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.
Nominator's rationale: Since the category is automatic, I effectively moved it, I hope, by editing the Notice-nc-geo template to say "which" instead of "whom". If this works, then we can delete this category. Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2011 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The categories overlap. "Argentine comics" and Category:Argentine animation should have the all the content; besides, they are distinct categories (animation is not the same than still comics) and more widely used terms. The subcategory Category:Argentine cartoonists should be diffused into the two subcategories, "comic artists" and "comic writers" as needed Cambalachero (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2011 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: All people are people in history. The container categories for Indian and Chinese people certainly suffice, and the global category is just a synonym for "People."-- Mike Selinker (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per nom. The correct idea would be to categorize people as from certain periods in history, dont know if thats been done, but these would not even be the container cats for them.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2011 (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.
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, possibly temporarily. There's no prejudice in this close against creating an entire scheme for opera composers by nationality, but having only one won't do. If someone wants to take on the task of subcategorizing 1600 articles, go to it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The category of "Opera Composers" contains over 1,600 individuals. We should categorize them by nationality to increase the usability of the category, much like other similar categories are subcategorized by nationality.--Sanya3 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That this has not been done yet indicates to me that it shouldn't. There's an obvious potential for nationalistic and anachronistic categorisation, and as there is no easy way to reference category membership, it will invite controversial edits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2011 (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.
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, possibly temporarily. This seems a little more specious than the one above, as it feels like we've adequately categorized compositions by nationality of composer. But again, if someone wants to do the work, have at it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is difficult for me. I don't think that the fact that it's the only such category is a reason for deletion - that could be resolved by creating other such categories. What I see as the issue is that it's useful to a reader to be able to find in one location music (operas) of a particular country - but, as a case like Josef Mysliveček illustrates, that purpose isn't really served by the existing category either. But it's also not served by any existing category structure as far as I know - we have trees for language, and that may be all. No vote for now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tree at Category:Works by nationality is spectacularly incomplete: not a single Compositions by Italian or French people, three Compositions by German people (one of them Handel), one Compositions by an American composer. I suggest that creating these categories is fraught with problems of nationalistic and anachronistic categorisation, and as there is no easy way to reference category membership, they will invite controversial edits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2011 (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.
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 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:Populated places in the United States with Asian plurality populations
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.
Oppose I deliberately did not include the "American" in the formulation of this category name. The issue is that the population is of Asian racial origin, as self-identified on the census. There is no reason to presume that the people so identifying are actually "American" in any sense of the word. In some parts of the US, especially college towns, many of these people are foriegn citizens in the US on temporrary (in college towns, student) visas, who in most cases intend on returning to their home countries in the near future. There are clear and distinct ethnic enclaves involved here, but the data we are using with does not lend to subsuming these people as American when in fact the term used on the census is Asian and not Asian American. Thus it is not analogous to the African American issue. On census forms the terms is Hispanic or Latino. Inserting American is even less justified there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment race, and being Hispanic/Latino or not that are queried on the US census, and the results are released. These factors are described for all census designated places, be they cities, towns, villages or just designated places. They are also described for states, counties and townships.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2011 (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.
