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:English rappers, Category:English people of Jamaican descent and Category:Jamaican rappers and Delete. I want to note that consensus seems to be for a merge, but merging to British categories does not make sense, because the only article in the category under discussion is Kano (rapper), which currently belongs to the two above mentioned English categories (and should remain there). Ruslik_Zero 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize the American ones existed. OK then, I suppose it may be OK. Not sure. Why exactly would it be good to subcategorize British ones by ethnicity? Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reasons Americans rappers are subcategorized by ethnicity: navigational purposes, defining characteristics—the whole enchilada. The lack of subcategorization by ethnicity goes to show that we aren't done. — ξxplicit 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I want to see what others think. Subcategorizing every nationality–profession category by ethnicity is not necessarily the way to go. I'm a little unsure if this is a good idea here. A category for "Jamaican-American rappers" was deleted here. My mind could be changed. If kept, I agree with your rename suggestion, though. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parents Category:British rappers and Category:British people of Jamaican descent. The Americans do seem very keen on 'Fooian Americans' but let us not mimic this throughout wikipedia. (I have never heard of anyone being described as 'Jamaican Briton' or 'Jamaican-British'.) Occuli (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2009 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Australian politicians have not in the past been categorized by service in a "Shadow Cabinet"—this hasn't been done in general or by a specific year's S.C. I don't think it's a good idea to start, either. Membership in a shadow cabinet is not an official governmental position—it's more of an internal party/parliamentary set-up that parties in parliamentary opposition form for convenience and structure. I was going to suggest converting this into an article somehow, but Shadow Cabinet of Australia seems to be what I would have suggested. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the shadow cabinet is far more defining and objective than implied in the nomination, even without this being an official position, the issue here is probably WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. With the same party in opposition for a period of time, the same individuals will appear in yearly shadow cabinet categories, leading to one of the rare genuine instances of likely overcategorization. Alansohn (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Alansohn, both of whom advance good reasons. This sort of topic can make an excellent basis for an article or list, and it doesn't need to be just the current shadow cabinet, which is all that is included in Shadow Cabinet of Australia. There's plenty of scope for articles on previous shadow cabinets, which could be grouped by year or by parliament, but any categorisation-by-shadow-cabinet is probably a bad idea, and categorisation-by-shadow-cabinet-by-year is a a recipe for horrendous category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alansohn. If Alansohn says delete then the position is indeed beyond repair. Occuli (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Enigmamsg 22:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People associated with Pope Pius XI[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Another in a line of "people associated with PERSON" categories. The principal problem with these categories is their vagueness. What degree of connection with the subject needs to be established before they are added into the category? Not surprisingly, the categories like this are always undefined. Generally we have not chosen to categorize people by people. If a person needs to be connected to Pope Pius XI in Wikipedia, the Pope can be mentioned in the article about the person, and if the connection is even more substantial, the person can even be mentioned and linked to in Pope Pius XI. (I note that there are also categories for Category:Saints canonized by Pope Pius XI, Category:Cardinals created by Pope Pius XI, and Category:Bishops appointed by Pope Pius XI for people associated in specific ways.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The inclusion criteria for these "associated with X" categories are usually left vague, which fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE; but applying some threshold of association fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Falls at every hurdle. Occuli (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, and ample precedent. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2009 (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.
