Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 1

: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: listify then delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete :Category:Place names of Welsh origin in the United States
• Nominator's rationale This is the categorization of things by a shared name, which we do not do. The origins of place names are complicated processes, and at best only get fleeting mention in the articles. In many cases the articles do not describe the origin of the name at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• delete per nom. origins of these names is seldom clear or simple anyways.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Possibly listify certainly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Listify the list can specify the origin. -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Listify Ben MacDui 18:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete; no objection to listifying if each entry has a reliable source. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Listify per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 16#Category:Place names of French origin in the United States. This has the advantage of adding context and citations. – Fayenatic London 19:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Listify. All of these categories should have been up for discussion collectively, rather than one at a time. When you do it this one-at-a-time way, some end up listified (French, Spanish, etc,) while others are inexplicably deleted with being listified (Dutch). They should all be listified. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2012 (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: delete. Since the delete proponents were mainly concerned that ethnicity is not a good way to categorize people, I don't see any problem with looking through the cat and putting any South Africans in :Category:South African soccer players. I'll put this at WP:CFDWM so anyone who wants to help out with this should feel free to go ahead. delldot ∇. 04:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete :Category:White African footballers
• Nominator's rationale This is a categorization by race, which we do not do. It is especially odd as it is a contient wide racial grouping. Most of the contents of this category were recently moved from :Category:White South African footballers which was deleted for the same reasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• delete per nom.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to :Category:South African footballers. Since the end of apartheid we should not be categorising South Africans by skin colour. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• The category is not limited to South Africans. It contains anyone who is a white footballer from a country in Africa. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Would this include most footballers from Egypt, or are we using "white" here in a way that does not include Egyptians? The main point, the idea behind this category is not good. White means something different in Liberia than it does in Kenya, than it does in South Africa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know what it's supposed to mean. I'm guessing the intent was to categorize footballers from African countries that have or had a specific ethnic classification system that included "white"—such as South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete no more appropriate than Black or Latino or whatever footballers. We categorize on nationality (as in what passport does one hold) not on ethnicity or race - to the extent that the proponents of the latter practice still "like" it when it points to non-whites, it's just part of Wikipedians' own problems with race and ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Manual process: the category recently manually merged here was :Category:White South African soccer players, and it was already also merged to :Category:White South African people per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 21#Category:White South African soccer players. I don't know why it was not also merged to the third parent, :Category:South African soccer players. I suggest that if the category is deleted, then its members should be checked manually and any with South African nationality should be placed into :Category:South African soccer players. – Fayenatic London 19:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• To clarify, that was a vote for 'delete but with a manual process. Feel free to ask me to do it. – Fayenatic London 17:58, 5 January 2013 (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. – Fayenatic London 16:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Arbitrary precision algorithms to :Category:Computer arithmetic algorithms

:Nominator's rationale: Most (if not all) pages in this category refer to algorithms for computer arithmetics, but, in most cases, the algorithms are not specific for arbitrary precision; they work also for fixed precision and multiple precision. On the other hand, the algorithms for computer arithmetic share, independently of any specification of the precision, a specific technicality that deserve to regroup them in a category. D.Lazard (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2012 (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: speedy rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Scientist templates to :Category:Scientist navigational boxes

:Nominator's rationale: These are navigational boxes. 86.40.106.57 (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:35, 1 December 2012 (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: merge to :Category:Ethnic group templates, except where the contents are already in a suitable sub-category of that target (because of the rule in WP:SUBCAT). – Fayenatic London 18:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:People by ethnicity templates to :Category:Ethnic group templates

:Nominator's rationale: Is there any difference? 86.40.106.57 (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

::I don' know, is there? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Fijians, Israelites, Poles and the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest are categorized under :Category:People by ethnicity templates. Kurds, Turks and white people are among those categorized under :Category:Ethnic group templates. What is the reason behind this? --86.40.111.123 (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2012 (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: speedy merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:People navigational boxes to :Category:People and person navigational boxes

:Nominator's rationale: There appears to be little or no difference between the two. The "people" category is a subcategory of the "people and person" category. When do people lose their persons? All the subcategories of "people" fit into "people and person" and "pope" is actually in both already. 86.40.106.57 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2012 (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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|British Underclass}}

:Nominator's rationale: What the heck is the "British Underclass". Is there even a remotely formal definition of this? I'm not hot on sociology but there is some history regarding the creator of this cat & so I am concerned. Sitush (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete the name is probably not definable. As it is the category really is :Category:Occupations involving scavengering.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep See Google search for the term "British Underclass" [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=british+underclass&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=british+underclass&hl=en&tbo=d&tbm=bks&ei=S4a5UPayNIP_rAfYlIDIBg&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=2fe1ea6af6d6a5c3&bpcl=39314241&biw=1366&bih=667 Google Books] [http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=british+underclass&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= Google Scholar] [http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=british+underclass&oq=british+underclass&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i30l3.825930.830785.2.831594.18.9.0.9.9.3.340.2710.0j1j4j4.9.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.QzCaW8pBLdI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=5e3a588fe1463c4a&bpcl=39314241&biw=1366&bih=667 Google] . This is a valid category under which more articles could be categorized for this topic in the future as well Intothefire (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Underclass is valid topic. Started in the US it is relevant to UK although I am not sure there is a specific difference between the two. The current contents are all occupational terms and should not be in this category. Probably delete for the time being or merge to :Category:Occupations by type somewhere. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Scavengers. Remove grubber which seems to be a person employed to clean sewers, an unpleant occupation but not an obvious underclass one. I have seen the term grubber used historically for a coal miner. I regard inclusion in an "underclass" as a POV issue. The present underclass consists of those long-term unemployed, who have sunk into a dependency culture to such an extent that they cannot or will not work. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

:*Your comment concerning current usage of underclass in popular British terminology seems spot-on to me. As for the POV aspect, well, "there is some history ...", as I said. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Underclass is defined as having earnings of X per year? If there's no empirical definition of the term, then we shouldn't be using it to class people. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete too vague to work as a catMaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• :::*In my comment above I provided what google , google books and google scholars is throwing up for the term British Underclass . The term has both a historical and contemporary context . The issue of the underclass in England is the subject of significant academic , social and cultural and political discourse , by for instance no less than the [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00dd1b1 BBC] or the popular Shameless (TV series) that won Critical acclaim and a British Academy of Film and Television Arts Award . The British Underclass and or the exploration of dimensions of this class phenomenon appear on many [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=british+underclass&title=Special%3ASearch Wikipedia articles] . The underclass is also no doubt associated with occupations . [http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cw33.pdf Also see for instance] or [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=J4OSbP75dz4C&pg=PA239&dq=british+underclass&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mpO8UNiaBOzPmAX24oC4Dw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=british%20underclass&f=false Underclass: A History of the Excluded, 1880-2000 By John Welshman]Intothefire (talk) Intothefire (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete unless WP:SOCIOLOGY can come up with a useful way of creating and using a category tree around it. While, yes, there is such a concept as "British underclass" we certainly can't define it as people who scavenge for a living (or 19th Century names for those who scavenged for a living). The category :Category:Scavengers is for scavenging animals, so isn't an appropriate rename target. Also, in 19th Century London, not all those who made their living from dealing with human waste were in the "underclass". According to Johnson, Steven (2006). The Ghost Map: The Story of London's Most Terrifying Epidemic - and How it Changed Science, Cities and the Modern World. Riverhead Books. ISBN 1-59448-925-4. (cited in the article on John Snow (physician)) nightsoilmen were able to live comfortably on what they were paid to remove the waste. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Without a parent article and a reliable definition, this just seems like a bad OR of a category. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

::The underclass phenomenon certainly seems controversial , as are issues of social stratification in all societies with a wide spectrum of opinion . However there are voices of recognition for the phenomenon from the British establishment itself -goverment and the responsible press : See for example [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/05/punishment-rioters-help#start-of-comments The Guardian of 5th September 2011 by] Kenneth Clarke and a minister in the British Goverment. . As a representative of the British Government (establishment) and discussing the riots . Yes the term underclass could be considered a pejorative , but that is also the position by [http://www.justice4victims.org/resources/the%20underclass.pdf Charles Murray] in his seminal article . What after all would be the implication of the deletion of this category from Wikipedia (1) that there is no underclass in Britain ? See Social structure of the United Kingdom . (2) That because there is no mother article on British underclass (but there is one on the Underclass) , so the various articles discussing this issue should not deserve a category . (3) Majority of opinions during this discussion did not believe that the British Underclass exists , so there should not be a category for British Underclass . I believe that considering the enormous discourse in Britain itself on this issue , should make this a category worthy for Wikipedia .Intothefire (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been notified to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

:::What people are saying here is that it is not definable in any meaningful way. I don't think anyone is saying that it might be considered pejorative & thus it should not exist because, of course, we are not censored. These are not quite the same as your "Majority of opinions during this discussion did not believe that the British Underclass exists , so there should not be a category for British Underclass" remark. The logical category structure here would have :Category:Underclass at the top, with subcategories for :Category:Underclass in the United Kingdom, :Category:Underclass in the United States, :Category:Underclass in India, etc. You've created only one of those (malformed in name and capitalisation) and you have still failed to define what an "underclass" actually may be in the sense of how we would categorise. It is very subjective, just as are terms such as "working class" and "middle class". Blimey, most Brits can't get their head round their own class system, mainly because it is not a system. I think that I know exactly why you created this category and it has little to do with improving the encyclopedia but, FWIW, I can probably describe myself as one of the "underclass" in Britain; others might disagree with my self-identification. That's how meaningless it is. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment my main problem is that the articles listed really do not fit the category name. categorization by class is not really a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delete where's Lenin when you need him?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• :::The Underclass article provides some Definitions. Intothefire (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• ::::So you are proposing a category that potentially has multiple definitions? How is that going to work? - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• :::::NB: the category creator has been blocked for a month. Failing a successful appeal (they've tried and failed once), it looks like I won't get an answer to my query any time soon. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2012 (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: speedy rename all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Authors by nation templates to :Category:Writer by nation navigational boxes

:Nominator's rationale: The subcategories refer specifically to writers. The contents of the subcategories appear to be all, or mostly, navigational boxes. If this is not the case in any example perhaps it can be moved back to a template category. 86.40.106.57 (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Related}}

;Parent

• :Category:Author templates > :Category:Writer navigational boxes (currently containing two "template" categories on which a rename is being discussed, so by the time this concludes should contain only navigational boxes).

;Subcategories

: :Category:Ancient Greek writers templates > :Category:Ancient Greek writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Ancient Roman writers templates > :Category:Ancient Roman writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Albanian writers templates > :Category:Albanian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:American writers templates > :Category:American writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Argentine writers templates > :Category:Argentine writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Australian writers templates > :Category:Australian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Austrian writers templates > :Category:Austrian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Belgian writers templates > :Category:Belgian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Brazilian writers templates > :Category:Brazilian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:British writers templates > :Category:British writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Canadian writers templates > :Category:Canadian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Chilean writers templates > :Category:Chilean writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Chinese writers templates > :Category:Chinese writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Colombian writers templates > :Category:Colombian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Czech writers templates > :Category:Czech writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Danish writers templates > :Category:Danish writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Dutch writers templates > :Category:Dutch writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Egyptian writers templates > :Category:Egyptian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Finnish writers templates > :Category:Finnish writer navigational boxes

: :Category:French writers templates > :Category:French writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Georgian writers templates > :Category:Georgian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:German writers templates > :Category:German writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Greek writers templates > :Category:Greek writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Guatemalan writers templates > :Category:Guatemalan writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Hungarian writers templates > :Category:Hungarian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Icelandic writers templates > :Category:Icelandic writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Indian writers templates > :Category:Indian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Irish writers templates > :Category:Irish writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Italian writers templates > :Category:Italian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Japanese writers templates > :Category:Japanese writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Kenyan writers templates > :Category:Kenyan writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Korean writers templates > :Category:Korean writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Lebanese writers templates > :Category:Lebanese writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Mexican writers templates > :Category:Mexican writer navigational boxes

: :Category:New Zealand writers templates > :Category:New Zealand writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Nigerian writers templates > :Category:Nigerian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Norwegian writers templates > :Category:Norwegian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Paraguayan writers templates > :Category:Paraguayan writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Peruvian writers templates > :Category:Peruvian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Polish writers templates > :Category:Polish writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Portuguese writers templates > :Category:Portuguese writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Romanian writers templates > :Category:Romanian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Russian writers templates > :Category:Russian writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Senegalese writers templates > :Category:Senegalese writer navigational boxes

: :Category:South African writers templates > :Category:South African writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Spanish writers templates > :Category:Spanish writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Swedish writers templates > :Category:Swedish writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Swiss writers templates > :Category:Swiss writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Turkish writers templates > :Category:Turkish writer navigational boxes

: :Category:Uruguayan writers templates > :Category:Uruguayan writer navigational boxes

{{collapse bottom}}

• Rename in wikipedia the term "writer" is used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose replacing "templates" with "navigational boxes". {{cat|Author templates}} contains too many non-navbox templates, like: {{tl|The Works of Aristotle}} & {{tl|Dialogues of Plato}} in {{cat|Ancient Greek writers templates}}, {{tl|REH bibliography}} & {{tl|AsimovStory}} in {{cat|American writers templates}}, {{tl|Descartes}} in {{cat|French writers templates}}, {{tl|Kantianism}} & {{tl|Hegelianism}} in {{cat|German writers templates}}. Also almost every category is untagged, a recurring problem with the nominator. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 10:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Armbrust. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This problem has been overcome by replacing the category "navigational boxes" with the categotry "templates" as explained in the nomination. The offending pages have now all been fixed. --86.40.111.123 (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2012 (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.