Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 15

< August 14 August 16 >

August 15

Category:Fashn villages

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 as empty under criteria C1. The Bushranger One ping only 16:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Fashn villages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: no parent article. Frietjes (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2013 (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:Drake (entertainer) albums

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
  • Category:Drake (entertainer) albums to Category:Drake (rapper) albums
  • Category:Drake (entertainer) songs to Category:Drake (rapper) songs
Nominator's rationale: To match the new disambiguation for Drake that was reached through requested move on talk page STATic message me! 20:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This was two separate nominations with an identical rationale, so I have merged them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to match renamed head article. Can be speedied per WP:CFD/S#C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match head article. We almost always match disambiguation of head articles with category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2013 (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:Superbombs

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. If someone wants to listify, the contents were: BLU-82, Bouncing bomb, Castle Bravo, Divine Strake, Doomsday device, Earthquake bomb, Father of All Bombs, GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, Grand Slam (bomb), Ivy King, Ivy Mike, Mark 17 nuclear bomb, Massive Ordnance Penetrator, Nuclear bunker buster, Perseus (munition), T-12 Cloudmaker, Tallboy (bomb), Tsar Bomba, Tsunami bomb. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Superbombs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category seems to have a bit arbitrary inclusion criteria, and one subject to WP:OR, grouping the contents by a non-defining characteristic. The Bushranger One ping only 20:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There have, to be sure, been a number of weapons that have been referred to as "super bombs". But I'm inclined to agree that it's basically a subjective designation, lacking sufficiently clear definition to serve as a category. This would probably be better served by a List-article, where the characteristics of each weapon that merits the description of "superbomb" can be delineated. Btw, I'm a little surprised to discover that there's no Wiki article about "superbombs" -- just a redirect to "Nuclear weapon". Cgingold (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify a list can better reflect why each item is listed -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete a vague grouping lacking any congent rationale for inclusion. Seyasirt (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a description on the category, which is cogent. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point, I believe, is that there is no rational reason for such a rationaile - it's just "these things make big booms". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not clear the inclusion criteria fits with a clear, succinct and standard use of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Category:Bombs -- This seems to be a miscellany of unusual kinds of bomb, with no clear criterion for inclusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Not Merge - all the articles in this category are already properly categorised under subcategories of Category:Bombs - that is, all the ones that are acutally bombs, as this category contains several articles that are not about bombs at all. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I see nothing here discussed about the other parent Category:Superweapons and its article Superweapons. When discussing categories it is very helpful if all the parents are looked at and thought about. Hmains (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is. I see nothing in the history of these articles showing they were ever in the Category:Bombs; there is no merging back to do. They have been in the category Category:Superbombs since that category was created in 2005; before that they were in its parent Category:Superweapons. See the article Superweapons for why they are placed in these super categories. Hmains (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er...they're not, and never were, in Category:Bombs, because they're in subcategories of that. Having been in this category for a long time doesn't make it appropriate, and furthermore, some of the objects categorised here are not even weapons. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above (subjective, etc.); even, if we take the category at its word, it's a current category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The vast majority of bombs are weapons of mass destruction. Clearly all atomic bombs are, and this category is more specific than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2013 (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:Rural Osceola County

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. The Bushranger One ping only 17:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Rural Osceola County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No obvious reason to categorize this one article in this way. There is no article on Rural Osceola County. The article is already categorized in the parent Category:Geography of Osceola County, Florida. Tassedethe (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a standard way to subdivide county categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William 14:52, 20 August 2013 (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:Cancelled military aircraft projects

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's a number of problems with this categorisation, which is basically "aircraft that did not go into production". First, it's not defining. Secondly, it varies enough to be confusing - some types, such as the Convair YB-60, were evaluated and discared, while others, such as the Savoia-Marchetti SM.89, might well have gone into production had it not been for Italy exiting World War II. And even the definition of "what was cancelled" is too nebulous to be useful - the Mirage 4000, with 0 production aircraft built, clearly fits the category scope. However the P-75 Eagle had six production examples built before being given the axe, and would fit the "spirit" of the category's scope even though it did go into production - and the F-22 Raptor, 185 production aircraft built, was very much "cancelled"; it could be argued that, unlike unflown types which have a clear distinction, the definiton of "cancelled" and the criterion for inclusion in this category border on WP:OR. And do types like the Northrop YA-9 fit "cancelled" when they were, in fact, not selected in preference to another type instead? In addition, there is significant confusion between this tree and the 'Abandoned military aircraft projects' tree, which is intended for unflown types (and is a defining categorisation itself).
Basically the scope is too nebulous, arbitrary and unclear; the subject is insufficiently defining; it's inherently confusing due to its similarity with the sufficiently defining 'Abandoned' tree; and I believe the "Foo bars xxxx-xxxx" scheme used for all flown aircraft is sufficent.
(Note:Before nominating these categories for deletion, I moved a number of miscategorised articles for 'flown but not produced' types from the "Abandoned aircraft of Foo" tree for 'unflown' types to this one. If the consensus is that this category tree should be kept, I will diffuse this tree by country.) The Bushranger One ping only 16:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category includes aircraft intended primarily for military use that underwent flight testing but did not see selection for production. If any of the many entries in the category and its subcategories don't fit, then remove them from there. Dream Focus 16:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've completely missed the point of the nomination, I think. They do, all of them, fit that description of the categories' scope. However I believe that scope itself is undefining, impossibly broad, and subject to WP:OR interpretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Abandoned to Cancelled. This is too fine a distinction to be useful for navigation. The implied "flight" difference between abandoned and cancelled is hopelessly obscure. Categorization is primarily a navigational feature – how does such an arbitrary and unexpected split help readers to find a project by its name, something that should be trivial? Finally, what about the Tarrant Tabor or the Nimrod MRA4? The Tabor attempted a flight, but didn't. For the MRA4, the ability to fly was the least of its problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesnt really add anything or as the nominator says not defining that it is cancelled, abandoned tree is fine for those that didnt make it to fly. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Andy Dingley (talk). Looking through Derek Wood's Project cancelled there is a whole mishmash of final states - still on the drawing-board, models flown, research aircraft flown, prototypes flown, etc. Creating dividing lines will only cause heat. @The Bushranger, I would say that the F-22 Raptor was not "cancelled" in the sense used here - there are dozens of the darned thing in active service. Maybe the later part of the procurement program was cancelled, but the aircraft project itself certainly was not. Let's stay grounded (to coin a phrase). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs more looking at - the "cancelled" UK aircraft cat suggests post-flight trial cancellation of the projects in question, thus assuming the "abandoned" ones were pre-flight trial. If this is a clear and general enough distinction, we should perhaps investigate the possibility of refining the definition of the various cats rather than wholesale deleting them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is (and was all along) the intended definition, yes; right now all the 'Abandoned' ones should be unflown types only (not sure if there's unflown types miscategoriesd in the 'Cancelled', will check later). My main case here is that while (given there is consensus that unflown types shouldn't be categorised with flown types which are categorised by first flight date - for obvious reasons) unflown is defining, cancellation after flying isn't sufficently defining for categorisation. However, as mentioned, if there's consensus that it is, I'll work on diffusing and cleaning things up. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as indicated too broad and undefined to be truly useful as a cat. - Ahunt (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects. The distinction between whehter they were stopped before or after test flights began is too fine to be useful. The important thing is that the aircaft was not delivered to the Air Force or deplyed. I must challenge those who are voting for deletion. These include a number of important projects such as BAC TSR-2, which should certainly be in some category such as this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects, as a useful sub-section of the parents Category:Abandoned military projects and Category:Cancelled aircraft projects. Most of the members are called "abandoned" so that name would probably fit better, although I note the points made about the differences in meaning. It seems to me that as long as the parents are acceptable, these sub-cats can be kept and should follow the criteria applied to both parents. – Fayenatic London 23:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The characteristic is both clear and defining. As with many categories there are potential borderline cases that should be considered at the article level, but the grouping here provides an effective aid to navigation across articles sharing a sotong common characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very clear and very defining, and different from "unflown". -- cyclopiaspeak! 16:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "by country" categories per nom, but rename Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects to Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects. DexDor (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; projects which are abandoned, cancelled, etc. is just an opposite of a current category. Presumably, the Dreadnought Class ships are all abandoned now, e.g.,... Carlossuarez46 (talk)
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:PG-13 films that drop the F-bomb

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: f-ing deleted. The Bushranger One ping only 17:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:PG-13 films that drop the F-bomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:CATEGORY says, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. While there is coverage about how films rated PG and PG-13 use the word "fuck" (sometimes more than once), it is not close to being an essential or defining characteristic of a film. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Erik said, it's not a defining characteristic, I'm not sure it's notable, and it's poorly phrased with a colloquialism. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Insulam Simia (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Erik. It isn't remotely notable. MarnetteD | Talk 16:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not categorize films by rating, let alone by rating plus use of one word, at possibly one point, in the film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte as being non-defining. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • F-delete in no way or sense an encyclopedic categorisation of films. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a defining characteristic, and could be a possible WP:OR violation regarding how people found "fuck" in the scripts, especially if they were posted on IMDb, which isn't a reliable source. ZappaOMati 20:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To make things even more fun, often the posted scripts that can be found for a movie are very different than the actual film. Even if you could find a posted copy of the draft of the script used in filming you would not be sure the actors had kept to the script. Also, many films have some scenes filmed but cut later on. Another factor is, if a film met this characteristic with a DVD released version with additional footage than what had been shown in theatres, what should we do then? Lastly, if this word is worth categorizing by, what other words should we categorized by?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While swearing in childrens' films can be notable (I believe Skyfall received a huge amount of publicity over it), the problem is if it goes for PG13 it also goes for 12A in the UK, M rated films in Australia etc. A list would be much better where we could list the films and include all the relevant children's ratings for it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1) now empty (2) PG-13 is a national not worldwide designation (3) I guess this was designed tom house one film. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete humorous but not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I love this category, its an awesome idea, but sadly we cannot keep it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2013 (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:Chemical compounds found in animals

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. In checking I noticed the subcategories. Since there was no support to retain this, the question is the subcategories. They probably need a separate nomination. There may need to be a different discussion on some like toxins and hormones which may not be deletable under the logic used in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Chemical compounds found in animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Such a category does not make sense. There are thousands or even millions of chemical compounds found in animals, including simple molecules such as water, carbon dioxide or sodium chloride. If the detection limit is low enough, virtually every chemical ever produced will be found! Leyo 13:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A well intentioned but otherwise ill-advised category as explained above. The resulting category would be unwieldy and virtually infinite. Smokefoot (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resort the entire category tree there's no restriction on being naturally occurring in animals, so if the animal drank contaminated water, you could find literally anything in an animal; They might be resorted to become naturally produced/occurring biochemicals of those creatures. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is overly broad. Being found in humans is not a defining characteristic of water.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Fell the tree. This is far too broad, and rather too like a performance (chemical) by performer category (occurence in species). I can see that there might be a case for a category for chemicals, whose main natural source was a particular species. This may apply to some substances used in perfumes (or other cosmetics). However, we were to have such a category, we would need to starft again. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining, and with who-knows-what in food, animal feed, and the food chain, virtually everything could be encompassed by this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2013 (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:1st-century disestablishments in Turkey

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/delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:1st-century disestablishments in Turkey to Category:1st-century disestablishments in Asia Minor
Nominator's rationale: per emerging consenus on Turkey BC categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also making the following related nominations:

  • Propose merging Category:72 disestablishments in Turkey to Category:1st-century disestablishments in Asia Minor - one article in entire century, relating to the Kingdom of Commagene, conquered by Rome in 72.
  • Propose deleting Category:70s disestablishments in Turkey - no other content.
  • Propose deleting Category:70s in Turkey - no other content.
  • Propose deleting Category:1st century in Turkey - no other content. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Merge/Delete per nom. Asia Minor is the right term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William 17:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete' per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2013 (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.

Categories for Turkey before it existed

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. Some points were made in the discussion about options for other categorizations. Nothing in this close prevents those if they are justified by sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:520s establishments in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Turkey did not exist at this period. A Byzantine Empire category has been added to articles, where I am proposing deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:6th-century establishments in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: only contains category nominated above. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:6th century in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- for same reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:7th-century establishments in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: contains two articles. One on a Byzantine theme (province) - Byzantine category added to article. The other is an Armenian church: I have added nothing, as I do not know what polity to add. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:7th century in Turkey -- for same reason. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:9th-century establishments in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: only contains one article, to which I have added a Byzantine Empire category. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:9th century in Turkey -- for same reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:1st-millennium establishments in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: only contains three categories nominated above. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might have contained a 1st century category, which is the subject of a separate nomination above. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:1122 establishments in Turkey
  • Propose deleting Category:1120s establishments in Turkey
  • Propose deleting Category:12th-century establishments in Turkey
  • Propose deleting Category:1203 establishments in Turkey
  • Propose deleting Category:1200s establishments in Turkey
  • Propose deleting Category:13th-century establishments in Turkey
Nominator's rationale: only one article in each tree. This is on a monastery in Armenian Cilicia. Two categories have been added to articles to reflect that. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a series of CFD, CFR and CFD noms on this subject, now complete. I am not nominating 11th century in Turkey and beyond as there are other contents: maybe later. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Turkey is not the right term for this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anatolia (nearly all of Turkey) is a possibility though. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're on to something, Johnbod. Either "Anatolia" or "Asia Minor" would probably serve well, as they are both based on geography rather than political boundaries. Cgingold (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply from nom) The one item that I did not recategorise (by adding another one or two) was a Georgian monastery just beyond the present boundary of Georgia. The outcome for the Turkey BC categories looked as if was going to be "Asia Minor". I agree Anatolia is an alternative, and would not stand against a consensus for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all while Anatolia is a good substitute, what would go into it? Anatolia is not a political entity which is always a parent to 'establishment' categories; it is a geographic term. Hmains (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Turkey did not exist at the times in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the unhistoric categories per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2013 (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:Moral philosophers

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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I see no distinction here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm wondering how much thought and careful consideration went into this proposal. Is it based on serious knowledge and/or research of the subject? It seems to me that the relevant WikiProject should have been noticed on this proposal, as their expertise and input would be very helpful. Cgingold (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now posted notice of this CFD at WikiProject Philosophy. Cgingold (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - The issue is not a simple one. There is a substantial overlap, and in some cases, the usage is completely synonymous with "ethicist." However, there are also a substantial number of members who are not ethicists (i.e. they don't write about applied ethics, or particular issues like abortion or conflicts of interest, etc.), but rather write about general concepts. Those I would call "Meta-ethicists." So a merge with ethicists would be an inappropriate loss, but the category is full of ethicists too. Perhaps a rename to Category:Meta-ethicists will help, but that term is rare, even when appropriate. They are usually just called moral philosophers in those cases. Greg Bard (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this comment, Gregbard. Hopefully some other members of WikiProject Philosophy will join the discussion too. Cgingold (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I formally changed my vote from "comment" to "oppose." There is an issue here, but merging the categories is not the answer. perhaps creating a "meta-ethicists" catgeory will help, but that will take some effort of sorting through the moral philosophers category. Even if we do that, we will discover that most of the time the "meta-ethicists" are just called "moral philosophers." I don't know what to do, mostly because my sense is that it would be up to me to do all of the work. So until I have the time to sort out a bunch of "meta-ethicists" and people who are really just ethicists, but are refered to as "moral philosophers," I'll have to get back to the group on that issue. Greg Bard (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not all moral philosophers and ethicists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I'm not sure if I buy the reason above: I would still accept serious metaethics scholars as "ethicists". I think a more serious opposition is the other way: There are some ethicists which base their theories almost entirely on theological concerns, and any revelation-independent reasoning is secondary and rather pedestrian. These are ethicists, but I don't think they are normally called moral philosophers. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if we cannot articulate how these differ because the inclusion criteria are not specific, then perhaps neither ought be kept. Moreover, "moral philosophers" sounds more like a contrast to "immoral philosophers"... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something - this cateory isn't about philosophers who are moral, which is what the category name seems to mean - and that is clearly not the intention (for one thing, it would be too POV-based). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Carlossuarez and Od Mishehu, the term "moral philosopher" is well used and understood just fine. We can't lower ourselves to the lowest common denominator for everything or we will have a pretty dumbed down Wikipedia, and no one will learn anything. I think we have has similar issues with the term "logical" which resulted in dumbing down terms that are well used and understood in the field of logic, just to accommodate people who have no idea what they are doing. Now the wrong term is being used in those cases. Perhaps we should also rename "ethical egoism" because someone might get the idea that it is has to be an "ethical" theory if Wikipedia says so?! Greg Bard (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have to agree with Gregbard, here. The suggestion that the term "moral philosopher" might lead readers to think it refers to "philosophers who are moral" strikes me as pretty silly. I have no problem with using the term. It seems to me that the real question is whether Moral philosophers are a reasonably well-defined group which can be distinguished from other philosophers, and in particular, from Ethicists. A related question is whether it might be appropriate for one individual to be included in both categories? Cgingold (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2013 (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:Ethnic enclaves in Australia

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 delete. I find the arguments in favour of "keep" to be somewhat more persuasive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. considerable discussion is occuring about this, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney ethnic enclaves, the term enclave in Australia is very POV and largely undefined. the 4 items in this category have been selected arbitarily. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While you claim it wasn't defined in the Australian premier dictionary Macquarie Dictionary [1] I found that it in fact did give a clear definition in it. [2] "a small district or area enclosed within a larger one, as a suburb within a city, especially one characterised by a racial or political identity." The three subcategories are enough to justify keeping the category, even if someone finds a legitimate reason to remove the other four entries. Category:Ethnic enclaves by country shows other categories of this type often list the Chinatowns and whatnot. Dream Focus 03:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
consensus is showing clearly at the AfD that it is POV and unclear how a suburb gets listed as an enclave. even you have failed to provide a criterion for being on the list or category despite me asking multiple times. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
categories are only valid if there is clear unambiguous criteria for including articles, how does the dictionary definition provide any guidance on how to include suburbs in this category? it gives zero guideance. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Australian news coverage found refers to the racial/ethnic identity of different areas quite clearly. We go by reliable sources. Dream Focus 04:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so opinion of journalists where the word "enclave" is used? what happens if there are multiple ethnicities in a suburb?LibStar (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also find it very inconsistent if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney ethnic enclaves was deleted and this category was allowed to exist. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or doesn't). - The Bushranger One ping only 16:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - the term "enclave" is consistently used in the context of racism in Australia, as I pointed out with the list of sources in this edit at the associated AFD where the term is used to denigrate Jews, Asians and Aborigines.
Dream Focus, I usually find your inclusionism refreshing but with all due respect, this is not one you should be fighting to save. Even the sources you highlighted at the AFD acknowledge it as a term of "derision" and the one old white man who might be considered a reliable source for grouping these people in this way questions the legitimacy of the term in that context. Stalwart111 05:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, "the one old white man"? Do we question sources based on age, race or sex now? - The Bushranger One ping only 16:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Bushranger, I think you know this has nothing to do with "censorship" and suggesting that is what we are suggesting is a strawman. This is a matter of what, in Australia, could accurately be described as an "ethnic enclave" because reliable sources from Australia don't describe locations in that way, because their use of the term differs. Can anyone provide a reliable source sufficient enough to categorise any of the articles in the category as "ethnic enclaves"? I doubt it. What has happened is simple WP:OR arithmetic - "ethnic enclaves" have x features - these locations in Australia have x features - therefore these locations are "ethnic enclaves".
And yeah, I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the age and race contexts of a source where age and race are the issues in question. Even he questions the use of the term in the article that has been used as a source. I don't think anyone would have an issue with me questioning the reliability of an older Jewish Israeli writing about young Palestinians. But questioning the language used by an older, white demographer writing about young ethnic minorities is a problem? Stalwart111 00:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Australia doesn't have ethnic "enclaves" - with the exception of remote Indigenous Australian communities, no group (other than Anglo Saxons!) dominates particular suburbs or towns, and in areas which have higher than average concentrations of people from particular backgrounds those people routinely travel outside the area and mingle with people from other backgrounds on a day-to-day basis: Australia is a multicultural and diverse country where most people get along with each other reasonably well, and there aren't any major ethnic divisions. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what the Australian newspapers say. [3] The Australian parliamentary secretary for immigration and multicultural affairs, Andrew Robb, talked about in an newspaper article titled Ethnic enclave fears, explaining how "the community is, encouraging people to live (as) separate cultures" and "AUSTRALIA faced ethnic enclaves and alienation of migrant youth". Other news sources talk about the ethnic enclaves. You have entire streets where all the signs are in Chinese, no English about at all. Dream Focus 14:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"You have entire streets where all the signs are in Chinese, no English about at all." I've never seen that in Australia even in Chinatowns, can you provide sources? LibStar (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just various pictures people have posted online. You see signs of all the businesses in Chinese and none in English. Not sure how common it is, but it does seem to happen. Dream Focus 16:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can a photo show every single sign on one street?your claim that in Australia "You have entire streets where all the signs are in Chinese, no English about at all" is original research. LibStar (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in Australia, these are not automatically labelled enclaves, as discussed above the term is mainly used with negative connotation, there is still no criterion for assigning this category to this suburb, still waiting... LibStar (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have not shown its used with any negative connotations. Even government officials use the term. And the criteria is that reliable sources have called them ethnic enclaves, or there is consensus that it meets all the requirements to be labeled an ethnic enclave. I doubt anyone doubts that Chinatotwns are clearly ethnic enclaves. Dream Focus 16:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"there is consensus that it meets all the requirements to be labeled an ethnic enclave." Neither this discussion nor the AfD are showing that consensus, no one agrees with you so far. LibStar (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting me out of context there. All the categories of this type by country, Category:Ethnic_enclaves_by_country, have Chinatowns, etc, listed in them. So standing consensus is that they count as ethnic enclave. If you disagree, start a discussion about it. Are you going to nominate all of those other ethnic enclave categories as well for deletion? Do you honestly doubt that Chinatown, Sydney is an ethnic enclave? Please answer and don't ignore that question. Dream Focus 17:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly anyone lives in Chinatown in Sydney, or Little Italy in Melbourne: these are a few blocks of specialised shops and restaurants in the middle of the central business district of these cities. To the extent anyone lives there, the population is mixed. You appear to be ignorant of the demographic geography of Australian cities. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Nick's excellent thoughts. Also Check Google street view for Dixon st, Sydney where Sydney's Chinatown is. Plenty of signs in English. Rather a made up claim there are streets in Australia with signs only in Chinese, that's a poor understanding of Australia's demographic. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 17:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stalwart111, Nick-D et al. There are, and can be, no clear criteria for inclusion in this category - nor should we attempt to define any in order to prop up a POV, OR, derisory Category. Kill with fire. Begoon talk 06:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless someone can provide a convincing explanation of why Auatralia is an exceptional case, I see no rationale for deleting this category whilst retaining the other subcats of Category:Ethnic enclaves by country. Either keep em or all delete all ... and explain why Australia is an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a reason for keeping. It has been explained above that enclave is a negative term in Australia. LibStar (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED because a term is negative in a location, and we generally do not "selectively prune" categories that are part of established category trees. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALLORNOTHING refers to articles, not categories.
An article is substantive content, but a category is a navigational device, and one of the basic principles which keeps the category system usable is consistency. Wikipedia is written for a global audience, not just for an Australian one, so the argument that the term in negative applies to all subcats of Category:Ethnic enclaves by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Selectively pruning" parts of established category trees is not something we do. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as we have any place that is an ethnic enclave, and have the general category, we should keep this category. I am not sure this category is quite set up to deal with places that experience significant ethnic change over time though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of an established category tree. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED because the term might have negative connotations; if there are issues with the contents, that needs to be done using normal editing, as, like AfD, CfD shouldn't be used for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "issue with the contents" is that the contents aren't what the category suggests they are. If the categorisation here reflected what reliable sources said about the subjects, there would be no category. Stalwart111 00:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of category tree, per remarks of preceding editors. Cgingold (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As it seems likely this category will be Kept, I would like to suggest that an explanatory note be added to inform Australian readers that the term is not considered derogatory elsewhere in the world, and that no offense is intended by its use. Cgingold (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for all the drive-by "keep" votes, nobody has actually managed to explain how we avoid having the category completely depopulated because no reliable sources exist to describe and of the categorised locations as "ethnic enclaves". The categorisation here is based on pure OR - "ethnic enclaves" have x features - these locations in Australia have x features - therefore these locations are "ethnic enclaves". They're not "ethnic enclaves" just because a visiting American might describe them that way. Australia doesn't have (as has been explained ad nauseum) ethnic enclaves in the same way as other countries and where we have something approaching them, we certainly don't call them "ethnic enclaves". Those articles that appear in the category are inaccurately categorised and should be removed. Stalwart111 00:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment currently there are 3 suburbs in this category (I doubt any of the keep !voters actually checked this). I have no idea how Canterbury, New South Wales was even added, no reliable sources establish the fact it's an ethnic enclave. the category is being applied in a POV fashion with no clear criteria. no keep vote has given clear unambiguous criteria. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, yeah. 45.6% of people living there were born in Australia and 29% of residents (the largest group) consider themselves Catholic compared to Australia's 25.3%. So what we have is an "ethnic enclave" of Australian-born non-immigrant Catholics. That isn't an "enclave" in even the loosest and most liberal sense of the word, in fact it's the exact opposite. And with 20% of the population speaking English only, Hurstville is supposed to be an "enclave" of what? It's recognised as a point of significant migration in the 1960s, but not from China, though people of Chinese descent now make up about 1/3 of the population (though most, it seems, speak English). So much for the "every sign is Chinese" claim and nothing close to any definition of an "enclave". Can I remove them both from the category? Stalwart111 03:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it's not just "every sign in Chinese", it is You have entire streets where all the signs are in Chinese, no English about at all. If anyone can demonstrate this by referring to an Australian street on Google street view, let me know and I will withdraw this nomination. otherwise the claim is original research to the max. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's not even the case in areas like Chinatown (any of them) where it might even be considered acceptable or a novelty. Certainly not the case in regular suburbs, even those with lots of immigrants. Back on the Category itself, take Malay Town (which might struggle for notability in its own right, but it's a cool story) which is sourced to a Parliamentary Committee hearing where one of those being heard by the Committee introduced it with the following:

When my grandfather left the Torres Strait and brought his family down here, there was a place called ‘Malay Town’ set up in Cairns where a whole range of people lived — Aborigines, Torres Strait Islanders, Malays, Chinese, Indians; in fact, everybody except Europeans — and there were probably one or two of them that no-one else wanted.

Which is to say that rather than being an "enclave" of a particular ethnicity or culture, it was a place where you were accepted for being "anything other than white". How the hell is that an "enclave"? Stalwart111 03:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is well used in sociological literature on Australian immigration. Here some examples (copied and pasted from my own comments on the article AfD):
  • In "Sociology in Today's World" there is a full chapter devoted to the concept of "ethnic enclave" in Australia/NZ, where you can find a definition of the term, which has no offensive/slur overtones at all: "An ethnic enclave is a spatial concentration of ethnic group members who establish businesses that serve and employ mainly members of the ethnic group and reinvest profits in community businesses and organization" and then discusses the Vietnamese enclave in Sydney and others in Australia.
  • Here we have another academic book giving definitions and discussions (still in the context of Sydney/Australia): "The ethnic enclave is understood as an ethnic concentration with a high degree of institutional completeness, or self-sufficiency" (K.Valtonen, "Social Work and Migration:Immigrant and Refugee Settlement and Integration").
More books:
  • Here the Sephardic community in Sydney is discussed in terms of an ethnic enclave
  • "Dunn notes that 40% of Sydney's Vietnamese population lives in Fairfield (...) the area being viewed problematically as an ethnic enclave" (Keith Jacobs," Experience and Representation:Contemporary Perspectives on Migration in Australia")
  • "Newly arrived migrants (...) adjust in life in the partially familiar environment of an ethnic enclave (M.Price, L. Benton-Short : "Migrants to the Metropolis:The Rise of Immigrant Gateway Cities")
And news sources follow: "Unlike the mixed population of Greenacre, Annandale is an ethnic enclave where residents are surrounded by those of their kind." (Sydney Morning Herald) ; "Arncliffe, 10km south of the city centre, a place settled mainly by Lebanese Muslims since the 1970s that was once feared to be an ethnic enclave of crime and unemployment." (The Australian). Do I need to add more sources? There are. Before replying, please take care of giving them a look.
More book sources that establish the term:
  • Chinese-Australian speaks about her life: "My parents had no desire to move out of the security of their ethnic enclave" (Lucille Lok-Sun Ngan, Chan Kwok-bun , "The Chinese Face in Australia:Multi-generational Ethnicity among Australian-born Chinese")
  • "Some people living in an ethnic enclave may be discouraged from learning English and acquiring knowledge about Australian bureaucracies" (Curtis C. Roseman, Hans-Dieter Laux, Günter Thieme, "EthniCity:Geographic Perspectives on Ethnic Change in Modern Cities")
  • And oh yes, there is one source that deems the term "problematic", but nevertheless employs it, saying that a neighbourhood of Sydney is not simply an ethnic enclave: [4]. -- cyclopiaspeak! 13:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, per AFD - those sources don't say what you seem to think they say, in fact some say the exact opposite. Stalwart111 14:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhm, I disagree. See the first for example. Other editors can look at them by themselves and decide. -- cyclopiaspeak! 15:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
for something to be a category there needs to clear criteria to add an individual subrb into this category. Let's look at some of these sources from Cyclopia, almost all do not establish individual suburbs of Sydney as ethnic enclaves but generally refer to the concept of enclaves generally in Australia. An argument for keep here is that sources exist, but none of these sources "prove" individual suburbs as enclaves. this provides no base for including including individual suburbs in this category
  • this one mentions ethnic enclaves but the word Sydney is several paragraphs later, so it does not directly refer to the existence of ethnic enclaves in particular suburbs.
  • similarly this one and this and this do not refer to suburbs that may be enclaves.
  • this one does not argue Annandale is an ethnic enclave is actually says Not only do suburbs such as Annandale and Newtown have fewer migrants than the average Sydney suburb.
  • this one is someone's opinion in a book and again does not refer to specific suburbs in Sydney
  • this one specifically refers to Arncliffe, but it seems to refer to enclave as a term used in the past not present. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is clear that the Chinatowns fit in this category. Other things may be there wrongly, but wrong contents is not a reason to delete, it is a reason to remove them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As part of an established pattern within the WP category tree. Exceptions are not to be made for individual countries though sometimes local names are used within a broad category structure. Enclaves may be anything from a neighborhood on up in population and size Hmains (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very akin to the ethnic majority/plurality cats we deleted for the US, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't deleted, it was just turned into a list because the handful of people in that discussion decided it'd be best for that situation. List of Populated places in the United States with African American plurality populations Dream Focus 11:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this whole ridiculously-titled tree. Checking the UK category, I find I live in an "ethnic enclave", where in fact about 5% of the population are of the ethnicity concerned, though others come from further away to use the shops and restaurants. This is not an "enclave", nor are the Australian ones. Otherwise Delete. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the definition of Ethnic enclave, they could in theory have no residents at all and just be a concentration of a certain type of businesses. So yes, Chinatown qualifies as an ethnic enclave, even if it is no longer a residential one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to actually be a definition of "urban enclave", as used by some sociologists. It is a thoroughly unsuitable term to use in a category name, as in general speech it means places like Nagorno-Karabakh. The article needs rewriting too; it rightly has a worldwide tag, but doesn't cover the general meaning even in American English. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a de facto independent country, and then it is the only possible meaning. I have seen lots of descriptions of Hamtramck, Michigan as having been an ethnic enclave especially at its height. There might be a slightly better term to describe places like Chinatown, New York City, but just because the term is not the best does not mean we should delete. Less than ideal terms means we should rename, not that we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also just because someone was born in Australia does not make then an undifferentiated, without other ethnicity, Australian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note. While this AfD discussion is open, I don't think it makes sense to try and close this. So I'm going to leave this open at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not really related. If that article is deleted it does not mean we have to delete this one. The Chinatowns in Australia were clearly when fully functioning ethnic enclaves, and the ones that still exist as business concentrations are at present. If you look at the definition of ethnic enclave in our article it can be a business district with no residents where the majority of the businesses are owned and operated by people of a specific ethnicity. It is clear that there are some ethnic enclaves in Australia, whatever happens to the list about such in and around Sydney.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2013 (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/2013_August_15&oldid=1140219211"