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.
Delete per nom. I can sort of see a logic behind what the creator was trying to do here — since Puerto Ricans are defined as a specific ethnic group within the larger American umbrella, they were trying to capture people who also have other non-Puerto Rican ancestry from the mainland US — but for the precise reason the nominator points out, they missed, and I'm not convinced that renaming it for increased clarity would actually make it any more
WP:DEFINING either.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:50, 8 May 2020 (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 Gibraltar
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.
Nominator's rationale: Unclear if there is supposed to be a distinction between the two categories, but I certainly dont see one, unless it is that People from Gibraltar were born there but are notable for what they did somewhere else. The anchor article is
GibraltariansRathfelder (
talk)
19:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge both as suggested. The nationality will (I think) be British overseas citizens, since this is a British Overseas Territory. Anyone purged for being an expatriate should probably be moved to
Category:Expatriates in Gibraltar (or such like). The population is probably not enough for this to need further splits.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:03, 10 May 2020 (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.
Priyanka Chopra (Jonas) categories
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.
Procedural oppose, at least temporarily. The page move was recent and arbitrary, and does not appear to have actually been supported by any
requested moves discussion to establish an actual consensus for it — at the very least, there isn't any discussion on her talk page (which is where such a discussion is supposed to be documented.) Rather, as near as I can tell, the logic appears to be that her marriage to Nick automatically made her "Priyanka Chopra Jonas", and therefore the page move should just have automatically happened right away — but while I admittedly don't go very far out of my way to follow her career and basically just know her through cultural osmosis, I have never actually heard her referred to as "Priyanka Chopra Jonas", but still as just "Priyanka Chopra". I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can actually produce evidence of a page move discussion that I've missed — but from the evidence I've been able to find the page move was improper, so that's probably what we should be discussing first. I've initiated a discussion at
Talk:Priyanka Chopra Jonas over what the page name should be — if consensus settles on Priyanka Chopra Jonas, then I'll support a move of the categories, but if it lands on "move back to Priyanka Chopra", then the categories obviously shouldn't be moved.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:00, 8 May 2020 (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:Magazine company founders
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.
Nominator's rationale: There isn't a very clean distinction to be drawn between being a magazine founder and being a magazine company founder -- literally by definition, magazines are run by companies or organizations, so founding a company to run the magazine is very often part and parcel of the process of founding a magazine at all. And while it is true that magazines can technically also be founded as new projects under the auspices of media companies that already existed before the new magazine was launched, or new companies can be founded to take over already-existing magazines, those aren't particularly helpful or
defining hairs for the category system to split. The distinction just isn't unambiguous enough to need two separate category trees here.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support – with the condition that something similar to the nominator's rationale be placed in the category header to explain that magazine and magazine company are "one and the same". Senator2029“Talk”01:42, 13 May 2020 (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:Iranian Sound recordists
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just two people. The parent category
Category:Sound recordists has just seven people in it, so it has not been and does not need to be subdivided by nationality at all -- and two people is not enough to warrant giving Iran special treatment if we're not subcatting any of the others. And even if for some implausible reason it were to be kept, it would still have to be renamed for the miscapitalization of "sound". No upmerging necessary, as the two people here were never actually removed from the parent in the process of adding this subcategory.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:16, 7 May 2020 (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:Pakistani mass media by language
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 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:Swiss mass media by language
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 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:Foreign-language mass media in Ukraine
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.
Object -- I did not vote on US case, but perhaps I should have. Clearly where there is a majority language, "foreign" refers to a non-native language. The present name is clear and the target over complicated. Category names are better for being short. Where a fuller definition is needed the right place for it is in a headnote.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment; wouldn't 'Mass media in Ukraine by language' be the best option? And as for the notion that any non-majority language is 'foreign', that's clearly a logic that doesn't work. It would mean Catalan would be foreign language in Spain, for example. --
Soman (
talk)
17:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment, abstaining from voting, but I think Marcocapelle might have a point. Unless it would be expanded, it is more efficient to keep it nice and "trimmed". If renamed, I support per nomination.
Aleksandr Grigoryev (
talk)
00:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
(changed vote) Delete -- The one article at the bottom of this tree is about Russian language TV in Ukraine. The follow nom relating to this will appropriately categorise that, so that this one (which is unlikely to get the required 5 items) becomes useless. The point about Catalan in Spain is a good one: Russian is a native language for certain residents.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Precise vote to Delete (in practice) from Merge to
Category:Mass media in Ukraine per Oculi and Marcocapelle (in principle). In the case of Ukraine, foreign-language is bogus as one can wonder if Russian language media were foreign language in Soviet or Imperial times, or even Polish-language or German-language media in Western Ukraine in Commonwealth or Austrian times.
Place Clichy (
talk)
10:00, 12 May 2020 (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:African Americans in the media
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.
Rename and purge, this does not seem part of a broader "in the media" tree. The first two subcategories should be purged though, they do no belong after renaming.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:59, 8 May 2020 (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.
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.
DElete -- Whether this applies to a writer is a POV issue. We cannot have categories where inclusions depends on the editor's opinion.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per John Pack Lambert and nom.
Category:Proletarian literature may be an established genre, and as such it has a category (which needs a lot of work, by the looks of it). The literature, not the writers. Take an example:
John Steinbeck wrote about working-class issues, but he was not working-class himself; his actual social status is irrelevant to his writing.
Grutness...wha?04:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment, for example "[t]his tradition was beginning to change, and the first two decades of the new century saw the emergence of a new type of author, the proletärförfattare (proletarian writer) or arbetarförfattare (working-class writer), the former term implying a greater degree of political activism than the latter."[1] --
Soman (
talk)
21:09, 12 May 2020 (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:Specific letter-diacritic combinations
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 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:Country music festivals in London
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just one festival, which does not qualify for either of the normal exemptions from smallcat rules: we do not have any established scheme of "Specific-genre music festivals in City" subcategories, and neither of the merge targets are large enough to need special treatment on size management grounds. Genre music festivals are normally categorized at the level of the country without specific-city subcategories below that, and festivals by city are normally filed in one common city category without being segregated for genre -- and with just one festival here, one festival (same one double-filed!) in
Category:Country music festivals in the United Kingdom and 57 festivals in
Category:Music festivals in London, there's just no need for this. And since this is the only such category that exists for any city-genre combo in the entire world, both
Category:Country music festivals by city and
Category:Folk festivals by city will simply be empty if this goes.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:01, 7 May 2020 (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 ethnicity and 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.
1) that is factually inaccurate. A number of them have fewer than 5 articles and 2) the size of the category isn't being argued. What is being argued is that they fail
WP:OCEGRS as non-notable intersections of ethnicity, nationality, and occupation.--
User:Namiba18:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Upmerge/delete all per nom as ineligible intersections per
WP:OCEGRS. I had doubts about the Canadian people of Israeli Arab descent because Israeli Arabs are a distinct population, not an intersection, but I checked the only article in the category,
Ghazi Falah, which did not belong in it, so this point is moot.
Place Clichy (
talk)
17:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all per
WP:OCEGRS; these descent categories also suffer the same ills as all others: how much descent must one be; how far back may/must it go; and what reliable sources tell us that anyone is within those constraints? Fundamentally, do people of a particular "descent" do their job differently than those not of that "descent"; that's what these categories imply because otherwise there is no notability in them.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment,
WP:OCEGRS does not apply here: descent and ethnicity are two different things. Ethnicity may be based on religion or language or anything else that bonds people together. Descent tells about the nationality of parents, grandparents etc., not necessarily leading to any ethnicity. I have seen this mixing up of terminology several times before. So, in this discussion, overall deletion of descent x occupation categories (Carlossuarez) and
WP:SMALLCAT are the more valid arguments.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
In the above cases, American is the nationality and X is a stand-in for ethnicity. The only nationality we know these people have is American. That's why many have objected to lumping in everyone to "Asian descent" categories.--
User:Namiba12:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This is not untrue in principle. However, in many case these descent categories are the closest thing we have to ethnicity categories, and are used as such proxies both by editors found of ethnic labels who create such categories and add articles with a shovel, and by editors wary of such labels who have worked in the past here on CfD to rename many ethnic categories to descent categories, supposedly because this could be better sourced and give less room to personal interpretation. Despite the fact that one can have descent of a great-grand-parent of some nationality or ethnicity and not self-identify with this ethnicity, I believe that the wording of
WP:EGRS and
WP:OCEGRS is precise enough to apply to these descent and descent-occupation categories. It should be the par by which we measure eligible and ineligible categories. Ultimately, the par should be
WP:DEFINING, and strictly applied this should have logically led to the deletion of almost all descent-occupation intersections categories (or the renaming of some of them to ethnicity-occupation intersections). Indeed in very few cases (such as feudal societies) is one's occupation defined by their descent stricto sensu. However your attempt to do so, which I supported and would still support as a rational outcome, has led to no consensus. The absence of consensus on this much-needed larger selection effort should not prevent us to delete a smaller set of blatantly ineligible categories when we find them.
Re:
WP:SMALLCAT, the amount of descent and intersectional descent categories has blossomed to such proportions, often through the effort of now blocked editors, that CfD has often been stuck with the objection that these are part of a "large scheme". Also, not all such intersections are small: there is afaik no connection between being a plumber and being red-haired or having a German grandparent, however there are probably more than 5 red-haired plumbers or plumbers of German descent, which would make terrible Wikipedia categories. The only issue is therefore the value of the intersection as measured by
WP:OCEGRS and
WP:DEFINING, not its size.
Place Clichy (
talk)
13:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
As said, I have no problem with advocating overall deletion of descent x occupation categories, which is what you seem to be after in the end. I just have a problem with mixing up ethnicity and descent. The German example is a nice one, because nobody would refer to English-speaking people as belonging to a German ethnicity in case their grandparents emigrated to the United States.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I share this concern of confusion between ethnicity and descent. When individual category inclusions or entire categories use "descent" as a proxy for ethnicity, in my opinion they should often be removed on this ground alone.
Place Clichy (
talk)
00:18, 22 May 2020 (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:Populated places in Tešanj
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 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:Jordanian internet celebrities
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 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:Ben Lexcen
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 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:Scrapped ships
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.
We have a number categories for the end of ships that are defining like
Category:Ships sunk by kamikaze attack and
Category:Ships sunk as dive sites. The articles in those categories are at least partially defined by the fates of their ships so readers could use those categories to find articles. But being scrapped is the normal, boring end for most modern ships and, if fully populated, this category would have thousands up thousands of articles and be unlikely to help navigation. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep -- we do have a category for "burials in State X" for people - I think scrapped defines the resolution of a ship's life and is only relevant for iron ships --
Dwkaminski (
talk)
13:53, 15 May 2020 (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.
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.
Delete per nom. I can sort of see a logic behind what the creator was trying to do here — since Puerto Ricans are defined as a specific ethnic group within the larger American umbrella, they were trying to capture people who also have other non-Puerto Rican ancestry from the mainland US — but for the precise reason the nominator points out, they missed, and I'm not convinced that renaming it for increased clarity would actually make it any more
WP:DEFINING either.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:50, 8 May 2020 (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 Gibraltar
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.
Nominator's rationale: Unclear if there is supposed to be a distinction between the two categories, but I certainly dont see one, unless it is that People from Gibraltar were born there but are notable for what they did somewhere else. The anchor article is
GibraltariansRathfelder (
talk)
19:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge both as suggested. The nationality will (I think) be British overseas citizens, since this is a British Overseas Territory. Anyone purged for being an expatriate should probably be moved to
Category:Expatriates in Gibraltar (or such like). The population is probably not enough for this to need further splits.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:03, 10 May 2020 (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.
Priyanka Chopra (Jonas) categories
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.
Procedural oppose, at least temporarily. The page move was recent and arbitrary, and does not appear to have actually been supported by any
requested moves discussion to establish an actual consensus for it — at the very least, there isn't any discussion on her talk page (which is where such a discussion is supposed to be documented.) Rather, as near as I can tell, the logic appears to be that her marriage to Nick automatically made her "Priyanka Chopra Jonas", and therefore the page move should just have automatically happened right away — but while I admittedly don't go very far out of my way to follow her career and basically just know her through cultural osmosis, I have never actually heard her referred to as "Priyanka Chopra Jonas", but still as just "Priyanka Chopra". I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can actually produce evidence of a page move discussion that I've missed — but from the evidence I've been able to find the page move was improper, so that's probably what we should be discussing first. I've initiated a discussion at
Talk:Priyanka Chopra Jonas over what the page name should be — if consensus settles on Priyanka Chopra Jonas, then I'll support a move of the categories, but if it lands on "move back to Priyanka Chopra", then the categories obviously shouldn't be moved.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:00, 8 May 2020 (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:Magazine company founders
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.
Nominator's rationale: There isn't a very clean distinction to be drawn between being a magazine founder and being a magazine company founder -- literally by definition, magazines are run by companies or organizations, so founding a company to run the magazine is very often part and parcel of the process of founding a magazine at all. And while it is true that magazines can technically also be founded as new projects under the auspices of media companies that already existed before the new magazine was launched, or new companies can be founded to take over already-existing magazines, those aren't particularly helpful or
defining hairs for the category system to split. The distinction just isn't unambiguous enough to need two separate category trees here.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support – with the condition that something similar to the nominator's rationale be placed in the category header to explain that magazine and magazine company are "one and the same". Senator2029“Talk”01:42, 13 May 2020 (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:Iranian Sound recordists
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just two people. The parent category
Category:Sound recordists has just seven people in it, so it has not been and does not need to be subdivided by nationality at all -- and two people is not enough to warrant giving Iran special treatment if we're not subcatting any of the others. And even if for some implausible reason it were to be kept, it would still have to be renamed for the miscapitalization of "sound". No upmerging necessary, as the two people here were never actually removed from the parent in the process of adding this subcategory.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:16, 7 May 2020 (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:Pakistani mass media by language
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 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:Swiss mass media by language
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 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:Foreign-language mass media in Ukraine
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.
Object -- I did not vote on US case, but perhaps I should have. Clearly where there is a majority language, "foreign" refers to a non-native language. The present name is clear and the target over complicated. Category names are better for being short. Where a fuller definition is needed the right place for it is in a headnote.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment; wouldn't 'Mass media in Ukraine by language' be the best option? And as for the notion that any non-majority language is 'foreign', that's clearly a logic that doesn't work. It would mean Catalan would be foreign language in Spain, for example. --
Soman (
talk)
17:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment, abstaining from voting, but I think Marcocapelle might have a point. Unless it would be expanded, it is more efficient to keep it nice and "trimmed". If renamed, I support per nomination.
Aleksandr Grigoryev (
talk)
00:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
(changed vote) Delete -- The one article at the bottom of this tree is about Russian language TV in Ukraine. The follow nom relating to this will appropriately categorise that, so that this one (which is unlikely to get the required 5 items) becomes useless. The point about Catalan in Spain is a good one: Russian is a native language for certain residents.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Precise vote to Delete (in practice) from Merge to
Category:Mass media in Ukraine per Oculi and Marcocapelle (in principle). In the case of Ukraine, foreign-language is bogus as one can wonder if Russian language media were foreign language in Soviet or Imperial times, or even Polish-language or German-language media in Western Ukraine in Commonwealth or Austrian times.
Place Clichy (
talk)
10:00, 12 May 2020 (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:African Americans in the media
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.
Rename and purge, this does not seem part of a broader "in the media" tree. The first two subcategories should be purged though, they do no belong after renaming.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:59, 8 May 2020 (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.
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.
DElete -- Whether this applies to a writer is a POV issue. We cannot have categories where inclusions depends on the editor's opinion.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per John Pack Lambert and nom.
Category:Proletarian literature may be an established genre, and as such it has a category (which needs a lot of work, by the looks of it). The literature, not the writers. Take an example:
John Steinbeck wrote about working-class issues, but he was not working-class himself; his actual social status is irrelevant to his writing.
Grutness...wha?04:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment, for example "[t]his tradition was beginning to change, and the first two decades of the new century saw the emergence of a new type of author, the proletärförfattare (proletarian writer) or arbetarförfattare (working-class writer), the former term implying a greater degree of political activism than the latter."[1] --
Soman (
talk)
21:09, 12 May 2020 (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:Specific letter-diacritic combinations
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 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:Country music festivals in London
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just one festival, which does not qualify for either of the normal exemptions from smallcat rules: we do not have any established scheme of "Specific-genre music festivals in City" subcategories, and neither of the merge targets are large enough to need special treatment on size management grounds. Genre music festivals are normally categorized at the level of the country without specific-city subcategories below that, and festivals by city are normally filed in one common city category without being segregated for genre -- and with just one festival here, one festival (same one double-filed!) in
Category:Country music festivals in the United Kingdom and 57 festivals in
Category:Music festivals in London, there's just no need for this. And since this is the only such category that exists for any city-genre combo in the entire world, both
Category:Country music festivals by city and
Category:Folk festivals by city will simply be empty if this goes.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:01, 7 May 2020 (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 ethnicity and 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.
1) that is factually inaccurate. A number of them have fewer than 5 articles and 2) the size of the category isn't being argued. What is being argued is that they fail
WP:OCEGRS as non-notable intersections of ethnicity, nationality, and occupation.--
User:Namiba18:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Upmerge/delete all per nom as ineligible intersections per
WP:OCEGRS. I had doubts about the Canadian people of Israeli Arab descent because Israeli Arabs are a distinct population, not an intersection, but I checked the only article in the category,
Ghazi Falah, which did not belong in it, so this point is moot.
Place Clichy (
talk)
17:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all per
WP:OCEGRS; these descent categories also suffer the same ills as all others: how much descent must one be; how far back may/must it go; and what reliable sources tell us that anyone is within those constraints? Fundamentally, do people of a particular "descent" do their job differently than those not of that "descent"; that's what these categories imply because otherwise there is no notability in them.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment,
WP:OCEGRS does not apply here: descent and ethnicity are two different things. Ethnicity may be based on religion or language or anything else that bonds people together. Descent tells about the nationality of parents, grandparents etc., not necessarily leading to any ethnicity. I have seen this mixing up of terminology several times before. So, in this discussion, overall deletion of descent x occupation categories (Carlossuarez) and
WP:SMALLCAT are the more valid arguments.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
In the above cases, American is the nationality and X is a stand-in for ethnicity. The only nationality we know these people have is American. That's why many have objected to lumping in everyone to "Asian descent" categories.--
User:Namiba12:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This is not untrue in principle. However, in many case these descent categories are the closest thing we have to ethnicity categories, and are used as such proxies both by editors found of ethnic labels who create such categories and add articles with a shovel, and by editors wary of such labels who have worked in the past here on CfD to rename many ethnic categories to descent categories, supposedly because this could be better sourced and give less room to personal interpretation. Despite the fact that one can have descent of a great-grand-parent of some nationality or ethnicity and not self-identify with this ethnicity, I believe that the wording of
WP:EGRS and
WP:OCEGRS is precise enough to apply to these descent and descent-occupation categories. It should be the par by which we measure eligible and ineligible categories. Ultimately, the par should be
WP:DEFINING, and strictly applied this should have logically led to the deletion of almost all descent-occupation intersections categories (or the renaming of some of them to ethnicity-occupation intersections). Indeed in very few cases (such as feudal societies) is one's occupation defined by their descent stricto sensu. However your attempt to do so, which I supported and would still support as a rational outcome, has led to no consensus. The absence of consensus on this much-needed larger selection effort should not prevent us to delete a smaller set of blatantly ineligible categories when we find them.
Re:
WP:SMALLCAT, the amount of descent and intersectional descent categories has blossomed to such proportions, often through the effort of now blocked editors, that CfD has often been stuck with the objection that these are part of a "large scheme". Also, not all such intersections are small: there is afaik no connection between being a plumber and being red-haired or having a German grandparent, however there are probably more than 5 red-haired plumbers or plumbers of German descent, which would make terrible Wikipedia categories. The only issue is therefore the value of the intersection as measured by
WP:OCEGRS and
WP:DEFINING, not its size.
Place Clichy (
talk)
13:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
As said, I have no problem with advocating overall deletion of descent x occupation categories, which is what you seem to be after in the end. I just have a problem with mixing up ethnicity and descent. The German example is a nice one, because nobody would refer to English-speaking people as belonging to a German ethnicity in case their grandparents emigrated to the United States.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I share this concern of confusion between ethnicity and descent. When individual category inclusions or entire categories use "descent" as a proxy for ethnicity, in my opinion they should often be removed on this ground alone.
Place Clichy (
talk)
00:18, 22 May 2020 (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:Populated places in Tešanj
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 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:Jordanian internet celebrities
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 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:Ben Lexcen
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 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:Scrapped ships
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.
We have a number categories for the end of ships that are defining like
Category:Ships sunk by kamikaze attack and
Category:Ships sunk as dive sites. The articles in those categories are at least partially defined by the fates of their ships so readers could use those categories to find articles. But being scrapped is the normal, boring end for most modern ships and, if fully populated, this category would have thousands up thousands of articles and be unlikely to help navigation. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep -- we do have a category for "burials in State X" for people - I think scrapped defines the resolution of a ship's life and is only relevant for iron ships --
Dwkaminski (
talk)
13:53, 15 May 2020 (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.