Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6 May 8 >

May 7[edit]

LGBT comedians[edit]

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 all to Category:LGBT comedians. - jc37 00:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Gay comedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging Category:Lesbian comedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose merging Category:Transgender and transsexual comedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Yet another split of an "LGBT occupation" category into individual subcats for lesbians, gay men and transsexual/transgender people (interestingly, however, not bisexuals yet). As always, this is pretty pointless and unnecessary diffusion for the sake of diffusion, which is not consistent with the categorization practices of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT and is not warranted by the small size of the parent category. Merge all back to Category:LGBT comedians. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 7 May 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:Ancient Greeks executed for atheism or sacrilege[edit]

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/upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Ancient Greeks executed for atheism or sacrilege (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OVERCAT, only one page within, present Category:Ancient Greeks who were executed deals with that pretty well. Brandmeistertalk 22:19, 7 May 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:LGB physicians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Lesbian physicians to Category:LGBT physicians
Propose merging Category:Gay physicians to Category:LGBT physicians
Propose merging Category:Bisexual physicians to Category:LGBT physicians
Nominator's rationale: Once again, no clear reason for separate sub-cats. There are many other ways to categorize physicians; needing to separate gender and sexuality beyond LGBT is debateable. I did not nominate TS/TG physicians at this point, but would welcome thoughts on that as well. KarlB (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge. per nom. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:44, 8 May 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:Neutropian fiction[edit]

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 deleted as WP:MADEUP. The Bushranger One ping only 06:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Neutropian fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category appears to violate WP:MADEUP. The term "Neutropian fiction" gets zero Google hits other than this category page. Deor (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant violation of WP:MADEUP--WickerGuy (talk) 21:36, 7 May 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:Oil magnates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Oil magnates to Category:Businesspeople in the oil industry
Nominator's rationale: Merge. It is not clearly defined who is a 'magnate' in this context. Also, businesspeople is more neutral and more standard term. Beagel (talk) 14:14, 7 May 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:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule[edit]

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:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision. Repopulate at editorial discretion. (For example, possibly drawing from the right side column of List of overruled U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as noted in the discussion below.) - jc37 10:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Speedy relisting this for CFD per closed deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 5. The Helpful One 11:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or, in this case, restore because the category has yet to be repopulated; for a list of its members, see List of overruled U.S. Supreme Court decisions) - For a verbose explanation, see my comments at the DRV. Savidan 15:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The discussion that was overturned is here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete virtually all Supreme Court Decisions overrule something. This might be acceptable if it was renamed Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule the ruling of the court from which they were appealed. However even this seems like something that would be much more useful in a chart. Thus we could list the decision, whether it overruled the court from which it was appealed to, and how it effected other lower court decisions if any existed in the case (normally the US Supreme Court is at least the third court to hear the case, at times even th fourth). Also, how do we deal with the difference between an outright overturning of a lower court decision, the type of ruling you get in the Housana Tabor school case, where the court overturns the lower court decision, and reacts against the Justice Department's argument that the lower court was wrong in recognizing a potential right of the religious school to fire minesterial opponants. Then there are rulings where the Supreme Court remands the case to the lower court, where the same outcome could be reached, as long as the reasoning changes. Is this an overruling or not. Also, what about a case where the court agrees with the lower courts in the case, but overrules its own precedents? This is too amorphous a thing to categorize by. It would be great to make a list that explains this complexed issue, but it lakes a clear "yes/no" issue that is what we need in forming categorizes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I explained at DRV, the "all decisions overrule something" claim is a total fallacy. "Overrule" refers to discarding prior authority by the same court doing the overruling. The proposed renaming is completely inaccurate because this category is for Supreme Court decisions that overrule prior Supreme Court decisions. This category has nothing to do with reversing, vacating, or abrogating lower court decisions. Savidan 23:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Savidan is absolutely correct here. "Overruling" is entirely different from "reversing" or "vacating," and far more rare. Neutralitytalk 15:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely true, though I just remembered that "overrule" is also used by the Supreme Court in a very different context/meaning: in original jurisdictions, they can "overrule" exceptions to the special master's report, like in [1]. So disambiguation and rename is likely a good idea, even if we are sticking to the strictly legal sense of the word. T. Canens (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mean to deny that a trial judge can "overrule" an exception. But the Supreme Court hears so few decisions in original jurisdiction that it hardly seems worth the effort. Especially since no one would think to categorize those kinds of overrules. Savidan 01:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree with Savidan here - since original jx cases are so rare, I don't think they'll be any mistake in meaning for the category here. Neutralitytalk 06:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment note, we should probably nominate Category:Overruled United States Supreme Court decisions for deletion as well. My mind is not yet made up, but I do note the existence of this list, which I think is valuable and may obviate the need for a category in this case. List_of_overruled_U.S._Supreme_Court_decisions; in fact, it is much more valuable as a list than as a category, because explanations can be made, and linkages between the ruling, and what overruled it. I think the question is, is this defining - e.g. when people talk about a ruling, do they usually say "X vs. Y was a supreme court ruling that overruled xxx"; is this an important way to sort rulings? --KarlB (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly have nothing negative to say about the list, but I do not think it fully replaces the usefulness of the category. As for the value of explanation, any halfway decent article about a Supreme Court case that overrules would need to mention the old decision that was overruled. Decisions that overrule are subject to much academic and popular interest, because they represent an acknowledged, avulsive change in the law. Thus, the category is helpful to readers who are on the article about one overruling decision and would like to navigate to other such decisions. Savidan 23:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category could be the equivalent of US Supreme court decisions, as all decisions overrule something. Not useful at all. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. I wrote a lengthy response to the above comment at the DRV, linked above. Suffice it to say that nothing could be further from the truth: overrules are a rare bird. Perhaps only once or twice a year does the Supreme Court explicitly disavow one of its prior holdings. Savidan 06:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is simply wrong, and here too Savidan is precisely correct It is just not true that "all decisions overrule something." Neutralitytalk 15:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. Category, as explained, is sensible/useful. The current name, however, is vague and misleading. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to clarify, per HW. No reason to delete it first that I can see. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the clock on this new discussion should not be started until the category is re-populated with its contents. We need to see contents to properly discuss. Hmains (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per HW. T. Canens (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision. Neutralitytalk 08:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neutrality's rename will lead us to an impossible case. Does Employment Division v. Smith overturn the Yoder decision. Well, Justice Scalia insisted he was not overturning Yoder, but most legal scholars disagree with him on that matter. Who do we accept, the author of the decision or later legal scholars? This would create a true mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the Court overrules a prior decision it typically does so explicitly. Hardwick explicitly overruled Lawrence, etc. When a later decision merely calls into question whether the early decision "survives" the later one, it has not been "overruled." If we want absolute clarity, then maybe a name such as United States Supreme Court decisions that expressly overrule a prior Supreme Court decision. Neutralitytalk 15:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence overruled Hardwick, not the other way around. I think the word expressly correctly describes the inclusion criteria but is too repetitive/wordy for the category name. Savidan 02:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, yes - I missed a word when typing. Neutralitytalk 06:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your Smith/Yoder example at the DRV page. Smith did not overrule Yoder and should not be so categorized. Legal scholars may rightly remark on the tension between the two decisions, but any reasonable legal scholar would have to concede that there was no explicit overrule. Any legal writer who claimed "Smith overruled Yoder" would either be exaggerating for emphasis (since a departure from precedent is often a point of criticism) or completely wrong. This category is only for explicit overrules, not decisions which are merely perceived by some to be in conflict with prior cases. The distinction between an overruling and a distinguishing is important and notable, not the least of which because the Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished lower courts to follow its cases until they are explicitly overruled. Savidan 02:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision. We do not accept primary sources which would be an opinion of one of the Justices, who may not realize the results of what they doing. We do accept secondary sources, such a 'later legal scholars'. Hmains (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's baffling. The Justices know exactly what they are doing when they overturn a prior decision.--Chaser (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Chaser here. Neutralitytalk 15:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the nature of an overrule (i.e. that it must come explicitly from the horse's mouth), we must go with the opinions and not the law reviews. Perhaps law reviews can help in exceptionally rare cases of doubt, but I do not anticipate any cases that should be categorized that do not use the magic word of "overrule" or similar. Savidan 02:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form. Renaming is a wise idea. Having clear inclusion criteria is a must and relying on the opinions themselves is the clearest way. Anything else depends on turning to legal scholarship to determine whether a decision that eviscerates some past precedent can fairly be said to overturn it when the instant opinion does not say so directly. That's too nuanced for this category, but fine in a list.--Chaser (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with those inclusion criteria and think the list should follow the same inclusion criteria. Anything less than an explicit overrule may be noted in the articles about the cases, but are not usefully collected in a list. Savidan 02:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if Smith did not overrule Yoder than no case has ever been overruled. Yoder says the government cannot use neutrally applicable laws to force people to go against their religion unless it has a compelling interest. Smith says the government can use laws to force people to go against there religion as long as their is a secular purpose and they are actually applied to everyone. Smith overturned Yoder, and they made up things as having been said in Yoder that were not there to made it look like they did not. Then the court largely overturned Smith in Church of the Babalu Aye, or whatever it was exactly, but pretended they were staying with Smith when in fact if they had stayed with Smith they would have come out the exact opposite. The very fact that we are disagreeing about whether Smith overturned Yoder shows that this is a category that cannot be easily defined as yes or no for inclusion. It is a bad name for a category, it is a bad idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Supreme Court can change the governing legal standard (which no one doubts that Smith did) without overruling. Even your comment concedes that the Smith did not say it was overruling Yoder, and in fact said that it was not overruling Yoder. This is all that is being categorized. Analysis of the sort you advance (i.e. whether the reasoning of different Supreme Court decisions is consistent in the abstract sense) is the type of analysis that should be placed in articles about cases and cited to secondary sources rather than listed or categorized. In contrast, Wikipedians are more than capable of determining whether a Supreme Court decision uses a magic word like "overrule." Savidan 07:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. The arguments at the DRV request show that there's a very specific objective definition of "overturn" that is used to populate the category, but as it is named now, it leads to the vagueness that likely led to the original deletion. Clarity in both category name and description would alleviate this. Certainly a valid category to categorize on as well. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per Neutrality and Hmains above. The category is both valid and useful but should be renamed for clarity. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 08:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision for clarity. The word "overrule" has a specific legal meaning in this context which is much narrower than its general plain English meaning, so the more verbose title is needed to avoid ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 17 May 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:St. Stephen's College, Delhi alumni[edit]

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: do not rename, without prejudice to a broader proposal in the future to change the format for categories of alumni of Indian universities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:St. Stephen's College, Delhi alumni to Category:People educated at St Stephen's College, Delhi
Nominator's rationale: This category needs to be brought within the accepted naming convention for alumni categories. I am not wedded to the comma in the proposed new category name. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is the case, and I see no reason to doubt it, is there not a naming convention there that this needs to be brought into line with? Alumni of Foo rather than Foo alumni? A counter proposal if so would be perfectly acceptable. I am aiming for standardisation, not to be divisive. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly time that this was given airspace (again?), then. I'll let it stand as a nomination and allow the wisdom of crowds to take over. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. As I have said, I will support any renaming to "people educated at".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually some people have expressed opposition to alumni being used at all, insisting it is just not a truly English word. They also have said that ending use of alumni would get us past the alumni of foo/foo alumni differences. It might not be many people, but it has happened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to anyone's extending this to a group nomination, nor, indeed, to whatever outcome happens here. I am content to let it run to conclusion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Oculi. This is the standard name given the parent category. Pichpich (talk) 11:50, 8 May 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:National Heritage Sites in Europe[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:National Heritage Sites in Europe to Category:Heritage registers by country
Nominator's rationale: Merge, or better still, split to new national sub-cats of the target category named "Category:Heritage registers in Foo" (especially as many of the members are named in foreign languages). The nominated category was created separately from Category:Heritage registers by country and does not seem to be required as well as the latter. – Fayenatic London (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment slight preference for a country-specific split but a merge would also be fine. Pichpich (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split by country please. Let's do the whole job at once. Faiing that I support the merge. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now done the splitting by setting up sub-cats using English "Heritage registers of Foo" as intermediate categories for the foreign-language ones. Just merging the nominated category will do, now. Some sub-cats that are named in other English words e.g. "Cultural heritage" could be made sub-cats of further "Heritage registers" or perhaps renamed if that is more appropriate. – Fayenatic London (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The term "Heritage register" implies (to me) that the members of the category are statutory organisations. "National Heritage Site", despite the capitals, doesn't imply that (to me) so strongly. To make this clear either way, is it sensible to edit the cat page for Category:Heritage registers by country to say it's intended for statutory organisations only? I haven't made the edit because (a) I don't know if the implication is intended and (b) I don't know how much the status of statutory registers varies around the world. --Northernhenge (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on this. The short answer to your question is "It's complicated". If you look at Germany, depending on which of the 16 states it's in, you can ask this question at the local town hall and they will all give a different answer. Basically, at the local level, pretty much anyone anywhere who is at all interested in the cultural heritage of their community can point you to something that's on a nationally recognized level of heritage, even if it means an hour's drive or something like that. The problem is that these people have no clue as far as actual designation (so which register something is on). A castle, for example, can be on an architectural, archeological, or natural landmark list (not always the same listholder, and not always the same level of importance, so may locally highly important as a park where you can walk your dog, but nationally highly important as a landmark tower, etc). Does this help? The idea of "National Heritage" is meant here as being something between "World Heritage" and "County Heritage". I have been recently having discussions on whether "County Heritage Site" has encyclopedic value yes or no. Jane (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article National Heritage Site states that it refers to sites "registered by a governmental agency", so I think this satisfies the point, although the term is not sourced. BTW I am proposing a merger of that article into list of heritage registers. – Fayenatic London (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jane confirms my suspicion that the inclusion criteria of the categories discussed above will be slightly fuzzy, but I guess that's OK as long as we recognise that. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:29, 14 May 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:Shipwrecks by time period[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Shipwrecks by time period - The subcats are already subcatted well elsewhere and better. - jc37 08:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. - jc37 08:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this is one of the last categories with "by time period" in its name, and is not needed. – Fayenatic London (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems unnecessary. Jafeluv (talk) 15:59, 10 May 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:Axiom Records albums[edit]

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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Axiom Records albums to Category:Axiom (record label) albums
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, cf. with Category:Warp Records albums. If this passes, subcat.s are speedy-able. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 7 May 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:Israeli people of Portuguese descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep - jc37 00:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Israeli people of Portuguese descent to Category:Israeli people of Portuguese origin
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A speedy which needs to be discussed more fully. In this CFD, the "Israeli people of FOOian descent" categories were renamed to "Israeli people of FOOian origin". The original speedy nomination of this category was to bring this one in line with the other subcategories in Category:Israeli people by ethnic or national origin. However, I've re-read the nomination where "descent" was changed to "origin", and I confress that I'm at a bit of a loss to explain why the Israeli ones should be different and why "origin" is preferable to "descent". Issue: Should this outlier be named to match the other Israeli categories or should there be a more general nomination to reverse the change of the other Israeli ones? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Comment people who participated in the original CfD discussion should probably be contacted. Pichpich (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and obviously undo the previous CfD) I think the Israeli exception is a mistake. I'll let people re-read the full rationale of Davshul but I hope I'm not caricaturing if I sum it up as follows: Polish Jews (for example) are not ethnic Poles and therefore shouldn't be considered as people of Polish descent but simply of Polish origin. I think this is based on an very narrow view of ethnicity which doesn't correspond to our category system. We don't restrict Category:Polish people to white Catholics who have been speaking Polish exclusively for three generations. For instance, John Godson is Polish. Many Jews actually fought for a Polish state in the early 20th century. If anything, classifying Polish Jews as not quite Polish enough to be of Polish descent is offensive. Moreover, the Israeli exception creates a bizarre inconsistency in our category system whereby a Polish Jew emigrating to Israel becomes "of Polish origin" but is "of Polish descent" if he chooses to emigrate to any other country. A separate problem which was brought up in the CfD is that the exception only makes sense if one assumes that every Israeli citizen of xyz descent/origin is Jewish. Davshul argued that this is not a problem since "Polish origin" implicitly includes "Polish descent" but I'm not really convinced by that argument. Finally, from a purely pragmatic point of view, exceptions like this make it harder for readers to find what they're looking for. (for instance, this is how I ended up creating Category:Israeli people of Portuguese descent) Pichpich (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the parent is Category:Israeli people by ethnic or national origin and the national origin is Portugueuse. It took months of cfds to stabilise at 'of Fooian descent' and I see no advantage in changing 'descent' to 'origin'. (The usage 'of origin' is futile anyway as Category:Israeli people of British origin is a subcat of Category:People of British descent.) Oculi (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (and obviously undo the previous CfD) Oculi (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency with overall 'wording format', but the other sub-cats for the Israeli category need to be changed to the standard, as follow up. However at some point, I say, the overall wording format should be reconsidered; probably it needs to be Category:French people by ethnic or national origin or descent etc. Mayumashu (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep personally I think all should be put to descent. Descent when connected with a nationality implies having ancestors who were citizens of that nation, it does not mean that ancestors were ethnically of that nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above users Pichpich, Oculi, Mayumashu and per if it ain't broke, don't fix it. IZAK (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • One way or another, something is broken. Either this category needs to be renamed or all the other "Israeli people of FOOian origin" categories need to be renamed. I assume you would support the latter change? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must say Good Ol, after all these years, with all these types of debates going back and forth and with all the "changes for the better" I can truly say that the situation is now at it worst, with various users constantly trying to impose their perceptions when most of the time they would be better off by doing something else instead that's more constructive rather than play word games. By the way, what is the difference between "descent" and "origin" besides that some dude decides to do massive changes one day to categories and then that in turn cause a chain reaction-domino effect that others then feel they must change every last thing in its train. Often times it just feels like "monkey see, monkey do" and it's oh so tiring, don't you think? IZAK (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know what the intended difference is—that's kind of my point in starting the nomination. If we can all agree that the difference is not signficant, then it would make a lot of sense to change the Israeli ones back to meet the general standard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are people coming from Portugal to Israel tryly analogous to those coming from Iraq, Russia and Germany. I would probably support a change there to, but to assume that different countries of origin must all be described the same ignores the real differences in various immigration flows.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure why this discussion remains open still. The consensus seems clear on what needs to be done. I don't mind doing it—if this discussion ever closes in the way I think it will be closed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 21 May 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:Mumblecore Films[edit]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mumblecore Films to Category:Mumblecore films
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete The renaming is a simple capitalization fix but it's not clear to me that mumblecore is a sufficiently well-defined genre to maintain a category. Pichpich (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I researched online and found this expression is used countless times http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/issues/spring2007/features/mumblecore.php in the Film Business,Greatpumkin (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not questioning whether the term is used or not. It certainly is being used but if it's not being used in a fairly well-defined and consistent way, then it's a bad basis for a category. Pichpich (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your point of view, however I feel that mumblecore is it's own definitive genre. And grouping appropriate movies into this category is a benefitGreatpumkin (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article itself says "The term does not describe a conscious movement as much as a loose band of film makers who produce very low-budget films heavily focused on naturalistic dialog." This does not lead me to think we can definitevly place films in or out of this category. We do not need categories for every possible grouping of films there is. A list on the article on the subject would be sufficient for now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • John i find your comments really elitist, and somewhat demeaning to my intelligence.

Greatpumkin (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've posted a comment on the Film Project talkpage for more input on this. Lugnuts (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, diffuse derogatory term. Smetanahue (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John Pack Lambert. There is no accepted definition for this term, so categorization is too easily left up to the whim of editors. Better that there is a list of films in an article about the term, with said listed films sourced to a reliable source that uses the term. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oooh, retroactively applied genres. If this were a music category it'd have been speedied by now. An article suffices, even if said article consists primarily of extracts from tabloid culture columns. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:53, 10 May 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:Wikipedians who are awesome[edit]

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: CSD - G7 - jc37 03:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who are awesome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete fails at being useful for collaboration and frankly also fails at being funny. Pichpich (talk) 01:23, 7 May 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:Audiogram albums[edit]

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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Audiogram albums to Category:Audiogram (label) albums
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. If this passes, subcat.s would be speedy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:08, 7 May 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_7&oldid=1138397031"