Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 4

< April 3April 5 >

April 4

Category:Actors of European descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2014 April 24. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need this category - actors of european descent do not have a sufficient relation with the topic to merit this category in terms of being spoken of specially. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many people all over world who are of European descent and they are known to have different occupations. For example, actors and actresses. I understand that this category is new but it's an interesting topic and needs to be expanded. Are you saying that categorizing pages in Category:People of European descent by their various occupations is not important? See also: Category:American actors of Chinese descent. Have you nominated that too? Stanleytux (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole (x people of y descent) is problematic but don't have the energy to address it...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just shoot it and put it out of its misery! I pretty much agree with you. The entire descent tree is full of subjectivity. No one has been able to provide objective inclusion criteria. If you nominate one category someone will complain that you are cherry picking one category. If you try a mass nomination, the someone will complain that the nomination covers too much and the few exceptions can not be adequately discussed. My question is how many generations removed before you no longer qualify or what percentage of your blood is needed to qualify. If we don't have answers to those questions, then we must delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- as initiator of the Category:Actors of European descent CFD (see [1]). Thanks to Obi-Wan Kenobi for carrying on after I left off. Quis separabit? 00:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a container category, sort of like Category:Actors of Asian descent. In some cases, actors being of European descent (such as in Hindi productons) may well lead to the groups being spoken of. I do have to wonder if we need odd categories like Cateogry:European actresses in Hindi cinema and Category:Actresses in Hindi cinema of European descent, but I don't think the answer is removing this holding category. I am debating whether the Category:Basque actors should also go here. I actually might support ending this category, if we also scrapped the equally problematic Asian descent category. To leave one and remove the other will just add to U.S. bias in the encyclopedia. From a world perspective, neither of these things is more or less useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent. There are not enough subcategories for it to be necessary to split this by continent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2014 (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:Actors of Norwegian and Brazilian 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: delete all, but merge articles to Category:Nigerian people of Norwegian descent or Category:Nigerian people of Brazilian descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No evidence that these triple intersections are in any way notable, nor that norwegian descent/brazilian descent + nigerian is a spoken-of thing in the acting world. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment did you nominate these categories based upon your own rules or wikipedia's? I don't see how these categories fail WP:OC#PERF. Stanleytux (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:EGRS, specifically, "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must at least be possible to create one."--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Gifford, Illinois

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. ...William 14:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger: vanity category created for one subject, and of no value or notability. Quis separabit? 23:48, 9 April 2014 (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:Governors-General of Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: governor-general is a common noun (such as earl, king, baronet) so we must remove the incorrect capital . Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not supported—this is consistent with the parent category, Category:Governors-General and most of the rest of this category tree. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Governor-general" may be a common noun, but not when part of a title such as "Governor-General of Australia" - in exactly the same way that government is a common noun but Government of Canada is not. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator will add parent and sibling categories in due course; for Grutness's comment, we do not have lists of Kings of Slobovia, we do not have lists of Earls of Muckingham, we do not have lists of Governor-Generals of Australia; if plural they must be common Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per Grutness - one Governor-General of Australia, two or more Governors-General of Australia.Eustachiusz (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator No, no. One King of Denmark (as a title), two or more kings (as a common term); one Lord Mayor of Melbourne, two or more lord mayors. Basic grammar should one care to check. Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is clearly going to be no more than you saying "No it isn't" while everyone else says "Yes it is". Grutness has already pointed out why you are wrong in this instance. I see your attempt to move the page of the corresponding article has also been reverted, for the reasons given on your talk page. Eustachiusz (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator Seems I was a tad lazy thinking this was uncontroversial, but covered quite adequately by WP:JOBTITLES Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is covered there. As it says, these titles "should be in lower case when used generically", but not "[w]hen the correct formal title is treated as a proper name". In this case, the latter case is true. These are not "Australian governors-general" (a genericisation of the title), but are "Governors-General of Australia" (correct formal title). This is why capitalisation is the rule rater than the exception in such cases, such as here, here, and here. Grutness...wha? 11:11, 8 April 2014 (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/2014_April_4&oldid=1083983645"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 4, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.