Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 2 July 4 >

July 3

Category:Romanian people of Hungarian 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. It is possible to preserve this category and split out a subcategory for ethnic-Hungarian Romanians, exclusive of Romanians whose ancestors were Hungarian, but there is clearly no consensus for that in this discussion. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename/Split to match the main article Hungarian minority in Romania and to provide more accuracy. People listed under this category are ethnic Hungarians from the populous minority group in this country. They are Hungarians, not some people "of Hungarian descent". We can have both categories like Category:Polish Jews and Category:Polish people of Jewish descent. Darwinek ( talk) 21:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The distinction is too fine. Just categorize them all as "Romanian people of Hungarian descent", which is a broader category. If they are not Romanian nationals, use the standard Category:Hungarian expatriates in Romania. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Well, there is a difference between citizens of Romania with Hungarian descent, and citizens of Romania who are Hungarians. Citizenship and nationality are two different things is Central and Eastern Europe. That's why we have national minorities here. - Darwinek ( talk) 07:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    A citizen of Romania who is a Hungarian is also a Romanian person of Hungarian descent. We don't need to create a category for every possible permutation of nationality/citizenship combination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Ethnic Hungarian citizens of Romania (or at least Category:Ethnic Hungarian Romanian people) for clarity, and check to see that all listed are indeed ethnic Hungarian and not Romanian with (some) Hungarian ancestry. (And recreate this category if there are any individuals with just ancestry.) Mayumashu ( talk) 13:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the attempts to distinguish the gradations of Hungarianess among citizens of Romania is built around an assumption that the lines of Hungarianess and Romanianess are clear and distinct, while in reality there is no easy way to tell the difference between a Hungarian who is a citizen of Romania and a Romanian who had Hungarian ancestors. Ethnicity is too fluid to meet such precise categorization. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment before placing a vote, I'd like to be more acquainted with this. You are aware that "Romanian people of Hungarian descent" might include people who might've had Hungarian parent(s) or grandparent(s) but they even distance themselves from the Hungarians (and don't even speak the language anymore), right? Because I think that if you'd put them into a category together with e.g. László Tőkés, they might take offense (especially since it happens that while giving up their Hungarian roots they become avid Romanian nationalists in the process too). Thus I suggest creating the new category, moving the Hungarians there, and leave the rest in this category (i.e. those who do have Hungarian descent, but don't consider themselves Hungarian). What do you think? -- CoolKoon ( talk) 00:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Seems very logical, as both mentioned groups are distinct and deserve own categories. - Darwinek ( talk) 15:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are people in Romania with Hungarian descent. Csendesmark ( talk) 12:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Csendesmark is right. Whther we should also have Category:Romanian Hungarians along the mold of Category:American Jews or Category:French Armenians is an independent question from wether this category works. This category works because there are people who fit the description. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Mayumashu. He spent a lot of time a couple of years back getting rid of ambiguous daul nationality categories. Are they Roumanian Hungarians or Hungarian Roumanians? Which is ethicity and which nationality? "Hungarian descent" suggests emigration from Hungary in some recent period. In fact they are ethnic Hungarians, who were isolated from their ethnic roots, when Transylvania was tranferrred to Roumania as part of the post-WWI settlement. Those concerned are ethnically Hungarians, but nationally Roumanian. WE need to devise a category name to fit that, possibly Category:Roumanians of Hungarian ethnicity. Since emigration has not generally occurred here, "ethnicity" should replace the usual "descent". Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Good gratious. This gets to the point of bordering on the absurd. These are fine details that are suitable (perhaps) for an article, but as far as categories go, it looks like an attempt to split the hair far too many times. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we have 18 pages in category:Hungarian expatriates in Romania so it is clear that movement between the two countries is more prevalent than some people suggest. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Encyclopedias on fictional worlds

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:Encyclopedias of fictional worlds. The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I see no need, at this time, to limit the scope of this category to encyclopedias of fictional worlds, such as Pandora or Middle-earth, as opposed to encyclopedias of fiction in general, inclusive of works of fiction, fictional characters and places, and the like. The precise naming format—Encyclopedias on... versus Encyclopedias of...—should reflect the outcome of the main discussion and should be decided there, not here. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:Encyclopedias on science and mathematics

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: split. The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Although there is some overlap between the topics, they are sufficiently different and most articles clearly belong to one or the other. If there is no consensus to split, then I propose changing the order of the topics per alphabetical ordering: Category:Encyclopedias of mathematics and science. The precise naming format—Encyclopedias on... versus Encyclopedias of...—should reflect the outcome of the main discussion and should be decided there, not here. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Unsure - While there is definitely some overlap, I suppose dual categorisation could work. If kept, renaming for math to be first (for alphabetic reasons) per common practice.- jc37 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Split as nominated. Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science is one that will belong in both, but most of the contents will go in just one or the other. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Specialized encyclopedias

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 as nominated. The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Encyclopedias are of various topics, not on them (particularly odd in the case of "Encyclopedias on ficitonal worlds"): e.g., Encyclopedia of Albanian Art, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Encyclopaedia of Islam. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all per nom. Also support: Category:Encyclopedias concerning X, for improved clarity. Weak support to use "covering" instead. Though I chuckle when thinking of Encyclopedias covering sexuality  : ) - jc37 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:Brickyard 400 winners

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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 15:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This comes very close to a "performer by performance" category, which is something we simply don't do. Now, it's true that some races are defining enough to a driver's career to be categorised - the Daytona 500 and Indianapolis 500, for instance - but the Brickyard 400 does not rise to that level. (One might well argue that the World 600 is more significant...). So this should simply be a list in the Brickyard 400 article - which it already is - and not a category. The Bushranger One ping only 16:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. The Brickyard was never at the top level of its sport. I work on Golf tournament articles and winners aren't categorized for winning the Phoenix Open or Corning Classic. None of these are define the athlete. ...William 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Well, sensu stricto, The Brickyard is and has always been at the top level of its sport. Just not the top level of NASCAR. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in general we discorage categorizing people for having won something. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Reference types

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A number of empty maintenance categories. Never used in the past as far as I have checked now and then; the instructions given for using them don't work, adding a type parameter has no result in the templates. More than a year old. Fram ( talk) 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:All-Ireland Senior Camogie Championships navigational boxes

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:Camogie navigational boxes. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. Upmerging is also possible. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:All-Ireland Senior Ladies' Football Championships navigational boxes

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 to Category:Ladies' Gaelic football templates and Category:Gaelic games navigational boxes.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. Upmerging is also possible. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:Demographics of Canada by province

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename ( CSD G7: category creator consents to the change). -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I think that we should expand the scope of this category to include Demographics of Northwest Territories, Demographics of Nunavut and Demographics of Yukon, which currently are categorized in the 'demographics of Canada' category. Most other categories of this sort do so already—see Category:Categories by province or territory of Canada. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename Examination shows that 'by province or territory" is the usual form. Mangoe ( talk) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Debate not really necessary on this one. I'll speedy rename it right now. Bearcat ( talk) 18:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Quebec communities with significant anglophone populations

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. This is already listified at what appears to be a "significant" level (35%+). If more is desired, add more to the list.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 13:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: What is the threshold for a "significant ... population"? Should we consider raw numbers (e.g., more than 1,000 people) or population percentage (more than 10%)? The problem with both is that, ultimately, virtually any specific threshold will be arbitrary and likely not defining: compare the hypothetical situations of 1,000 English-speakers in a population of 100,000 (i.e. 1%) versus 10 English-speakers in a population of 20 (i.e. 50%).
We could restrict the scope of the category to communities with majority Anglophone populations. This threshold, while arbitrary, at least is somewhat natural. However, such a category would need to be updated constantly to reflect demographic changes. Alternatively, we could avoid this problem entirely by choosing to forgo a precise definition and to rely on (near-)explicit identification by reliable sources (e.g. "Foo (is/was) an Anglo-Quebecer community"). The problem here, of course, is that different sources will use different definitions and criteria.
Therefore, I believe that the best option is to listify this category to List of Anglo-Quebecer communities (or its talk page, so editors can format and source it). The ideal solution, in my opinion, would be delete both the category and list and, in their place, to create Language demographics of Quebec by community as an extension of Language demographics of Quebec.
If there is no consensus to listify, then the category should be renamed to one of the following, in order to capitalize 'Anglophone' and/or reflect the 'populated places...' wording that has been adopted for settlements: Category:Anglo-Quebecer communities, Category:Populated places in Quebec with majority Anglophone populations or Category:Populated places in Quebec with significant Anglophone populations. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I definitely agree that the current name is problematic (I've actually raised that issue more than once in the past, but it didn't end up going anywhere). Part of the problem is that the category appears to be a bit of original research collated by applying an arbitrary cutoff to a raw statsdump of language demographic numbers. Unlike the situation in Ontario, where there's at least an actual legal designation for communities that have a large enough francophone population to warrant the provision of French language provincial government services and the corresponding category simply collects those designated areas, I'm not clear whether Quebec has a specific legal designation for communities with sizeable anglophone populations or not. Accordingly, I don't think categorization is appropriate in this case, although the list is acceptable. Delete per nom. Bearcat ( talk) 20:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Yes, there is a specific legal status for such communities in Quebec, and during the megacities merger process, there were some governmental assurances given to communities that after merger would become more francophone (which have since been abrogated). One of the legal definition requires that 50%+1 of the population is non-Francophone, which means the community is allowed to offer certain services in English. If there is less than that, then the community can get a visit from the language police for being insufficiently francophone in their services, IIRC. It's rather simple to look up, but I didn't when I lodged this opinion, so I'm relying on my memory. -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Here's a news report on the town of Huntingdon being charged with violating the Charter by providing English language services, when only French is legally allowed. [1], and that not just arrondissements and municipalities, but that sectors can also have bilingual status. [2] And the abrogation of grandfathering for Aylmer. [3] which also includes the spokesman for the OLF stating that such services are only allowed for officially recognized communities. And that grandfathering is from [4] Bill 86 (1993). -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 09:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep restrict to the Quebec government's legal definition, instead of the common definition found in Quebec, (which end up with visits from the language cops to city hall, (there was one of those just this year, when a town in l'Estrie wasn't sufficiently francisized in its services, and the francophone mayor defied the OLF) ) -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 05:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    What is Quebec's official definition? I searched Quebec's Government Portal but could not find a relevant page or document. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Well,

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

    according to Laval Unveristy [5] ; the law is the Charte de la langue française but various bills have modified it, so depending on what time period it was, status recognition was granted under different criteria. Some municipalities have been grandfathered in, even though they no longer meet the cutoff, others have had their status revised. Some arrondissements have kept their bilingual status even though they were merged in the megacity merger bill that forcibly merged many Quebec cities. Though municipalities have to apply for status. The periods to deal with are 1974-1977 (Bill 22);1977-1993 (Bill 101); 1993-2001; 2001+; IIRC. -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for your detailed and informative reply. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 15:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per anon above; the distinction that matters is bilingual status because there are repercussions, not that slightly more folks speak anglais than francais. Carlossuarez46 ( talk)
  • Delete per the discussion above. Listify if wanted. Oppose all the suggested rename targets. - jc37 02:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:All-Ireland Minor Football Championships

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content at this time to justify a separate category for articles about individual championship years. This set category can be upmerged into the parent topic category for the Championship as a whole. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Hopefully in time we will have sufficient information, but until then, I'm afraid I have to agree. Mac Tíre  Cowag 20:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:Franco-Ontarian education

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There does not exist, as far as I know, a distinct category or type of education known as "Franco-Ontarian"; rather, the scope of the category is French-language education in Ontario. The current name was, I think, based on Category:Franco-Ontarian culture; the proposed name matches the format of Category:French-language education in Canada. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Members of the House of Commons of Canada and, more generally, Category:House of Commons of Canada and House of Commons of Canada. If there is consensus for the change, I will nominate the remaining subcategories at WP:CFD/S. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The only significant change is "province" to "province or territory", which expands the scope of the category to include the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon and follows the convention of Category:Members of the House of Commons of Canada by province or territory. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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_July_3&oldid=1074809130"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 2 July 4 >

July 3

Category:Romanian people of Hungarian 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. It is possible to preserve this category and split out a subcategory for ethnic-Hungarian Romanians, exclusive of Romanians whose ancestors were Hungarian, but there is clearly no consensus for that in this discussion. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename/Split to match the main article Hungarian minority in Romania and to provide more accuracy. People listed under this category are ethnic Hungarians from the populous minority group in this country. They are Hungarians, not some people "of Hungarian descent". We can have both categories like Category:Polish Jews and Category:Polish people of Jewish descent. Darwinek ( talk) 21:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The distinction is too fine. Just categorize them all as "Romanian people of Hungarian descent", which is a broader category. If they are not Romanian nationals, use the standard Category:Hungarian expatriates in Romania. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Well, there is a difference between citizens of Romania with Hungarian descent, and citizens of Romania who are Hungarians. Citizenship and nationality are two different things is Central and Eastern Europe. That's why we have national minorities here. - Darwinek ( talk) 07:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    A citizen of Romania who is a Hungarian is also a Romanian person of Hungarian descent. We don't need to create a category for every possible permutation of nationality/citizenship combination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Ethnic Hungarian citizens of Romania (or at least Category:Ethnic Hungarian Romanian people) for clarity, and check to see that all listed are indeed ethnic Hungarian and not Romanian with (some) Hungarian ancestry. (And recreate this category if there are any individuals with just ancestry.) Mayumashu ( talk) 13:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the attempts to distinguish the gradations of Hungarianess among citizens of Romania is built around an assumption that the lines of Hungarianess and Romanianess are clear and distinct, while in reality there is no easy way to tell the difference between a Hungarian who is a citizen of Romania and a Romanian who had Hungarian ancestors. Ethnicity is too fluid to meet such precise categorization. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment before placing a vote, I'd like to be more acquainted with this. You are aware that "Romanian people of Hungarian descent" might include people who might've had Hungarian parent(s) or grandparent(s) but they even distance themselves from the Hungarians (and don't even speak the language anymore), right? Because I think that if you'd put them into a category together with e.g. László Tőkés, they might take offense (especially since it happens that while giving up their Hungarian roots they become avid Romanian nationalists in the process too). Thus I suggest creating the new category, moving the Hungarians there, and leave the rest in this category (i.e. those who do have Hungarian descent, but don't consider themselves Hungarian). What do you think? -- CoolKoon ( talk) 00:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Seems very logical, as both mentioned groups are distinct and deserve own categories. - Darwinek ( talk) 15:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are people in Romania with Hungarian descent. Csendesmark ( talk) 12:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Csendesmark is right. Whther we should also have Category:Romanian Hungarians along the mold of Category:American Jews or Category:French Armenians is an independent question from wether this category works. This category works because there are people who fit the description. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Support Mayumashu. He spent a lot of time a couple of years back getting rid of ambiguous daul nationality categories. Are they Roumanian Hungarians or Hungarian Roumanians? Which is ethicity and which nationality? "Hungarian descent" suggests emigration from Hungary in some recent period. In fact they are ethnic Hungarians, who were isolated from their ethnic roots, when Transylvania was tranferrred to Roumania as part of the post-WWI settlement. Those concerned are ethnically Hungarians, but nationally Roumanian. WE need to devise a category name to fit that, possibly Category:Roumanians of Hungarian ethnicity. Since emigration has not generally occurred here, "ethnicity" should replace the usual "descent". Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Good gratious. This gets to the point of bordering on the absurd. These are fine details that are suitable (perhaps) for an article, but as far as categories go, it looks like an attempt to split the hair far too many times. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we have 18 pages in category:Hungarian expatriates in Romania so it is clear that movement between the two countries is more prevalent than some people suggest. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Encyclopedias on fictional worlds

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:Encyclopedias of fictional worlds. The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I see no need, at this time, to limit the scope of this category to encyclopedias of fictional worlds, such as Pandora or Middle-earth, as opposed to encyclopedias of fiction in general, inclusive of works of fiction, fictional characters and places, and the like. The precise naming format—Encyclopedias on... versus Encyclopedias of...—should reflect the outcome of the main discussion and should be decided there, not here. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:Encyclopedias on science and mathematics

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: split. The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Although there is some overlap between the topics, they are sufficiently different and most articles clearly belong to one or the other. If there is no consensus to split, then I propose changing the order of the topics per alphabetical ordering: Category:Encyclopedias of mathematics and science. The precise naming format—Encyclopedias on... versus Encyclopedias of...—should reflect the outcome of the main discussion and should be decided there, not here. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Unsure - While there is definitely some overlap, I suppose dual categorisation could work. If kept, renaming for math to be first (for alphabetic reasons) per common practice.- jc37 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Split as nominated. Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science is one that will belong in both, but most of the contents will go in just one or the other. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Specialized encyclopedias

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 as nominated. The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Encyclopedias are of various topics, not on them (particularly odd in the case of "Encyclopedias on ficitonal worlds"): e.g., Encyclopedia of Albanian Art, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Encyclopaedia of Islam. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all per nom. Also support: Category:Encyclopedias concerning X, for improved clarity. Weak support to use "covering" instead. Though I chuckle when thinking of Encyclopedias covering sexuality  : ) - jc37 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:Brickyard 400 winners

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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 15:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This comes very close to a "performer by performance" category, which is something we simply don't do. Now, it's true that some races are defining enough to a driver's career to be categorised - the Daytona 500 and Indianapolis 500, for instance - but the Brickyard 400 does not rise to that level. (One might well argue that the World 600 is more significant...). So this should simply be a list in the Brickyard 400 article - which it already is - and not a category. The Bushranger One ping only 16:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. The Brickyard was never at the top level of its sport. I work on Golf tournament articles and winners aren't categorized for winning the Phoenix Open or Corning Classic. None of these are define the athlete. ...William 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Well, sensu stricto, The Brickyard is and has always been at the top level of its sport. Just not the top level of NASCAR. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in general we discorage categorizing people for having won something. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Reference types

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A number of empty maintenance categories. Never used in the past as far as I have checked now and then; the instructions given for using them don't work, adding a type parameter has no result in the templates. More than a year old. Fram ( talk) 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:All-Ireland Senior Camogie Championships navigational boxes

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:Camogie navigational boxes. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. Upmerging is also possible. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:All-Ireland Senior Ladies' Football Championships navigational boxes

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 to Category:Ladies' Gaelic football templates and Category:Gaelic games navigational boxes.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 05:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. Upmerging is also possible. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:Demographics of Canada by province

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename ( CSD G7: category creator consents to the change). -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I think that we should expand the scope of this category to include Demographics of Northwest Territories, Demographics of Nunavut and Demographics of Yukon, which currently are categorized in the 'demographics of Canada' category. Most other categories of this sort do so already—see Category:Categories by province or territory of Canada. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy rename Examination shows that 'by province or territory" is the usual form. Mangoe ( talk) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Debate not really necessary on this one. I'll speedy rename it right now. Bearcat ( talk) 18:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Quebec communities with significant anglophone populations

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. This is already listified at what appears to be a "significant" level (35%+). If more is desired, add more to the list.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 13:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: What is the threshold for a "significant ... population"? Should we consider raw numbers (e.g., more than 1,000 people) or population percentage (more than 10%)? The problem with both is that, ultimately, virtually any specific threshold will be arbitrary and likely not defining: compare the hypothetical situations of 1,000 English-speakers in a population of 100,000 (i.e. 1%) versus 10 English-speakers in a population of 20 (i.e. 50%).
We could restrict the scope of the category to communities with majority Anglophone populations. This threshold, while arbitrary, at least is somewhat natural. However, such a category would need to be updated constantly to reflect demographic changes. Alternatively, we could avoid this problem entirely by choosing to forgo a precise definition and to rely on (near-)explicit identification by reliable sources (e.g. "Foo (is/was) an Anglo-Quebecer community"). The problem here, of course, is that different sources will use different definitions and criteria.
Therefore, I believe that the best option is to listify this category to List of Anglo-Quebecer communities (or its talk page, so editors can format and source it). The ideal solution, in my opinion, would be delete both the category and list and, in their place, to create Language demographics of Quebec by community as an extension of Language demographics of Quebec.
If there is no consensus to listify, then the category should be renamed to one of the following, in order to capitalize 'Anglophone' and/or reflect the 'populated places...' wording that has been adopted for settlements: Category:Anglo-Quebecer communities, Category:Populated places in Quebec with majority Anglophone populations or Category:Populated places in Quebec with significant Anglophone populations. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I definitely agree that the current name is problematic (I've actually raised that issue more than once in the past, but it didn't end up going anywhere). Part of the problem is that the category appears to be a bit of original research collated by applying an arbitrary cutoff to a raw statsdump of language demographic numbers. Unlike the situation in Ontario, where there's at least an actual legal designation for communities that have a large enough francophone population to warrant the provision of French language provincial government services and the corresponding category simply collects those designated areas, I'm not clear whether Quebec has a specific legal designation for communities with sizeable anglophone populations or not. Accordingly, I don't think categorization is appropriate in this case, although the list is acceptable. Delete per nom. Bearcat ( talk) 20:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Yes, there is a specific legal status for such communities in Quebec, and during the megacities merger process, there were some governmental assurances given to communities that after merger would become more francophone (which have since been abrogated). One of the legal definition requires that 50%+1 of the population is non-Francophone, which means the community is allowed to offer certain services in English. If there is less than that, then the community can get a visit from the language police for being insufficiently francophone in their services, IIRC. It's rather simple to look up, but I didn't when I lodged this opinion, so I'm relying on my memory. -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Here's a news report on the town of Huntingdon being charged with violating the Charter by providing English language services, when only French is legally allowed. [1], and that not just arrondissements and municipalities, but that sectors can also have bilingual status. [2] And the abrogation of grandfathering for Aylmer. [3] which also includes the spokesman for the OLF stating that such services are only allowed for officially recognized communities. And that grandfathering is from [4] Bill 86 (1993). -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 09:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep restrict to the Quebec government's legal definition, instead of the common definition found in Quebec, (which end up with visits from the language cops to city hall, (there was one of those just this year, when a town in l'Estrie wasn't sufficiently francisized in its services, and the francophone mayor defied the OLF) ) -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 05:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    What is Quebec's official definition? I searched Quebec's Government Portal but could not find a relevant page or document. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Well,

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

    according to Laval Unveristy [5] ; the law is the Charte de la langue française but various bills have modified it, so depending on what time period it was, status recognition was granted under different criteria. Some municipalities have been grandfathered in, even though they no longer meet the cutoff, others have had their status revised. Some arrondissements have kept their bilingual status even though they were merged in the megacity merger bill that forcibly merged many Quebec cities. Though municipalities have to apply for status. The periods to deal with are 1974-1977 (Bill 22);1977-1993 (Bill 101); 1993-2001; 2001+; IIRC. -- 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for your detailed and informative reply. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 15:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per anon above; the distinction that matters is bilingual status because there are repercussions, not that slightly more folks speak anglais than francais. Carlossuarez46 ( talk)
  • Delete per the discussion above. Listify if wanted. Oppose all the suggested rename targets. - jc37 02:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:All-Ireland Minor Football Championships

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content at this time to justify a separate category for articles about individual championship years. This set category can be upmerged into the parent topic category for the Championship as a whole. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Hopefully in time we will have sufficient information, but until then, I'm afraid I have to agree. Mac Tíre  Cowag 20:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:Franco-Ontarian education

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There does not exist, as far as I know, a distinct category or type of education known as "Franco-Ontarian"; rather, the scope of the category is French-language education in Ontario. The current name was, I think, based on Category:Franco-Ontarian culture; the proposed name matches the format of Category:French-language education in Canada. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Members of the House of Commons of Canada and, more generally, Category:House of Commons of Canada and House of Commons of Canada. If there is consensus for the change, I will nominate the remaining subcategories at WP:CFD/S. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The only significant change is "province" to "province or territory", which expands the scope of the category to include the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon and follows the convention of Category:Members of the House of Commons of Canada by province or territory. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply
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_July_3&oldid=1074809130"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE