Adobe After Effects is a post-production software for cartoons, films and video games and this product dominates the market place: way back in 2006 Macworld wrote that "Adobe After Effects has long been the 300-pound gorilla of compositing and motion-graphics applications" (link) and, in 2019, this software won a freaking Academy Award. The closest comparisons I can find are Category:Black-and-white films or Category:Squigglevision, but both of those are more defining aspects which are visible to consumers, not a back-end technology. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Edinburgh Festival Fringe is the world's largest arts festival and we actually have articles on 3 publications entirely or mostly dedicated to the festival but with little growth possiblity. Most of the category contents are general publications though, like The Scotsman, The Guardian and The Herald, which cover the festival amongst countless other stories. (Alternatively, if kept, we could purge to just the 3 articles.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and merge per nom. I only found two of these that were purely about the Edinburgh Festival. A few were also covering some other festivals, but for newspapers that cover the fringe and news generally, this is a PERFCAT. When purged there will not be enough to merit a cat; hence merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and merge per nom. I only found two of these that were purely about the Edinburgh Festival. A few were also covering some other festivals, but for newspapers that cover the fringe and news generally, this is a PERFCAT. When purged there will not be enough to merit a cat; hence merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title is confusing in that it fails to distinguish that this regarding disciplines that make up a sport, rather than instances of competitions for that sport. The "by sport type" element is also redundant because "by sport" is already sufficient. SFB22:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how does this differ materially from Category:Sports competitions by sport? Most "events" that are under this category are competitions rather than skis-swaps or rule-making events. Finding minimal differences between the two, I would lean toward merge unless someone has a meaningful distinction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Saigon and Ho Chi Minh City are the same place. Saigon redirects to Ho Chi Minh City. When a city has gone by multiple names, we generally don't have separate "people from" categories for each version of the name. We don't have Category:People from Edo to accompany Category:People from Tokyo, even though Edo has its own article, which Saigon does not. I understand that people from this city who opposed Ho Chi Minh may not like the fact that Saigon was renamed to honour Ho Chi Minh, but it would be POV-pushing of us to have two separate categories for that reason. (The nominated category was created as a category redirect, but has been converted into a normal category by User:Johnpacklambert. Keeping a category redirect would be a good idea, though.) Good Ol’factory(talk)22:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of the people in these categories oppose Ho Chi Minh and his political machinations, and would be outraged to be associated with him in this way. The city was a very different place before the Communist take over and it is very reasonable to have a seperate category reflecting this fact. There is precedent for this with other cities that changed names, such as istanbul, especially when the name changes were highly politically motivated. This is not at all like the Edo to Tokyo rename, and the nominator is under estimating how much the people involved not only disliked Ho Chi Minh, but had every reason to considering what his regime but them through after it brutally removed the previous government. There is 0 justification for retroactively applying this name change before it happened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not underestimating anything, I just don't think that despising Ho Chi Minh to any degree is a good reason to have separate categories. We are all associated somehow with things we don't like. Should we have Category:People from Stalingrad for non-reformed Stalinists who loved the man and are offended that the city name was changed? Good Ol’factory(talk)21:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — This is a "People from" category, so it should be the current name. Leave the previous names to historical categories. As long as nobody is trying to create a "from city descent" category, we should be OK. William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This isn't a completely formed request, since I'm more looking for input as to how the nobility tree should be organised, as currently the subcategories are a convoluted mess. Obviously the parent Category:Nobility is supposed to be a topic category, but going down the tree, it becomes confusing whether these nobility categories are supposed to be a topic category or a set category containing biographies of people who are/were members of the nobility. There's Category:Nobility by nationality, Category:Nobility by nationality and title and Category:Titles of nobility by nationality, but while both are named Nobility it seems the first is supposed to be a topic category, the second a set category for people, and the third for titles (not people). But then most of Category:Nobility by nationality and title's members are named Fooian noble titles (e.g. Category:Spanish noble titles), which seem like they would cover titles (not people) but actually confusingly contain a mixture of articles about titles and subcats about people. Update: This appears to be the result of a CfD from 2014, which renamed the Nobility by nationality and title cat, while a follow-up on the member cats didn't seem to happen.
Support this approach, assuming we have clear article sets that distinguish the noble titles from the individual nobles. SFB22:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Titles do seem to belong to nationalities (though the nation may no longer exist), but individual people with those titles may have nothing to do with the country where their title originated, and we need to cope with that confusing reality. So the current Duke of Plaza Toro could be in Venetian Nobility and also in Nobles from Wimbledon? Rathfelder (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, though it might not be much of an issue practically, since individual dukes will likely be categorised under Category:Dukes of Plaza-Toro and not appear directly under the Venice parent cats. It would be a reason to consider when choosing new names for subarticles (Category:Fooian nobles vs Category:Nobles of Foo) though. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single article category with no prospects of growth, therefore falling under WP:SMALLCAT.
There is no clear reason to believe that the category is going to grow since its only member was added about a year ago. The village only has 409 inhabitants and a very short recorded history, therefore a very small pool of possible notable people for Wikipedia's standards. --Antondimak (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By default biographies are categorized by place of birth or place of having grown up regardless whether that has any relationship with the reason of notability of the person involved. Whether that kind of categorization is meaningful or not is a whole separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion that we've already had and recorded for more than a decade at WP:COP-PLACE:
The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual.
Nominator's rationale: This is a container for the main category for Romani topics, organized by country. Note that Romani people are never a majority in any country, therefore minorities is not necessary. Per WP:COPSEP, —Category:Romani people by country is (and would still be) the category for individual biographical articles, and this the parent topic category. Place Clichy (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Romani diaspora: this article is very much organized by country (look at its table of contents for instance) and could still be the head article of the renamed category. However it is also already in Category:Romani and Category:Romani groups. Romani content is organized at the same time culturally, by subgroup, and geographically, by present country.
Merge -- I cannot quite see how Category:Romani people by country differs from the target. Romani in foo would be a main article in Romani people in foo. I feel sure we should be able to find a home for any that are left. The Roma are a nomadic people, who are thought to have spread from India in medieval times, so that they are a minority everywhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support the expansion of this nomination to include the above, with the aim to move them to a diasporas by country tree per the below. SFB23:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed distinction between diaspora and indigenous ethnic group does not seem practical and highly subject to POV. Article on Dom people (which covers the Egyptian Romani) mentions a possible migration date in the 6th century. If they are considered diaspora, then what are the Arabs? The only other article there is about Arab-Berber Bedouins, which would need quite a stretch to be called a diaspora. I do not see any essential feature of these minorities or diasporas that differs from others in the main ethnic groups category. Place Clichy (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: there are a few C of E churches in Wales – see above. This is part of Churches by city; we should not rename just this one "by populated place", as Churches by location has no others like that. Religious buildings are categorised by county and by city; most smaller populated places (towns) would not have enough notable churches to create a category hierarchy for them. – FayenaticLondon10:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale We do not categorize people by emigrating from a specific part of a country to a place outside that country. I know there is some literature that views this as a group, there is also even more literature that views Francophone Canadian emigrants to the United States as a group. I even have a friend who did not speak English until kindergarten, only French because he lived with his French Canadian immigrant grand parents. Yet Category:Canadian emigrants to the United States does not have any ethnic or related sub-divisions. Country A to Country B makes sense. Hong Kong has enough of a special status that it probably works. I have created Category:Chinese emigrants to British Hong Kong to cover those who emigrated before 1997 and after what, 1847, except there was not really anything in Hong Kong to go to before 1847, and even if there was more there than I give credit for pre-1847 this would be like Category:American emigrants to New York City. The key is that categories have to be defining to almost all of the people. We do not want to start sub-dividing all Chinese emigrants. That will be a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, but I doubt that the merits of the target category are actually defining, as population movements between Hong Kong and mainland China are like me visiting my aunt. There may be a scope for refugees of the Chinese Civil War in Hong Kong though, as this seems defining. Place Clichy (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well we now have Category:Chinese emigrants to British Hong Kong which covers those who moved when it involved going from an area controlled by one government to another. I am not sure exactly what migration controls do or do not exist post-1997, so I am not sure if the target is notable at present. I think that should be a seperate discussion though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is hard for Mainland Chinese to migrate to Hong Kong. Either family reunion, spouse , or talent scheme. However, after 2019 may be the Central Government will flood the city with Mainland emigrant. Matthew hk (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy:.. I do not know where either you or your aunt reside.. rendering this analogy useless for purposes of this discussion, but Hong Kong and the mainland remain in different passports, and crossing the border requires a visa, like any transnational crossing.—Prisencolin (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't sure, find that out from the relevant Wikipedia articles before you nominate anything here, or retract your nomination now. A nomination based on unknowns and assumptions wouldn't be a valid one. Thanks. 203.218.129.244 (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It doesn't seem defining that people from this particular area (and possible ethnicity) move to a special administrative region versus people from other areas. If there was a situation where they were more likely to be an internally displaced person due to war or discrimination, that would be different. I'm open minded about the target category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the associated article Shanghainese people in Hong Kong for what distinguishes this group. Also, you have suggested in a discussion that I give the “same generic response to every comment,” but that’s because people lack understanding about what the topic is about.—Prisencolin (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow my lack of self-awareness is telling sometimes... to directly answer your question, yes some of these people were fleeing a continuous string of armed conflict stretching from the Sino Japanese War (1937–1945), to the resumption of the Chinese Civil War (1945-49). For others, it was a way to expand their business operations, to a place with more free market capitalism; this part become especially important after 1945 as it appeared that the Communist takeover of China was imminent and private enterprise on a wide scale would be halted. In the first half of the 20th century, Shanghai was had the most manufacturing activity in all of the Mainland, so this is what distinguishes Shanghainese emigrants from emigrants of other areas (i.e. Cantonese, Northern China etc) Whether you think these reasons are "different" enough to spin off a category is your decision.--Prisencolin (talk)
Well, Shanghai (or as least part of the Shanghai city/settlement ) is a semi-colony and people such as Charles K. Kao was educated in Shanghai French Concession and born in Shanghai (unsure inside the Concession or outside). Did citizenship of Shanghai exist in the past for the people live inside the Concession? Anyway i would still argue Shanghaiese is a concept that not easily define and not encyclopaedic to try to define it and have a cat in wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Lower Yangtze delta region (aka Jiangnan) has had a few independent states as well, like Sun Wu and Wuyue. Honestly, the category is quite small as is and are very few corner cases which you may be implying. The only “questionable” Shanghainese people maybe certain migrants from other regions who went but to Shanghai but later moved to HK.. there are two people like that in the category but they are still nonetheless referred to in reliable sources as “Shanghainese emigrees”.—Prisencolin (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would rather agree to merge as people from Shanghai is difficult to define. Post-1997 HK "citizenship" rather easier to define. And don't worry about citation, notable figure did received coverage when they receive HK "PR" status. E.g. Zhang Jingchu.[1] However, this info is notable to add to wikipedia or categorized or not is another thing to discuss. Matthew hk (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure but I seen that many high profile and wealthy mainlanders today will choose to get HK citizenship because it gives a more powerful passport and a place to park their money where it is theoretically out of the hands of the CPC, as such I'm not sure if Angelababy getting coverage for acquiring HK nationality is really all that special.... as far as defining Shanghainese, we'd just go with whatever sources say: like User:Prisencolin/sh --Prisencolin (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prisencolin (the article on Shanghainese people in Hong Kong) and Matthew hk (the concessions). On top of that ancestral background is, at least until the present time, an important identity in many Far Eastern cultures. E.g. it's recorded in Japanese passports. If this category isn't kept, listify it at the very least. 203.218.129.244 (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By my count only five out of ten are actually described as archaeologists in the article text, and none of these descriptions are supported by reliable sources. Some might legitimately be called influential or precursors to modern archaeology (e.g. Michele Mercati#Legacy, but that's not the same as being one. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call him a historian (as the article does). An analogy to other sciences might be that we wouldn't primarily categorise Copernicus as a "physicist", even though his work was foundational to the modern field (but this isn't the best analogy because physics is much older than archaeology). Category:Antiquarians is nested under Category:Archaeologists so it's not like we'd be entirely detaching these articles from that category tree. – Joe (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea that archaeology only started in the 18th century is sourced to Britannica, and I have long thought it is an uneliable source. And the argument that archaeologists are historians could equally well apply to 21st-century archaeologists. Archaeology has not changed that much since the Renaissance figures studied the Greco-Roman past. Dimadick (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment our article Ciriaco de' Pizzicolli (b. 1391) calls him the father of archaeology. That line isn't well sourced and who knows who called him that (maybe unreliable). Archaeologists and antiquarians were mixed disciplines in these times (like chemistry and alchemy for a time, and geography and travel writing). Where we cut off the disciplines should be based on sourced usages and a headnote in the "by centuries" to direct readers to earlier centuries' "archaeologists" to the corresponding "antiquarian" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion instead merge to the equivalent Category:15th-century antiquarians, which might be parented in an archaeologists tree. If there are any who do not fit this, they should be purged to the equivalent historians tree. I note that the present content is all Italian (with a few French) whereas the target's content is largely English. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merging a biographical category to an industry category is not mixing apples with oranges, it is mixing apples with inorganic matter.Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People associated with networking industry
Keep and Rename Prefer Category:Computer networking people for brevity but will support any rename that removes "associated with" from the title. Kj cheetham is quite correct that this was named as a non-defining category but it doesn't appear to be used as one though: I went through the first half of the articles and got 6 executives of networking companies, 1 author of networking books, and 1 networking pioneer. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I've looked at it, and don't recognize a single name other than Leonard Bosack. This has become a vague catch-all category, apparently for executives "associated" with the "industry" who could just as well be formerly from Pepsi or Delta Airlines (remembering two examples not currently in the category). Or are now at Starbucks? None of these have made notable contributions in the computer networking industry. Where's Vint Cerf? Jon Postel? Radia Perlman? Phil Karn? My other collaborators? (Now might be the time to do a little checking.) We already have categories for people who are in the computer networking industry, by their areas of contribution. William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Future Noms The usage I hear definitely seems to be gradually evolving toward Latinx but I'll defer to other editors on what is currently standard. If the langauge continues to shift, we'll likely want to revisit this in a broader future nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: For music and dance, it is used that way: Latin music, Latin dancing, Latin club, Latin DJ, Latin beat. I've also heard "Latin lover", I guess for the alliteration. In most other contexts just "Latin" could only mean one thing: Roman. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, Latin America. And Latin languages. I wonder how in Spanish you tell the difference between these apparently so different concepts of Latin, Latino and Latinx. I think they are all translated as latino. Place Clichy (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Hispanic and Latino American artists. While it can be argued there is a distinct Hispanic/Latino culture in American arts, I do not think that it needs to be broken down into individual artistic fields per WP:OCEGRS and especially WP:FINALRUNG. Also, all parent categories in Category:Hispanic and Latino American people uses Hispanic and Latino American, which is gender-neutral enough. Per WP:C2C, category for artists should follow this pattern, or it should be discussed to change the practice for the entire tree. If kept, rename to Hispanic and Latino American (1st choice) or Latino. Place Clichy (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've not heard the vigorous debates for 50 years around using hispanic or latina or latino. Sometimes, they even form competing caucuses and run for office against each other. Hispanic Caucus, Spanish-speaking Democrats, etc. William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being tangentially related to the controversy is not a defining characteristic, and categorising rivers and court cases together in such a category makes little sense. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- indeed - but the city itself does not have a specific titled article...as in City of Albany, New York is not specifying the city ? maybe the two cities need to be on a disambig page - even if the new york one has not got a main space title as such JarrahTree07:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Neither NY nor WA has the primary place. Albany refers to Scotland (or part of it, forget which) and was used as a noble title in UK. Both places are probably named for such dukes. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
