Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< October 18 October 20 >

October 19

Category:Special Lecturer at Gresham College

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. No need to create a list, because it already exists at Gresham College#Gresham_Special_Lecture_series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:OC#TRIVIAL. The list of people who give this lecture is in the Gresham College article. The creator of the category (who has a conflict) appears to be adding the cat to all of the articles of all the people, even though there is nothing in the body of those articles to support the cat. I'm assuming there could be something in the articles and it could be sourced, but it says something about the cat that it's not sufficiently noteworthy to even mention it in the articles themselves. Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete in general being a special lectuere is not enough to create a notable characteristic that is worth categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defence: The lecture is an annual big event in the calendar of over 100 other events each year (it is not "a special lecture", but "the Special Lecture" at the college). The grandeur/importance of the lecture is perhaps best shown by the people that have delivered it. I thought that tieing the 25 or so people together by the category would be a good/genuine addition to the pages of those concerned. However, I understand the point about its not being in the body of the article, so if that is the rule I will submit (sadly) to the decision. (Thank you for the space for the conversation on this). User:Jamesfranklingresham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.105.13 (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be much more useful to create a list. While the lecture may be noted, it seems from your description that for those involved this is just one of lots of honors they get once they are noted. It is not central to the history or character of those who are the lecturer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance in the ivory tower. OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 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:Anglican saints

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus, but upmerge Category:Saints of the Assyrian Church of the East to Category:Assyrian Church of the East saints. Also, most of these were not tagged.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given Mangoe's comments below, I've opted for a general re-naming of all denominations withe cats for saints. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as named, for now, but The Lutherans are the only exception to the "denomination saints" naming pattern. That said, it might be tidier to reorganize the structure to eliminate the large number of redundant categorizations on the older saints (e.g. Irenaeus, who is tagged four ways). However until we are ready to rename the whole thing as "Category: Saints celebrated in the X Church" I don't see any reason to change just the Anglicans. The ambiguity between saints who were Anglicans and saints who the Anglicans commemorate is easily dealt with using a hatnote. Mangoe (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that people such as martin Luther King Jr. who were not Anglican are Anglican Saints shows that these categories do not really reflect anything inherent about the people so designated, and thus it is not a defining trait and should not be used for categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this argument. Saintliness is recognized from the outside, and the Catholic/Orthodox standard of recognizing only their own membership as real Christians isn't binding on anyone else. Mangoe (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is, if someone is not even a part of that religion tradition, how can their being recognized within that religious tradition be a central characteristic of the person involved?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But prune. Saints in the Roman Catholic church are a defining characteristic for most. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the Anglican saints because we would then need to define which Anglican communion was referred to and for the several saints that are celebrated in more than one of the Anglican communions we would then end up with multiple categories. I have similar issues for the Lutheran categories. Which bit of Lutheranism is meant? For they all have their own Kalendars. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument prsented by Beeswaxcandle is more an argument for the deletion of the entire Aglican saints category than opposition to re-naming. The current proposal is at least an improvement on the status quo. Let him proceed to full deletion proposal later if desired. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see my argument as being for deletion of the Anglican saints category. As soon as we introduce the words "Anglican Communion" into a category name then we must define which particular Communion we mean. But, if it is left as the more generic "Anglican Saints", then we don't run into this problem because it doesn't matter which of the Communions celebrate a particular saint. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beg to differ. The status quo imples that all saints in the cat are celebrated by alll shades of the communion. Same as for Catholic saints assumes that all saints are celebrated by the entire RC communion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for clarity for traditions that have some rigor about who is or isn't a saint; for the others, delete as not defining - and don't some religions basically consider every dead person (of that faith, at least), a saint (i.e., with their deity(-ies)??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some religions use Saint to including all living members of that religion. That is why there is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I still think the inclusion as a category as Anglican Saints on people who were never Anglicans is a case of over categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This increasingly strikes me as a non-neutral way to look at the issue, because it really only works in an ecclesiology like that of the church of Rome or of Constantinople. Saintliness is supposed to be an innate characteristic, to be sure, but it remains necessarily to identify it and name it; if it is a problem for it to be identified between the churches, it's just as much a problem to be identified within a church. It's not for us to say, in essence, that Anglican sainthood isn't really valid because or when sometimes it is acknowledged in Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Mangoe (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to "Saints of the X church" (I don't think we need the word "celebrated"). If done in this format, I don't think we would need to clarify any more than that. For example, for these I don't think we would need to clarify whether the saints are part of a church's liturgy, or part of a church's liturgical calendar (though I suppose such cats could also exist). I welcome relisting this CfD discussion. - jc37 21:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A better move might be to try to notify some projects. That sometimes helps generate more discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 3 November 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:American people of German descent by state

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:German Americans by state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:00, 21 November 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:American film directors of Hong Kong 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: upmerge to Category:American film directors and Category:American people of Hong Kong descent.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this nomination was typed as "actors", but I have changed all occurrences of that word to "directors" to match the category that was nominated. – Fayenatic London 21:04, 21 October 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:Hotels by year of establishment

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus to rename - jc37 21:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a test nomination. If this passes, the entire tree can be done as speedies. Currently this follows the default pattern of the established tree, but most articles and press on this topic call this the opening and not establishment. So this should follow what it actually used. {{
infobox hotel}} uses 'opening_date' for the parameter about this and 'opening date' for the displayed information. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I should note that I am not fixed to the proposed name since I don't like the way it reads, I choose it since it follows the existing pattern. Maybe something like Category:Hotels by opening year or some other option makes a better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose hotels are established. This is the standard form for organizaing things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if we are dealing with uses of words that mean different things in different versions of English. Companies are established is a point that I think most people would agree with. One could argue that the hotel was also established at the same time as the company that owners and operates it. And yes, at least in the US each hotel operation is generally by a little know company that only operates one property. One could also argue that the hotel is established when the first employee is hired. But the defining point is not any of those it is when the hotel opens for business. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other observation. The sub categories are also being used to list the establishment of hotel chains. That shows me that there is a level of confusion about what is intended here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for better or worse, WP has consensed on the word "established" to connote bringing into being, for most things; just see the subcats of, e.g., Category:2011_establishments. Many of those things in normal language would not be termed "established" - but we needn't go that far, because hotels are one of those that normally use the word "established". Just look at the cornerstone of any old hotel -in an English language place - and it will likely say "Estb. YYYY" - find some that say "Opened YYYY" and then we can talk. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, but when the building says established in yyyy what happens when the building gets converted to another use? Do we change the cornerstone? No, a second use opens and begins functioning in the building. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 26 October 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:American people of Latin American 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 November 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:American people of Latin American descent
  • Nominator's rationale this is functioning as a sub-cat of Category:Hispanic and Latino American people. That is where all its contents should really be. In theory maybe Category:American people of Haitian descent could go in this category, and would not go in the other, but it is not in this category, so we probably do not have to deal with the issue. In reality Hispanic and Latino Americans is the prefered and common usage at the present time. It is a bit more expanisve in some ways than this term, but as it stands this category is trying to make a distinction that really does not exist in actual usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I agree, JPL. This is overcategorization and Hispanic+Latin American should be sufficient. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom & OCAT; another anomaly of these cats is inclusion or not of Mitt Romney. His ancestors did live in Mexico - part of Latin America - for a time, so in WP-speak he's of Latin American descent, even though he wouldn't be of Hispanic/Latino, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:56, 26 October 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:American Jews of Latin American 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 November 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 1 November 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:American models of Latin American 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: merge both to Category:Hispanic and Latino American models. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:American models of Latin American descent
  • Delete Category:American models of Mexican descent
  • Nominator's rationale Triple intersects of nationality, ancestry and occupation need to be supported by specific study of the triple-intersect and a recognition that the intersect in more than tivial. With the Mexican descent American models I see no evidence that the instesect is more than trivial. With the Latin American descent category I have yet to see any evidence that this is a recognized normal way to refer to anything. I see no evidence that it is ever used as a term, it is an odd sister cate to Hispanic and Latino Americans, and as far as I can tell one that has no real justification for existing. I can see how the two terms are potentially different, but I see no evidence that anyone actually uses American people of Latin American descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This one I am not sure about. There are quite a few Mexican models. The question for me, is do we get adequate coverage with Latin-America alone? Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually the coverage is mainly at Category:Hispanic and Latino American models. The Latin American descent cat is a truly irregular sub-division, and I am not convinced that there is need for a Mexican specific sub-cat. As it stands there are very few models by ethnicity cats at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upmerge both Mexican models and Latin American models to Hispanic and Latin American models. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as suggested by Benkenobi18. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:57, 26 October 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.

American mobsters by ethnic or national descent categories

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 all. There was no support for ceasing to categorise the people in these categories as American mobsters, which would be the effect of deleting these categories. It may be that the nominator intended to propose that the categories be upmerged to one or more their respective parents, and two of the editors whose !votes supported deletion appeared to read it that way ... but merger is not what was actually proposed here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 29 October 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:American models 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: keep all. The effect of deleting these categories would be to remove the articles so categorised from the parent categories such as Category:American models and Category:American people of XXish descent. No arguments were advanced any where in the discussion in favour such a result, and the editors who supported deletion did so ground of an irrelevant intersection. That is a legitimate reason for upmerger, but not for deletion ... so in the absence of any argument for deletion, the outcome of this discussion is "keep". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:American models of European descent
  • Delete Category:American models of German descent
  • Delete Category:American models of Italian descent
  • Delete Category:American Playboy Playmates of Italian descent
  • Nominator's rationale This is an ethnic by occupation category that needs to be shown to be an actual noted intersect, instead of just one that some people fill. I see no evidence that there are studies of models by ethnic origin in any of these cases. Beyond that the Category:American models of European descent has only two articles in it, when there are clearly many more. It is also unclear that there is any way to avoid that becoming a race category, which are not allowed per guidelines on classification by ethnicity and gender. True, it is meant to sound like it is not a race category, but it will probably end up if used working like a race category. I see no evidence that there is any recorded study of this triple-intersect to make it more than trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Non-notable triple intersection.Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Ethnic or national origin is a fully accepted manner for categorization of WP articles on people. Deletion argument has no substance. And the idea that immigrants and their descendants are something less than American and that xxx-Americans are an intersection is repulsive to WP and is just toying with rules for an attack purpose. Hmains (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be nice if people paid attention to actual rules. This is not in any way an atteack on having Category:American people of German descent. The question is, should we have these categories then subdivided by occupation. The clear consensus is that the intersect of ancestry and occupation needs to be supported by actual evidence that the intersect is something more than just trivial. I was trying to figure out how to link to the relevant guidelines but couldn't, so if someone could help with that I would appreciate it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a look at the contents of this category shows that in gneral German ancestry is one of many ancestries, and in most cases not likely to be even the most noted. It really is a trivial fact that is not heavily associated with the person in almost all cases. Definantly having German ancestry is not a component in any of the careers of these people, and in some cases probably the furtherst thing from the mind of those who have formulated their careers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There is no requirement in WP for any of these conditions to be met. These assertions are being made up on the spot. Hmains (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we do not categorize by intersections of occupation and ancestry that are merely trivial. I wiash I could remember how to get to the directives on categorizing by ethnicity. However the upmerging of Category:American actors of English descent shows that there is a general support for not engaging in these overactive trivial intersect categorizations. The precedent is clearly against categorizing where the intersection of occupation and ancestry is trivial, which it clearly is in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a relevant statement for this category is ""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."John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:59, 26 October 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:County Derry

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. – Fayenatic London 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proposing for deletion due to duplication and violation of the consensus on the name of the county per
WP:IMOS. It is long established on Wikipedia that for the county Wikipedia uses the county's name County Londonderry and not the unofficial County Derry. There are already plenty of categories for County Londonderry and creating additional categories is just causing mass duplication, a spiders's web of categories and potential confusion for both authors and readers alike. All possible uses of categories labelled as County Derry are covered by County Londonderry. The other catgeories that these are being modelled after area all based on the geographical and politcal counties, not a GAA based county, and pushing these category as GAA counties is inconsisten with the way the rest of the categories areas are handled. This catgeory, and other similar ones, have been created by a user who is being opposed on their creation in several places for these same reasons, but they are continuing to be created. This approach seems to be based on the logic that some people don't like the official name of the county. See also previous category for discussion Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)s[reply
]
  1. That Derry GAA does not use the term "County Londonderry" in its organisational structure. That has led to objections to the categorisation of GAA bodies in the geographical categories under Category:County Londonderry. Those objections are misplaced, because it is routine throughout Wikipedia for sporting entities (and other topics) to be categorised under the standard geographical areas in which they fall. GAA clubs in County Londonderry should continue to be categorised in this way, as with any other topics relating to any county.
  2. The County Board of Derry GAA includes clubs from outside County Londonderry. So addition to the geographical categorisation, we also need a category to reflect the organisation of the sport. Referring to "Derry GAA" rather than to "County Derry" makes it clear that the category's scope is not that of the geographical county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, and create redirects as appropriate. I have changed my mind on this after re-reading the recently-closed
    WP:DERRY solution is as close as we can get to a neutral set of standard terminology for categories in this area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oppose: Derry is the only case in which no eponymous WP categories have until recently existed for clubs, competitions etc. in that GAA county. In the case of every other GAA county in Ireland, there exist categories for clubs etc. that share the name of the GAA county - e.g. GAA clubs in Antrim - and there is no obvious reason why anyone would wish to remove a set of useful categories about Derry GAA other than some visceral objection to the use of the term County Derry, which as Wikipedia acknowledges (e.g. in the lede to the County Londonderry article) is an ordinary alternative term for the obsolete administrative county whose name Derry GAA has never used or recognised, even though the geographical territories are substantially coterminous. There are numerous (legal, administrative) counties elsewhere in Ireland (e.g. Fingal) that do not correspond to GAA counties, and no-one has suggested a need to create "GAA clubs in Fingal" etc. categories for these geographical spaces that have nothing to do with the GAA; why then would anyone object to the existence of categories that reflect the actual geographical regions within which the Derry GAA organises? The answer is glaringly obvious. This is a politically motivated attempt to remove Derry categories for the sake of it, leaving GAA clubs in Derry GAA mapped to "Londonderry" categories that are utterly meaningless in terms of the Gaelic Athletic Association, which is the largest sporting organisation in all of Ireland and has the right to name its geographical divisions as it pleases. Brocach (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - While I think the other categories can be renamed to the Derry GAA namings, there are 2 categories in the list that dont' fall under the same item. County Derry and Sport in County Derry. The County Derry category is already covered by the existing County Londonderry category, and the arguments above make the assumption that all sporting activities that take place in County Londonderry fall under the purview of the Derry GAA, which they do not. There is already a Sport in County Londonderry category so the Sport in County Derry category is also redundant and just plain confusing duplication. Canterbury Tail talk 11:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Category:County Derry and Category:Sport in County Derry are duplicates, and should be deleted. Both those titles should be re-created as {{category redirects}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)][reply]
    They are plainly not duplicates. Category:Sport in County Derry is a well-populated category relating to the current, 128-year-old GAA county of Derry, easily distinguished from sports categories connected with the obsolete administrative county of Londonderry which has no legal meaning whatever since 1973. Brocach (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only well populated because you just populated it. Also the connection to the GAA for Derry is a poor justification for this category as all the other Sport in County XXXXX categories include sports that are not connected to the GAA. This isn't about sports in the Derry GAA, there is already a category for that, you've simply created a generic sports in county category (one that was previously deleted until you began repopulating it a few days ago) with a county name other than the one officially recognised. It's a duplicate category, as is the County Derry category. Neither has anything to do with the GAA, and there are plenty of GAA categories labelled Derry GAA rather without creating new ones labelled County Derry. Incidentally the other GAA counties don't seem to get categoriesed by County XXXX, they appear to be categorised by XXXX GAA. Canterbury Tail talk 02:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Actually, per Mabuska's point, if this re-name proposal is successful, I was thinking of imposing the same logic on all other GAA "counties". Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do sometimes wonder whether any of the anti-Derry campaigners have read IMoS. Derry is explicitly recognised as the correct term for the GAA county, the name of which is Condae Dhoire or County Derry. All of the categories that the proponents want to be deleted are related to the GAA county. I am not seeking to "impose" anything; as anyone who looks at my edits will have noted I have left the "Londonderry" categories there in every single case, even though I struggle to imagine anyone interested in the GAA looking for GAA data in an encyclopaedia under that non-GAA category.Brocach (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if all the references to County Derry you are adding are solely in reference to the GAA county, then most can safely be deleted as there are already appropriate Derry GAA categories. For instance the main Derry GAA category would cover Sport in County Derry and the County Derry category, and the others should be renamed for consistency to be the Derry GAA and not a confusing term, in line with all the other county boards and their related categories. It is inconsistent with the description you put on the Category:County Derry page stating that it refers to the former administrative county however. But if you say they're solely for the Derry GAA, then the Derry GAA categories are sufficient and the spiderweb of categories can be cleaned up and everyone can get back to normal. Canterbury Tail talk 01:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that County Derry is an alternative name for County Londonderry, per the WP article. Brocach (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The long-established Derry GAA category also helps us avoid problems of categorising GAA clubs that belong to the GAA county of Derry but aren't located with County Londonderry - though as the vast majority of Derry GAA is in County Londonderry then the Sport in County Londonderry etc. categories in that article should remain (though obviously adding Sport in County Foo categories for clubs outside County Londonderry for that article as well as we do for similar things in other articles where a place or thing crosses county borders).

Brocach might argue that it no longer exists as an administrative county but then neither do any of the other 31 counties on this island yet they are all still used today for various things - i.e. County Londonderry is still used in people's addresses, the County Londonderry milk-cup team, the County of Londonderry division of the Orange Order or the Derry County Board of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, even republicans still hold onto the 32-county model which includes County (London)Derry etc. etc. It may be administratively obsolete but it's not obsolete for many more things. Mabuska (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have only ever referred to the county as obsolete as an administrative county - and you are wrong to suggest that all other 31 are obsolete in that sense, as most still have that role in the Republic. I certainly acknowledge that County Londonderry, an alternative name for which (acknowledged in WP) is County Derry, is far from obsolete in many other senses. Brocach (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia we use Derry for all GAA purposes, for the name of the city, for any organisation name that includes the word Derry; and we acknowledge County Derry as an alternative to County Londonderry, in the first sentence of that article. All of these categories are now well populated, their existence does no harm, adds something to the usefulness of the encyclopaedia, demonstrates WP neutrality and does not detract in any way from any Londonderry categories, which remain in place for those whose point of reference is the obsolete administrative county. Brocach (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brocach, these categories were created by you as duplicates of the County Londonderry categories, after your out-of-process emptying the Londonderry categories was reverted. Your clear desire was to rename the County Londonderry categories to County Derry, and you should have pursued that in the normal way as a proposal to rename the existing categories.
These categories do not add to the "usefulness of the encyclopaedia". Per
WP:CAT, categories are a navigational device, and there is no navigational benefit in having two categories with identical scope. That's why duplicate categories are always merged or deleted when they come to CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
GAA county. Using Derry in reference to the GAA is not a "POV fork" but correct, neutral encyclopaedic usage. Incidentally there is no such place as "Country Londonderry"; if you wish to engage in a debate on *county* names please take a bit of care. Brocach (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The September 26 discussion of the c"County Londonderry" categories reached a consensus to retain them. If you believe that the previous CFD was closed wrongly, you may open a deletion review to ask for the closure to be overturned. However, unless and until it is overturned, your creation of these categories has created a set of duplicates.
Category duplication serves no navigational purpose. For the benefit of readers who may be looking for County Derry categories, all these categories should be recreated as {{category redirect}}s. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are not duplicates. County Derry really exists as a GAA county, its jurisdiction including clubs from outside the extinct administrative County Londonderry, for which County Derry is acknowledged by Wikipedia as an alternative name. The County Derry categories are very well populated and no "navigational purpose" is served by the proposed deletion. It is interesting that some of the fanatically pro-Londonderry camp defend absurdities such as the retention of Northern Ireland rugby union team when no such team has ever existed, on the grounds that someone somewhere sometime might search for that, yet these same individuals desperately resist categories relating to County Derry, which is hugely more common in everyday use than County Londonderry. Brocach (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brocach, you have yourself noted in the previous discussion that "the differences between the 32 GAA counties (in Ireland) and the (former) 32 local government counties are so slight, and so variable from year to year, that for most purposes they can be considered as pretty much identical". That was when you were arguing to delete the Londonderry categories, but no what they have been kept you are arguing the opposite point in the hope of keeping these duplicate categories.
Having two identical sets of categories merely adds to category clutter on the bottom of articles, and increases the work involved in maintaining the categories. The navigational benefit of removing duplicates is improved maintenance (since there is only one category rather than two to update), and saving the reader from exploring both categories in the expectation that they may contain something different.
Your argument that "County Derry ...is hugely more common in everyday use than County Londonderry" is a general argument for amending
WP:IMOS. If you want to pursue that proposal, it belongs elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
There is a distinct difference between canvassing for support and notifying editors with a history of constructive work on relevant topics. To date this debate has involved too few voices and I would be delighted to have others draw attention to the debate, provided that, like me, the kept such messages neutral. Brocach (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, would just like to register thanks to Canterbury Tail for encouraging a clearly anti-County Derry vote, in her/his intervention at Category talk:County Derry. Obviously that could be perceived as canvassing but I prefer to let all voices be heard. Brocach (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't canvasing. An IP was asking specifically about should it be deleted, on the page that is up for discussion and that already had a link to this discussion. All I did was point it out to the IP. No canvassing there, I never approached anyone, I've not posted links to this discussion anywhere, for either side of the argument. The IP asked if it should be deleted, I pointed out there was a discussion on just that and they are welcome to come and voice their opinion, in either direction. This is not canvasing, this is responding to a very specific question on a page already linked to and involved in this discussion directly. Canterbury Tail talk 12:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop kicking around, Brocach? Assume Good Faith at all times, even if there is a rather political smell. The Banner talk 23:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and rename As there is no offical "County Derry" or "County Londonderry" at present, it should be clear that (and maybe made more explicit) that in this case "County Derry" refers to the GAA district, not an official entity. See also:
    Gaelic Athletic Association county. So renaming along the lines of "Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Derry" into "Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in GAA County Derry" would be a much better option. The Banner talk 12:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Not a bad compromise. "GAA County Derry" has existed for 128 years, and for most of that time has involved two-way "leakage" of clubs with neighbouring counties, so hasn't mapped strictly to the boundaries of County Londonderry. County Londonderry ceased to exist in any legal sense in 1973 but has survived as a point of reference for many purposes. I have no desire to prevent anyone continuing to use Country Londonderry to describe the geographical space once administered under that name, but I equally expect others to acknowledge the fact that for GAA purposes the only county name ever used has been Derry. The Banner's suggestion would be fine by me; certainly preferable to quashing County Derry categories, which are very useful to those interested in Derry GAA matters. Brocach (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what the Derry GAA categories are for? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the existing category with appropriate subcategories and keep the language consistent? Such as Derry GAA Football Clubs, Derry GAA Hurling Clubs etc, rather than having some references to Derry GAA and some to County Derry? Most article refer to the Derry GAA, not to them being in the GAA county of Derry. Also the category Sport in County Derry can't be included in the Derry GAA discussion since it covers greater than just GAA related activities (cricket clubs, rugby club, sportspeople from County Londonderry etc) through inclusion of other sub-categories and the GAA doesn't have exclusive rights to sports in the county, and those that it does are covered by the existing Derry GAA categories. Canterbury Tail talk 12:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just put these things out of their misery already? —

ॐ 08:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

In response to The Banner's suggestion, they will still be duplicate categories as the County Londonderry ones will and should remain in the articles as they are located within County Londonderry regardless of the Derry GAA. Derry GAA category covers it. Mabuska (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that somebody should get a shovel and start digging off that whole county... The Banner talk 23:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This discussion has been open now for 4 weeks, and I hope it will be closed soon. One admin who considered cloisng it asked on my talk page if I could summarise my thoughts, so here it goes.
  1. Throughout Ireland, topics are categorised geographically by county. This applies both to the 26-county Republic of Ireland and to the 6-county Northern Ireland; see Category:Categories by county of Ireland and subcats. The Counties of Northern Ireland have had no administrative function since 1972, but remain widely used as geographical divisions. see for example 285 Google News hits for "County Armagh" in the past month
    A further anomaly exists in the Republic, where County Dublin and County Tipperary have been sub-divided for administrative purposes, but the undivided counties are retained in popular usage (see Gnews hits for Dublin, Tipperary). After a lot of discussion a few years ago, the category structure incorporates both the 26 traditional counties and the 29 administrative counties.
  2. This by county categorisation is used across all sorts of topics, e.g. Buildings and structures, transport, parks, history, people and sport.
  3. This consistent use of by-county sub-categorisation of sets big enough to need breakdown beyond national level creates a common geographic framework, which facilitates navigation. We don't use different geographical divisions for different purposes, because that would require a reader interested in one area to use multiple entry-points in the category system. If you look at Category:county Cork or Category:County Armagh, you'll find that everything related to those areas is (or should be!) somewhere in a sub-category.
  4. Some of the topics covered in Wikipedia use a different geographical framework, not based on the counties. In those cases, we still categorise by the common geographic framework of counties, but may also create topic-specific geographical categories. A good example is the churches, whose diocesan structure rarely matches county boundaries. See for example the Church of Ireland's Diocese of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh, which covers all or part of 8 counties. We have a Category:Diocese of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh, but the churches etc within it are also in the std by-county categories under Category:Places of worship in the Republic of Ireland by county.
    Similarly, club cricket in Ireland is divided organisationally by the 4 provinces of Ireland, so we have Category:Cricket in Ireland by province ... but we also have by-county categories where there are enough articles to justify them (e.g. Category:Cricket clubs in County Antrim, Category:Cricket clubs in County Dublin). So we categorise both by organisational structure and geographic structure.
  5. The
    Rugby Union), the GAA organises on an all-Ireland basis, without regard to the political partition of Ireland
    . It organises competitions at 3 geographical levels: all-Ireland, provincial, and county.
  6. So the GAA's structure reflects the category structure used for all other topics: the lowest level is the county. The
    Gaelic Athletic Association county
    does not always map precisely to the administrative counties, but the variations are minor.
  7. The match is close enough that the vast majority of GAA clubs are in the same administrative county as their GAA county. County Londonderry/Derry is one of the counties whose GAA county board includes a few clubs from across the county border. Until the last 2 months, I have never seen any desire to categorise by GAA county separately from the administrative countries.
  8. All the by-county categories are called
    WP:IMOS#Derry_.2F_Londonderry is to "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles". That guidance has been contested a few times, but has remained broadly stable for years (see e.g. the August 2006 version
    ).
  9. The category structure reflects this approach. The city's eponymous category is
    WT:IMOS, and was reworded by another editor, who was reverted by Brocach in an edit which also added more examples. The crucial difference between the two edits is that Brocach's version referred to the [[GAA county]] of [[Derry GAA|Derry]], whereas the other editor prefererred a generalised comment with the example [[Derry GAA]] is responsible for the Gaelic Games in [[County Londonderry]]. The difference is subtle, but is important wrt to the categories: Brocach seeks to eliminate reference to County Londonderry
    , (used for all other purposes) and replace it with a reference to the GAA county, on which there is no head article).
  10. The long-standing categorisation of GAA clubs in County Londonderry has been under: a) Category:Derry GAA, created in October 2007; b) Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Londonderry, also created in October 2007. The history of that category shows no comment or objection until September 2012.
  11. Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Londonderry follows the name of its parent Category:Sport in County Londonderry, and that of other sporting categories for the county such as Category:Association football clubs in County Londonderry‎ and Category:Sports venues in County Londonderry‎.
  12. On 26 September, Brocach (talk · contribs) created Category:Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in County Derry, and several related categories. Zie then moved all the contents of the County Londonderry categories to the new County Derry categories, and nominated the emptied categories for deletion at CFD Sept 26.
  13. I reverted the out-of-process moves, and Brocach denounced this as "sheer vandalism", and proceeded to repopulate the new County Derry categories. This created a duplicate set of categories for the GAA in County Derry/Londonderry.
  14. Brocach has claimed that these categories should be named "County Derry" rather than "County Londonderry" to reflect the title of the GAA County. However, that claim is undermined by hir creation of a separate Category:County Derry duplicating Category:county Londonderry, even though all GAA topics belong in sub-sub-categories. Brocach's initial category description read: "Topics and articles relating to [[County Derry]] in [[Ireland]]. County Derry is an alternative name for the former administrative county of [[Londonderry]], and is the only name of the [[GAA county]] of [[Derry GAA|Derry]]." Brocach's subsequent edits include reverting another editor's direct link to County Londonderry, and have reinstated the the text "administrative county of [[Londonderry]]", even tho that is a link to the city. If this was solely about the GAA, then the duplicate Category:County Derry would not have been created, and would not have claimed that Category:County Derry was for non-GAA topics.
  15. The September 26 CFD was closed on 28 October as "keep all". Since that retained the County Londonderry categories, the County Derry categories remained as duplicates.
  16. This CFD, to delete the newly-created duplicate categories, was opened on Oct 19, 9 days before the first CFD was closed. At that point it was probably premature, but it is now 17 days since a consensus was reached to keep the "County Londonderry" categories. The only options open to this discussion are to a) delete these "County Derry" categories or b) retain them as duplicates, with a possible renaming.
  17. I am aware of no other situation where two sets of categories with identical scope have been retained, particularly where they are the result of an out-of-process move followed by the creation of a set of duplicate categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 15 November 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:Genetics or genomics research institutions and Category:Biotechnology Organizations

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: Opposed - jc37 21:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal Merge Biotechnology Organizations into Genetics or genomic research institutions Basis: These are the same thing. We can tie in the "genetics" part of the list by including the {{portal|biotechnology}} on the category page. Thanks for your thoughts.

Saltwolf (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong oppose biotech =/= genetics/genomics. Biotech is a much bigger field than just genetics/genomics. I fail to see how merging biotech into genetics/genomics makes any sense. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose these are not the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 26 October 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:Aggrotech

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 Category:Aggrotech to and rename Category:Electro-industrial to Category:Electro-industrial artists.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
Aggrotech is a redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Rename per the redirect; this could have been speedied. Mangoe (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Aggrotech" is a targetted redirect. It targets a section in the electro-industrial article, which if you had read it, would say that it is a subtype of electro-industrial, and not an alternate name for the whole of electro-industrial. Therefore this category is a valid grouping on its own. The nominator has not provided a rationale of why such a grouping is improper. There are enough entries in the category that it is not "small". Just because the main article redirects to a section does not mean that it is not a valid distinction. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there is no reason to have a category for a music type before we have an article for the music type. Targeted redirects are not enough to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would say that would only be valid if it were a small category, as it is, there are plenty of entries in the category, so making it a useful navigation distinction. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:21, 19 October 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:American models of Pakistani 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 29 October 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:American actors of Hong Kong 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: double upmerge to Category:American actors of Asian descent and Category:American people of Hong Kong descent. – Fayenatic London 12:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:American actors of Hong Kong descent to Category:American people of Hong Kong descent.
  • Nominators rationale this is a triple intesect with no evidence that it is a noteworthy intersect. We do not have Category:American actors of Chinese descent, so there is no clear reason why we should have a Hong Kong descent category for American actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There is no justification for such a deletion. This is part of a series of articles found in the Category:American models by ethnic or national origin. Hmains (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be nice if people at least tried to pay attention to the nomination. This is not even a case of models but actors, so the response makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Ok Category:American actors by ethnic or national origin but it does not matter. The idea that immigrants and their descendants are something less than American and that xxx-Americans are an intersection is repulsive to WP and is just toying with rules for an attack purpose. And there has never been and there is not now any requirement that a category must have an article of the same name. Hmains (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Can't see how it's racism considering as JPL nominated European models too. Non-notable triple intersectionBenkenobi18 (talk)
  • cmt not racism, but the idea that the only true Americans are those who are solely 'American' and not those are are 'xxxx-American' in any way and that 'xxxx-Americans' have no right to be grouped together in meaningful ways in WP Hmains (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, you should retract your earlier comments accusing JPL of bad faith. I encouraged JPL to put these up for nomination, you might as well accuse me of bad faith too. Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am really confused by the reaction to this nomination. All this talk of people's "rights" some how being implicated in how we chose to categorize articles is bizarre. One would think I had gone and edited various articles and removed them from Category:American actors and put them in other categories becuase I assumed there people were somehow not "American" enough to be classified as American. The reality is I moved one or two articles from this category to Category:American actors because the articles provided no evidence that the people had Hong Kong ancestry at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this category is especially messed up because several of the people seem to better fit Category:American actors who perform in Hong Kong than the category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment None of these categories are about where people live or work. They are categories about the national origin of people who are now US citizens. Hmains (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment however many of the people who end up in this category lack any evidence that they have Hong Kong ancestry, the only evidence is that they were born in the US and currently work in Hong Kong. Anyway, the requirement is US nationals, not US citizens.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Then you are merely asserting that some articles should not be in the category, not that anything is wrong with the category per se. Whether articles belong in any particular category or not is based solely on the the content of the articles and that content is based on the seriousness of the work of the article writers. I suppose you can question all that in your drive to delete categories you don't like, but categories are for navigation and this many articles with a common thread need navigation aids. And the people here must be US citizens, as shown by the parent category here and all similar WP categories: "This
    category page lists notable citizens of the United States of Hong Kong ethnic or territorial origin or descent, whether partial or full." It is not what you make up or otherwise believe. Hmains (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom; OCAT - also per my comments on the other HK cat above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, but DO NOT DELETE. No arguments have been offered to support deletion, but a good case is made that Hong Kong ancestry is not a defining characteristic of an American actor, so I support upmerger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:American actors as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 3 November 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_October_19&oldid=1136462946"