Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 18#Category:Businesspeople in telecommunications

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: merge and rename to :Category:Businesspeople in the telecommunications industry. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

----

:{{Lc|Businesspeople in telecommunications}}

:Nominator's rationale: Redundant to the older :Category:Businesspeople in the telecommunication industry. I don't really mind which is kept; some of the subcategories of :Category:Businesspeople by industry use the 'X industry' name, and others don't, so there's not much help there. But one of these categories should be merged into the other. Robofish (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I propose merging to the older category, even though it's longer, in that I suppose the phrase "in telecommunications" could be misinterpreted as a including representations of businesspeople in telecommunications. Yes, I know. But it's my half-assed rationale, damn it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry, I see that the main is :Category:Telecommunications. So the rename should also have the "s", as in :Category:Businesspeople in the telecommunications industry, no? If so, that would be a merge and rename. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Merge and rename Agree with above (despite length of new category title!) Hugo999 (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 01:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:People of Native Hawaiian descent and :Category:Native_Hawaiian_people

:Nominator's rationale:Redundancy Maile66 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Two differents things - the first group are not ethnically 'Native Hawaiian', but have the ancestry, and the second group are ethnically 'Native Hawaiian'. Mayumashu (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Isn't ethnicity and ancestry the same thing? How can you have one without the other? Maile66 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Ethnicity is the group you belong to culturally, that you share language, religion, cuisine, customs, etc. and ancestry is having lineage to an ethnicity that your predecessors had but that you do not. Someone with German ancestry who is American does not, due to their ancestry anyway, speak native German, etc. where someone of German ethnicity (or nationality) does. (language is the usually the first indicator and another is self-identity). Of course for some individuals it is hard to say which is 'truer'.

• Comment How can Wiki users make a distinction between these two? Users should not have to decide on undefined splitting of hairs on category names. Looking at what's on those lists, users have not figured out any difference. It's becomes "Pick A" or "Pick B", with no way to tell the difference. Either change the name of one category, or merge them. Maile66 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

::The 'default setting' so to speak is 'people of Fooian descent', since someone of an ethnicity is almost always of that ethnicity's descent. There are certainly some bios where the reader can't tell based on the info given. But to lump the two together under either name would be quite non-informative and misleading for many individuals thus described. Both have elaborate category trees :Category:People by ethnicity and :Category:People by ethnic or national descent. I suppose combining the two trees could be done :Category:People by ethnicity or ancestry, :Category:American people of German ethnicity or ancestry, :Category:Russian people of Tatar ethnicity or ancestry, :Category:People of Native Hawaiian ethnicity or ancestry etc. I think I would support it, but it would be quite an undertaking. (By the way, I changed your 'Merge' statement to 'Comment' as the way it was looked as if a different contributor had made the comment. [The convention on this project page is for a WP contributor to state 'merge', 'keep', 'support', 'delete' etc once and to use 'comment' for additional comments' - the nominator automatically opens with a statement.] Although a discussion is not a vote, that different contributors contribute to a discussion with agreeeing views undoubtedly adds weight to an argument.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Here's the crux of it for me: Users are of unknown abilities. Working through the maze of Wikipedia trees in and of itself can be confusing. Rename one or the other so the user is not so easily confused. It's not working as you see the categories, in the presently worded state. And if it's not working, what's the point of keeping it "as is"? Wouldn't that be counter productive for Wikipedia itself? Maile66 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem identified by Maile66 is a real one, and it is widespread throughout these categories. I don't see an easy solution. Ideally, we would just be able to agree that the issue is so beset by problems that we could just delete all the "national or ethnic descent" categories. But users seem so enamoured with these categories—which I don't really understand, perhaps it's a matter of national/ethnic pride or something—that I think that solution would be unlikely. Given that, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to pick off and delete one here and one there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Just as a general comment here as to sticking the word "Native" in front of a cross section of people, I would think the confusion possibilities are endless. As far as I know, in Wikipedia, when selecting a category, there is no Right-click option to bring up a "What's This?" explanation box. If you say "Native Texan" or "Native Californian", that simply means someone who was born in those states and has no ethnic implications. If you say "Native Hawaiian", it could mean that, or culture, or bloodlines. Etc.etc. Maile66 (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• My understanding is that that issue is usually resolved by the existence of articles. We have Native Hawaiians, which could/should be the main article in the category. Ideally, this "main article" will be right at the top—perhaps even linked to in a category definition. We don't have articles for Native Texans (a redirect to Texan) or Native Californians—which suggests that no category should exist for these concepts. That said, you are correct that in this case the main article system doesn't really distinguish between the two concepts as the categories try to—both Native Hawaiian people and people of Native Hawaiian descent are discussed in Native Hawaiians. Which is yet another reason to believe that the problem you've identified is a valid one, IMO. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• keep :Category:Native Hawaiian people for ethnic Hawaiians; delete :Category:People of Native Hawaiian descent as serving no purpose; keep :People from Hawaii as the parent for :Category:Native Hawaiian people and everyone else from Hawaii, just as we have for all U.S. states We do not distinguish anywhere in WP degrees of ethnicity; if a person is 100% or 10% ethnic Hawaiian, then they are 'Native Hawaiian'; just like Native Americans and so on. Neither do we distingish among degrees of Hawaiianness, based on who was born there, how long they lived there and so on. Such distinctions serve no useful purpose, are not supported by article content and would always be wrong Hmains (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• keep both for now, until we get a nomination to delete all the "descent" categories. Otherwise we're just cherry picking. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: rename to :Category:Anglicanism in New Zealand. Since it came in so late in this discussion, the name of the Primate category should be discussed in a new nomination. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

----

:Propose renaming :Category:Anglican Church of New Zealand to :Category:Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. The official name of this church is Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. Suggest renaming the category to match the main article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - However, there are other Anglican denominations in NZ that are not in communion with the ACANZP (and therefore Canterbury). While they don't yet have NZ-specific articles, we still need to allow for their inclusion in an appropriate category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

:* Then it would be called :category:Anglicanism in New Zealand (perhaps under :category:Anglicanism by country) and the "Church in A, NZ, & P" would be a sub-cat, (which should also go under :category:Anglican denominations. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (nom). Given the circumstances, I think renaming to {{Cat|Anglicanism in New Zealand}} would be a good idea. There is an argument that that in fact was what was intended, since a subcategory is {{cat|New Zealand Anglicans}}, and not all New Zealand Anglicans are members of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. I think it's better at this stage to have the broader category rather than the more specific one that I proposed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 19:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to {{Cat|Anglicanism in New Zealand}} and change its main article, per above remarks. We could rename :Category:Anglican Primates of New Zealand (a classic Pastorwayne creation) while we are in this vicinity (to :Category:Anglican archbishops of New Zealand). Occuli (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: {{relisted}} at 2010 MAY 31 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Russian painters from Saint Petersburg to :Category:Painters from Saint Petersburg

:Nominator's rationale: standard pattern is e.g. :Category:Actors from Chicago, Illinois etc. Moreover, not all painters from Saint Petersburg have been Russian (either as citizens or ethnically) Mayumashu (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm dubious about this. It's by the same guy who had "Leningrad School of art" deleted recently, & wrote a book on the subject. A quick sample showed actually none born there (though one infobox erroneously said one was), though all seemed to have been trained & lived there. Mind you I'm dubious about :Category:Actors from Chicago, Illinois too. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Rename all to "Sierra Leone Creole (X)" (except the "language" category).--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming/merging

• :Category:Krio Organizations to :Category:Sierra Leone Creole organizations (1)
• :Category:Krio establishments to :Category:Sierra Leone Creole establishments (2)
• :Category:Krio diaspora to :Category:Sierra Leone Creole diaspora (3)
• :Category:Krio history, :Category:Krio history books, and :Category:Krio historians to :Category:Sierra Leone Creole history (4)

(:Propose keeping

• :Category:Krio language, as the article is at Krio language) (5)

:Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate Krio while matching these category pages to the article page Sierra Leone Creole Mayumashu (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 06:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support most of these, but change 'Krio' throughout to 'Sierra Leone Creole' as the parent category is :Category:Sierra Leone Creole. So support (1), (2), (3); (4) becomes merge :Category:Krio history to the duplicate :Category:Sierra Leone Creole history, rename :Category:Krio history books to :Category:Sierra Leone Creole history books, and :Category:Krio historians to :Category:Sierra Leone Creole historians; (5) becomes rename :Category:Krio language to :Category:Sierra Leone Creole language. Some redirects could be left. (4) could be an upmerge but the various other parents (eg 'Historians') are not covered by the nom. [There are more in :Category:Sierra Leone Creole people which are tagged but not listed.] Occuli (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Keep as part of a larger category scheme.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Doping cases in shooting}}

:Nominator's rationale: Single item category:

The page in the category should be added to List of doping cases in sport CrimsonBlue (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep As part of a wider-scheme of :Category:Doping cases in sport. Lugnuts (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

----

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

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) albums to :Category:Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young albums

:Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Rename per article. There are also :Category:Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) songs and :Category:Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) members (with 4 articles, no prizes for guessing which ones). Occuli (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Rename all per article— but do we really even need :Category:Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) members? How about Hall & Oates members? ^{User:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude} 19:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Rename. Just because a category's contents are obvious doesn't mean it's invalid.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)