Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 12

1015:

determining if this has happened or not is impossible for almost all bios. For one, it is wrong to assume American politicians who are of full Irish descent or even who self-identify as 'Irish American' have contributed to the Irish American experience, as it is to say that those who are only of partial Irish descent have not. The name

786:, considering their roles in America's big-city machines) to justify them being kept. Also, I feel that OCAT/EGRS is being called too strictly in this case. A further thing to consider is the size of the parent category if the pages in these categories are upmerged; it would be too large and unnavigable IMO 953:

I agree that renaming all of these to "of Fooian descent" at least implicitly lowered the inclusion threshold. "Fooian-American" suggests that it's a significant part of one's identity; "of Fooian descent" just means they had at least one Fooian ancestor, possibly many generations back. I can't say

1019:

can easily be seen to mean just what the present one does - a politician who happens to be of Irish descent. Moreover, very few bios make any mention of membership with Fooian-American political movements, and even fewer are well-sourced. (The whole by descent category tree should go, as sourcing

990:

relevant in the RW, the world which Knowledge (XXG) describes. It is reasonable that a user might want to see examples of this. No other justification is necessary--arguments based on the existence of prior Knowledge (XXG) rules are irrelevant if there is a need to do something--this is the basic

908:

has little connection or cause to be associated with some freshman representative in the present day whose great-great-grandfather came off the boat. Still, I'll change my !vote to neutral just for the irish cat, as it does at least have arguable merit. The rest are open and shut, IMO. As for

985:

The criteria for categories is usefulness. That a politician is of a particular ethnic or national origin is , like it or not, of great importance in american politics. I may be in complete agreement with Tarc that this ought to be irrelevant in the RW, but that has nothing to do with what

1014:

of Fooian descent (to maintain integrity of category tree). Impossible to maintain these cats for the distinction between which politicians of, for example, Irish descent have made a tangible difference to the Irish-American experience or Irish-American politics and which have not. Just

663:

Similarly, an "(ethnicity) politicians" category should only be created if politicians of that ethnic background constitute a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context. There is no significant or notable difference in context between being a

1630:

as a race licensing scheme ceased to exist at the end of 2010, so now all races which were UCI ProTour races are now classified differently (or are defunct) so there is no need for a distinction between ProTour races and former ProTour races as there are no current ones.

1417:. Any collaboration on the existing articles easily can be carried out on the talk page of the main article; if there is an opportunity to create additional articles on notable topics related to the band, then a WikiProject or task force would be more effective. -- 688:

The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that politicians of that ethnic background happen to

1367:

Cat creator and seeming only editor who has ever been in it is blocked for long-term disruptive editing after complete disregard for usertalkpage comments. No evidence of any collaborative attempts or interest in facilitating them, even if the cat

895:

Doesn't really cut it, IMO. We can't have an accepted editing guideline using examples of how not to categorize on the Knowledge (XXG), and turn around and have those examples actually exist. Strike up a discussion at

653:

and should not exist in their current state. Furthermore, these categories do not include "X-Americans" but rathers "Americans of X descent" - making them even more arbitrary than the examples given below. In

991:

idea of iar. If keeping these invalidates an example used elsewhere, the example must be changed. We may decide special cases as we think appropriate. It's not as if someone made the rules for us.

782:

For starters, they shouldn't have been blanket-deleted like this. Though some of them may be deletable, there is enough coverage and intersection in certain ethnicities (for example,

42: 37: 334: 939:. One is arbitrary and inclusive enough to carry just about every American politician ever. The other is more specific and refers to people like big-city machine bosses. 325: 21: 904:, I'm well-familiar with the influence of the Irish on American politics, but I'm not convinced we need to address them collectively with a category. 1511:

ceased to exist at the end of the 2010 season, the team licensing part of it was renamed (or rather, a technical usage became the common usage) to

307: 1349:

How does this not facilitate collaboration? Surely it has the opposite affect, so the C&D fans can work together on the relevant articles?

447: 237: 167: 587: 299: 132: 17: 1207: 1185: 1177: 1160: 1103: 439: 229: 159: 622: 579: 482: 272: 202: 124: 614: 552: 474: 412: 342: 264: 194: 544: 517: 404: 377: 509: 369: 290: 430: 220: 150: 570: 115: 605: 465: 255: 185: 535: 395: 936: 783: 714: 500: 360: 1295: 1303: 1598: 1286: 1414: 753: 954:

if in practice these categories got flooded with more tenuously-connected entries because of that name change, however.

932: 1606: 1189: 1016: 1796: 1675: 1651: 1589: 1559: 1535: 1463: 1439: 1410: 1387: 1327: 1256: 1232: 1089: 1065: 85: 1780: 1768: 1759: 1742: 1714: 1702: 1689: 1635: 1583: 1519: 1487: 1423: 1399: 1381: 1362: 1339: 1280: 1214: 1201: 1166: 1116: 1049: 1029: 1002: 967: 948: 926: 890: 858: 831: 809: 769: 742: 700: 109: 1698: 1579: 1483: 1276: 1131: 1112: 870: 789: 722: 105: 1795:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1650:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1534:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1495: 1438:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1413:. Any potential collaboration is, in this case, limited to four articles: the main article, the discography and 1231:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1064:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1674: