole category is just a dead end with no reason to exist. Bio articles in this category also make no mention of such a 'movement' Hmains ( talk) 23:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    It is defined, tho not on Wikipedia. See Wei, William (1993). The Asian American Movement. ISBN  9781566390491.. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As this page stands now it is open to Mexican, Brazilian, Peruvian, Chilean, Cuban and Panamanian nationals who were never in any way connected with the United States of America. That is one of my main problems with it. It is a trans-national page that is named in a way that makes it seem like it falls in nationality space. This seems like a mess to me. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_9&oldid=1146511790"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 8 November 10 >

November 9

Category:Michelin Guide starred chefs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. My understanding is that stars are awarded to restaurants, not to individual chefs. If a chef leaves a starred restaurant the star does not follow the chef to his next job. If I am mistaken about this then I will withdraw the nomination but if not then people shouldn't be categorized by awards that aren't actually theirs. Buck Winston ( talk) 22:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Michelin stars are indeed given to the restaurant, but based on the work of the head chef. It is the quality of the food (= the quality of the chef) that is awarded. When a head chef leaves, the restaurant will (in 98% of all cases) loose its star(s). See for example Parkheuvel, that lost two of its three stars when the head chef left. As a recurring theme, I have summerize some comments here: User:The Banner/Michelin restaurants. On the other hand: a chef formerly awarded and now working in another restaurant, is far likely to get his star back quickly. Example: Hof van Sonoy >> Sonoy or Le Mérinos d'Or >> Herberg Onder de Linden. Michelin knows the quality of the chef, so they follow him/her. Another clear example: Henk Savelberg The Banner talk 23:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
So I am correct that the star does not follow the chef to the next restaurant, yes? The two stars that Parkheuvel lost were not re-assigned to the head chef's next job? Buck Winston ( talk) 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Correct, because the head chef retired. And the new head chef, although formerly cooking at 2-star level, had to proof himself again so got just 1 star (and 2 years later his second, just as before) The Banner talk 23:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
As you can see in the article about Henk Savelberg: restaurant Vreugd en Rust lost its star after head chef Savelberg left. But it got is star back after Savelberg had proven still to cook at 1-ster level when he returned. Restaurant Seinpost lost its star in 1989, when Savelberg left. It took the restaurant to 2006 to get the star back... So: no chef, no star. In effect, it is the chef who gets the star. The Banner talk 23:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this looks at best like an award category, and we do not do award categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with JPL Delete MaybeMaybeMaybe ( talk) 02:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the earning a Michelin star is a notable event in the history of a chef and a restaurant, but the way things work, this is better as a list, considering it is the combination of a chef and a restaurant that holds the stars. -- 70.24.186.245 ( talk) 06:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Alternative proposal Rename to "Head chefs working in Michelin starred restaurants" (or something like that). It is only the head chef/executive chef that matters to Michelin for a Michelin star. And although it is commonly taken as a reward to the chef, it is indeed given to the restaurant. The Banner talk 13:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the category is based on an arbitrary opinion of one publication. The stars do not connote any standardized metric that can be quantified, as such. The category should be moved to a list, if that. -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 20:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (1) it is far too common: in France a vast number of restaurtants will have a star rating (2) it is restaurants that have stars not chefs, though this will clearly be due to the quality of the chef's cooking. (3) In France Michelin is the leading guide, so that its view is probably the leading one. Elsewhere, it is merely one of a number of guides, and we should not single it out. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: We have made exceptions for certain awards - various British knighthood-type stuff, medals of honor or bravery, VCs, and the like from various nations, Nobel prizes, grammys, emmys, oscards, etc. Most of these chefs, like members of the other exceptional categories I outlined, are most notable for their Michelin stars (or VCs, etc.). If you take away the category as a non-notable achievement, one wonders how long the chefs' articles retain a claim to notability. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if we look at one example Restaurant Gordon Ramsay at Royal Hospital Road: to whom do the three stars belong? The article on Gordon Ramsay claims them for him, but he doesn't cook there any more. The article on Clare Smyth claims the same three stars for her. Or do they really belong to Mark Agnew, the executive chef? To me this suggests that this category is a "current award holder" type of category, which we usually dispose of. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 23:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women at Princeton editathon

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No need for this category, which includes only a single meetup page. The meetup page is already categorized by year and geographic location. What purpose does this category serve? Another Believer ( Talk) 22:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Various American musicians of x descent cats

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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Amerian musicians of European 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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Subiaco, Western Australia

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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Over categorisation. Subiaco is an inner city suburb that just happens to have Perth's two biggest maternity hospitals in it, so lots of people are born in Subiaco and then have nothing else to do with the suburb in their entire life other than watching football there. Upmerge to Category:People from Perth, Western Australia The-Pope ( talk) 17:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Despite being the editor who asked the nom to bring it to CFD (instead of blanking it and then going to speedy deletion), and despite having reverted him a few times, I have no strong opinions on the category itself. Only I am not sure the rationale makes sense: if lots of maternity hospitals are in there and lots of people are born there, then by definition a lot of people happen to be from there. That it's just due to the concentration of hospitals, or whatever, changes nothing for us -the only unambiguous definition of "being from X" is "I am born in X". -- Cyclopia talk 17:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Way back when, the people born in categories we killed for pretty much this reason. You may not be born in the place where you reside and you may only be in that place for a very short period of time. So how is that defining? Your question is another take on this. Right now there is no criteria to say when a person should be listed in a people from category. It is normal for someone to grow up in one place, but be born in another simply because the hospital is closer. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • "It is normal for someone to grow up in one place, but be born in another simply because the hospital is closer. " - Sure it is, but I feel this is irrelevant -you can be born elsewhere for any possible reason, still this doesn't change the facts you are still born there. My girlfriend is born in Manhattan, but she lived in New Jersey. She still is from Manhattan, however -she's born there. What are the criteria for the "People from X" category? -- Cyclopia talk 19:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I was born in Waratah, New South Wales and spent 6 years in that suburb being educated at Newcastle Boys' High School but I don't consider myself "from" there for any reason. For the first 18 years of my life I lived in New Lambton South (7 years attending New Lambton South Public School) and while I am "originally from" there, I consider myself to be "from" Raymond Terrace, New South Wales because that's where I've lived for the past 20.6 years. In the days when people were born, grew up and lived their lives within miles of their birthplace (and often were born at home), claiming to be from somewhere because you were born there may have had some meaning. Today though, some babies spend as little as a day in the local public hospital before going home so the suburb of birth means nothing and simply being born in a suburb doesn't make you from that suburb. Cyclopia's comments about his girlfriend demonstrate a fundamental difference in the way that being "from" is applied. Manhattan is a borough covering an area of 59.5 km2 (23 sq mi) with a population of almost 1.6 million. It's not at all similar to Subiaco, Western Australia, which is a tiny Australian suburb covering only 3.2 km2 (1 sq mi) with a population of just over 8,000. To claim "my girlfriend is born in Manhattan, but she lived in New Jersey" is more like claiming "My girlfriend is born in Perth, but she lived in South Australia" than "my girlfriend is born in Subiaco". -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subiaco may be called a "suburb" but it is the disntinct area of the City of Subiaco. On the issue of fromness I was born in Warren, Michigan and my family lived there for the next 11 months, but I was raised in Sterling Heights, Michigan and so am clearly from Sterling Heights. My little brother who was born in Detroit is clearly not from Detroit, he is from Sterling Heights as well. He just happened to have been born at a hospital in Detroit. Fromness is something you know when you see it, but it is hard to define. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
And the City of Subiaco may be called a "city", but is really just a local government area the manages a few suburbs within Perth's metropolitan region - City of Subiaco's 2010 population was approx 20,000 over an area of 7.0 km² (2.7 sq mi); compared to Perth: 2011 population 1.74 million over an area of 5386 km² (2,079.5 sq mi), both figures inclusive of the City of Subiaco. (naming standards dictate that WA LGAs are named "City of", "Town of", or "Shire of"). Anyway, the category is people from Subiaco, Western Australia, not the City of Subiaco. - Evad37 ( talk) 01:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Ok, it seems this is the consensus interpretation here and it's fine by me. That said, what are the objective criteria for "people born in x"? I am sorry if I was confused about this, but I don't know what is the guideline about that. Thank you! -- Cyclopia talk 20:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- "People from" categories get a wide interpretation. Nevertheless, we should expect some substantial connection with the place. Spending the first few days of life in a maternity hospital there ought not to count; being educated at a school in that suburb, while living in another should also not count. If the school is a High School the educational status would (or could) be reflected by an alumni category. On the other hand, we do have categories for suburbs of large cities (e.g. Category:People from Moseley), so that this is not an illegitimate category, provided the suburb's extent is clear. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sexton High School alumni

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Montenegrin people of Albanian 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: no consensus.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Russian people of Latvian 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: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Chechen emigrants to the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Emigrant categories are indeed by country, not nationality.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 16:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pyramids albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Pyramids (band) albums. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Stumbled across this albums-by-band category while doing some work in Category:Pyramids, where it had been placed by mistake. Would WP:SMALLCAT not apply? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anime films by date of first release

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename with "debuts" in final six categories.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 09:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: To match the naming schemes of Category:Films by date, Category:Japanese films by date, and every other Category:Works by date subcategory. While these categories were originally conceive to include only the years of the first release of the works, editors got carried away and added started adding the subcategories for every spin-off, sequel, re-make, etc. That is because anime and manga articles will cover multiple media with each media release being categorized. For example, Mardock Scramble is a manga series with three film adaptations that were released over a period of three years. A similar example is Shugo Chara! which has three anime adaptations, and three different magna series. All of which are included in one more more subcategories of the above categories. Thus "of first release" is now misleading. — Farix ( t |  c) 22:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I would support an alternative rename to shorten the anime and manga categories to match the worldwide ones in Category:Television series debuts by date, i.e. Category:Anime debuts by date, Category:Anime debuts by decade, Category:Anime debuts by year, Category:Manga debuts by date, Category:Manga debuts by decade, Category:Manga debuts by year. Comics categories use "debuts" in each year category, but the parent is simply Category:Comics by year. For magazines, the equivalent is Category:Magazines by year of establishment; I do not suggest that manga should follow that form as it is more longwinded, and is intended for publications that typically run longer than manga. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Relisted from CFD 2012 October 31 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American people of Asian 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: keep. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Yes, there are exceptions, but that is only because they have not been sorted to the "Booian of Fooian descent" format. In a few cases, such as the "Kurdish people of Turkey" (which would probably be better than Category:Turkish Kurdish people), that standard needs to be adjusted. The Kurds are an ethnicity split between at least three nation-states. The fact that exceptions exist is no reason to perpetuate them. WE had a long series of noms 2 or 3 years ago, which converted most of these dual natioanlity categories to the "Booian of Fooian descent" format. We should stick to that. Category:French Armenians ought to be renamed to Category:French people of Armenian descent. On my talk page you raise Israeli and Iraqi categories. They are clearly on the continent of Asia, but might be better in a category from the Midlde East. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
As you will see in some cases we have both. People have thought over the terms and realized the the x people of y descent does not always work. The French Armenians and French people of Armenian descent categories give explanations of why we have both. We also have Category:British Asian people as a sub-cat of Category:British people of Asian descent. That is a bigger mess because the British census uses Asian and Chinese as two different terms. There are other categories like Category:American Romani people. That should clearly not be renamed because it is for ethnic Romani in the US, not just people who have some Romani ancestry. The argument here is that there is a distinction in kind between being of a given descent and being of a given ethnic group. This is why we have Category:Pennsylvania Dutch people and Category:American people of Pennsylvania Dutch descent. Also with the Metis people and Metis descent categories. In general we do not split people so finely, but some ethnic groups so clearly exist in some countries that such distinction is workable. See also Category:Russian people by ethnic or national origin to get a fuller sense. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment just to make this more completed, there already is Category:Asian-American women with Category:Asian-American sportswomen, Category:Asian-American women in politics and Category:Asian-American women activists among its sub-cats. There is also Category:Asian-American tennis players. So the categories clearly are not consistent at present. I guess if we do not do this change we probably should rename those. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • do not rename The current name is consistent with the subcat names in the relevant parent category: Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. No valid reason is offerred as to why this subcat name should be any different than the rest. The category did have some non-bio subcats and articles in it. I just fixed that by moving them to other locations within the parent category Category:Asian American where they actually belonged. Anyone working on categories should first understand the structure and then try to improve the contents of the existing categories before undertaking changes to them. Also, there is no incompatibity here in the use of 'Asian'. It refers to the Asian geographic region which runs from Turkey to Japan, Indonesia and so on, as Asia states. There is no reason to create a problem here where none exists. Hmains ( talk) 23:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    • However there is a problem. It would help if people actually paid attention to the links used. This cateogory does not say it is for people from Asia, it says it is for Asian people. That article exists and makes it clear that US definitions of the term exclude Southwestern Asia. Beyond this in the US when people use the descriptor "Asian" for a person they almost never mean the person is from Iraq or Israel. I am not creating a problem, the problem exists in the descriptors used in the category heading. Just because some editors want to pretend they are not there does not make them go away. There is a problem there, and it has to be reconciled in some way, just claiming it does not exist does nothing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete like the European descent above. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose rename. I think nominator should stop proposing renames for single categories when renaming them would make them different than all other similar categories. I sense an attempt to make category names scientifically precise; that is not the point of categories. The point is to have a consistent naming system that does a decent job of helping users navigate and find articles that have some relation. The current system does that well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw No one seems to even want to pay any attention to the potential probelm of this being a racial cat, or to the problem that grouping people by continental orign is not grouping them by ethnicity. It is very frustrating to spend time trying to express ideas and then having the attempt to understand things totally ignored. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American actors of Asian 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: Merge. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Asian American movement activists

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: no consensus. (But renaming to Category:Asian-American movement activists just to clean up the capitalization and hyphenation issues. If anyone wants to scream at me over this, scream away and I will revert it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Category:Asian American Movement activists
  • Nominator's rationale. To begin with the rules for categorization tell us " Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not." A look at the article Asian people makes it 100% clear that this is a racial classification, not an ethnic one. There still might be some sort of salvagable Asian-American people as an ethnic group though. However there are two other proglems. We do not have an article called Asian American Movement to explain what these activists belong to. Worse still the headnote says "This is a list of activists who have been involved in the Asian American Movement, with "American" defined for the purposes of the page as including North and South America." In wikipedia we use American to refer to United States nationals, not to refer to people from anywhere in the American continent. This is just a total mess, and the best option is to delete this, and try to start with something workable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. There is a lot of good sense in the nominator's rationale, but I think the situation is a little more complex than it first appears. We did very briefly have a head article Asian American Movement; it was an unreferenced essay created on 30 November 2009, WP:PRODded 2 minutes after creation, and deleted on 7 December 2009. I think that PROD was a little hasty, as well as being horribly WP:BITEy of the new editor who created it; the head article was indeed very poor, but the topic seems potentially notable: 38,000 ghits. The article also refers to the "Asian-American Political Alliance", which gets 99,00 Ghits and 1500 hits on News.
    So it seems that somewhere in here is the germ of a notable topic. I don't know how much (if any) of the category should survive, but the first thing is to do more research on the topic. Sadly, we are unlikely to have the assistance of the original editor, who understandably gave up after hir only edit was insta-PRODded. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Can we at least as a minimum limit this category to United States of America nationals, so that its use will be in line with all other American categories? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment 'American Nationals' has nothing to do with anything as I pointed out to you on your talk page. The only American Nationals who are not US citizens are those few people who come from American Samoa. Hmains ( talk) 23:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • delete The purpose of this category is to navigate to 'Asian American movement activists'. The trouble is 'Asian American movement' is not defined, referenced and has no WP article so this whole category is just a dead end with no reason to exist. Bio articles in this category also make no mention of such a 'movement' Hmains ( talk) 23:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC) reply
    It is defined, tho not on Wikipedia. See Wei, William (1993). The Asian American Movement. ISBN  9781566390491.. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As this page stands now it is open to Mexican, Brazilian, Peruvian, Chilean, Cuban and Panamanian nationals who were never in any way connected with the United States of America. That is one of my main problems with it. It is a trans-national page that is named in a way that makes it seem like it falls in nationality space. This seems like a mess to me. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_9&oldid=1146511790"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE