Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 3



Category:Romanian people of Hungarian descent

 * 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. It is possible to preserve this category and split out a subcategory for ethnic-Hungarian Romanians, exclusive of Romanians whose ancestors were Hungarian, but there is clearly no consensus for that in this discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Romanian people of Hungarian descent to Category:Hungarians in Romania
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename/Split to match the main article Hungarian minority in Romania and to provide more accuracy. People listed under this category are ethnic Hungarians from the populous minority group in this country. They are Hungarians, not some people "of Hungarian descent". We can have both categories like and . Darwinek (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The distinction is too fine. Just categorize them all as "Romanian people of Hungarian descent", which is a broader category. If they are not Romanian nationals, use the standard . Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a difference between citizens of Romania with Hungarian descent, and citizens of Romania who are Hungarians. Citizenship and nationality are two different things is Central and Eastern Europe. That's why we have national minorities here. - Darwinek (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A citizen of Romania who is a Hungarian is also a Romanian person of Hungarian descent. We don't need to create a category for every possible permutation of nationality/citizenship combination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Ethnic Hungarian citizens of Romania (or at least Category:Ethnic Hungarian Romanian people) for clarity, and check to see that all listed are indeed ethnic Hungarian and not Romanian with (some) Hungarian ancestry. (And recreate this category if there are any individuals with just ancestry.) Mayumashu (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the attempts to distinguish the gradations of Hungarianess among citizens of Romania is built around an assumption that the lines of Hungarianess and Romanianess are clear and distinct, while in reality there is no easy way to tell the difference between a Hungarian who is a citizen of Romania and a Romanian who had Hungarian ancestors. Ethnicity is too fluid to meet such precise categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment before placing a vote, I'd like to be more acquainted with this. You are aware that "Romanian people of Hungarian descent" might include people who might've had Hungarian parent(s) or grandparent(s) but they even distance themselves from the Hungarians (and don't even speak the language anymore), right? Because I think that if you'd put them into a category together with e.g. László Tőkés, they might take offense (especially since it happens that while giving up their Hungarian roots they become avid Romanian nationalists in the process too). Thus I suggest creating the new category, moving the Hungarians there, and leave the rest in this category (i.e. those who do have Hungarian descent, but don't consider themselves Hungarian). What do you think? -- CoolKoon (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems very logical, as both mentioned groups are distinct and deserve own categories. - Darwinek (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There are people in Romania with Hungarian descent. Csendesmark (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Csendesmark is right. Whther we should also have Category:Romanian Hungarians along the mold of Category:American Jews or Category:French Armenians is an independent question from wether this category works.  This category works because there are people who fit the description.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Mayumashu. He spent a lot of time a couple of years back getting rid of ambiguous daul nationality categories.  Are they Roumanian Hungarians or Hungarian Roumanians? Which is ethicity and which nationality?  "Hungarian descent" suggests emigration from Hungary in some recent period.  In fact they are ethnic Hungarians, who were isolated from their ethnic roots, when Transylvania was tranferrred to Roumania as part of the post-WWI settlement.  Those concerned are ethnically Hungarians, but nationally Roumanian.  WE need to devise a category name to fit that, possibly Category:Roumanians of Hungarian ethnicity.  Since emigration has not generally occurred here, "ethnicity" should replace the usual "descent".  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good gratious. This gets to the point of bordering on the absurd. These are fine details that are suitable (perhaps) for an article, but as far as categories go, it looks like an attempt to split the hair far too many times. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment we have 18 pages in category:Hungarian expatriates in Romania so it is clear that movement between the two countries is more prevalent than some people suggest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Encyclopedias on fictional worlds

 * 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 to Category:Encyclopedias of fictional worlds. The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Encyclopedias on fictional worlds to Category:Encyclopedias of fiction
 * Nominator's rationale: I see no need, at this time, to limit the scope of this category to encyclopedias of fictional worlds, such as Pandora or Middle-earth, as opposed to encyclopedias of fiction in general, inclusive of works of fiction, fictional characters and places, and the like. The precise naming format—Encyclopedias on... versus Encyclopedias of...—should reflect the outcome of the main discussion and should be decided there, not here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Encyclopedias concerning fictional worlds. To me, "of" could make it sound like it's a fictional enecylopedia "inside" the fictional world. The suggested rename is too ambiguous, I think. Fiction is broader than just fictional content. I believe that there are encyclopedias of fictional devices (plot device, structure, and so on), for example. Happy to discuss possible alternative names. - jc37 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about Category:Fiction encyclopedias, similar to Category:Fiction books? The Foo encyclopedias format could, I suppose, be applied even to the categories nominated below: Category:Law encyclopedias, Category:Medical encyclopedias, and so on. It might make for some awkward constructions in a few cases, but should be no less clear than Foo books. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better. and agreed on the nom below as well. Though I think one or more may need to be X-related encuclopedias. - jc37 04:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Based upon the discussion, I support either "concerning" or "of". And since there is a fresh close below supporting "of", I give that one slightly more weight due to consistency - jc37 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Category:Encyclopedias of fiction it is a clear statement. Category:Fiction encyclopedias is too close to Category:fictional encyclopedias as in ones that are only claimed to exist, so I think the x of y name is better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point... -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Encyclopedias concerning fictional worlds per User:jc37, or Category:Encyclopedias of fictional worlds.  Other options proposed are ambiguous.  (1) "Category:Encyclopedias of fiction" sounds more like terms of art in studies of literature.  (2) "Category:Fiction encyclopedias" sounds like it could mean "fictional" encyclopedias, e.g., an encyclopedia mentioned in a work of fiction. (3) "Category:Encyclopedias concerning fictional worlds" is pretty clearly about (a) (real) encyclopedias, (b) that cover fictional worlds.  --Lquilter (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Encyclopedias on science and mathematics

 * 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: split. The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Encyclopedias on science and mathematics to Category:Encyclopedias of mathematics and Category:Encyclopedias of science.
 * Nominator's rationale: Although there is some overlap between the topics, they are sufficiently different and most articles clearly belong to one or the other. If there is no consensus to split, then I propose changing the order of the topics per alphabetical ordering: Category:Encyclopedias of mathematics and science. The precise naming format—Encyclopedias on... versus Encyclopedias of...—should reflect the outcome of the main discussion and should be decided there, not here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Unsure - While there is definitely some overlap, I suppose dual categorisation could work. If kept, renaming for math to be first (for alphabetic reasons) per common practice.- jc37 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Split as nominated. Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science is one that will belong in both, but most of the contents will go in just one or the other. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

Specialized encyclopedias

 * 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 as nominated. The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Encyclopedias on art to Category:Encyclopedias of art
 * Category:Encyclopedias on culture and ethnicity to Category:Encyclopedias of culture and ethnicity
 * Category:Encyclopedias on history to Category:Encyclopedias of history
 * Category:Encyclopedias on law to Category:Encyclopedias of law
 * Category:Encyclopedias on literature to Category:Encyclopedias of literature
 * Category:Encyclopedias on medicine to Category:Encyclopedias of medicine
 * Category:Encyclopedias on the military to Category:Encyclopedias of the military
 * Category:Encyclopedias on music to Category:Encyclopedias of music
 * Category:Encyclopedias on philosophy to Category:Encyclopedias of philosophy
 * Category:Encyclopedias on religion to Category:Encyclopedias of religion
 * Category:Encyclopedias on sexuality to Category:Encyclopedias of sexuality
 *  Nominator's rationale: Encyclopedias are of various topics, not on them (particularly odd in the case of "Encyclopedias on ficitonal worlds"): e.g., Encyclopedia of Albanian Art, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Encyclopaedia of Islam. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename all per nom. Also support: Category:Encyclopedias concerning X, for improved clarity. Weak support to use "covering" instead. Though I chuckle when thinking of Encyclopedias covering sexuality : ) - jc37 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Brickyard 400 winners

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting brickyard 400 winners


 * Nominator's rationale: This comes very close to a "performer by performance" category, which is something we simply don't do. Now, it's true that some races are defining enough to a driver's career to be categorised - the Daytona 500 and Indianapolis 500, for instance - but the Brickyard 400 does not rise to that level. (One might well argue that the World 600 is more significant...). So this should simply be a list in the Brickyard 400 article - which it already is - and not a category. The Bushranger One ping only 16:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. The Brickyard was never at the top level of its sport. I work on Golf tournament articles and winners aren't categorized for winning the Phoenix Open or Corning Classic. None of these are define the athlete....William 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, sensu stricto, The Brickyard is and has always been at the top level of its sport. Just not the top level of NASCAR. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete in general we discorage categorizing people for having won something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Reference types

 * 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 00:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting bacteria articles needing additional references


 * Propose deleting animal articles needing additional references


 * Propose deleting bird articles needing additional references


 * Propose deleting chromalveolata articles needing additional references


 * Propose deleting fungus articles needing additional references


 * Propose deleting law articles needing additional references


 * Propose deleting music articles needing additional references


 * Propose deleting protist articles needing additional references


 * Propose deleting taxon articles needing additional references


 * Propose deleting virus articles needing additional references


 * Nominator's rationale: A number of empty maintenance categories. Never used in the past as far as I have checked now and then; the instructions given for using them don't work, adding a type parameter has no result in the templates. More than a year old. Fram (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:All-Ireland Senior Camogie Championships navigational boxes

 * 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 to Category:Camogie navigational boxes. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting all-ireland senior camogie championships navigational boxes


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. Upmerging is also possible. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  05:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Camogie templates and Category:Gaelic games navigational boxes. I don't think that WP:OC applies, since there is possibility for expansion. However, there's no need to split out categories before the templates are created. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Camogie navigational boxes, per discussion below. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Navboxes were incorrectly categorised and, as this has now been resolved, the category has been populated. However, this category should really be renamed Category:Camogie navigational boxes to reflect its brother categories, Category:Gaelic football navigational boxes and Category:Hurling navigational boxes and their parent category Category:Gaelic games navigational boxes. Camogie is the sport, the Senior Championship is the main competition within the sport. So it's not so much a case for deletion as that the title is currently just too specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.205.12 (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The navboxes were not categorized incorrectly since, prior to your change, this category was only for navboxes associated with the Senior Championship. You're right, however, that the scope suggested by the current title is too narrow, and I concur that it would be useful to rename this category to Category:Camogie navigational boxes and, once the change has been made, to place it under Category:Gaelic games navigational boxes. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support renaming to Category:Camogie navigational boxes per Black Falcon. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  05:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:All-Ireland Senior Ladies' Football Championships navigational boxes

 * 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: upmerge to Category:Ladies' Gaelic football templates and Category:Gaelic games navigational boxes.'''--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting all-ireland senior ladies' football championships navigational boxes


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. Upmerging is also possible. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  05:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Camogie templates and Category:Gaelic games navigational boxes. I'm not sure whether WP:OC applies, since there is possibility for expansion; however, there's no need to split out categories before the templates are created. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Camogie and ladies' football are different sports within Gaelic games so ladies' football shouldn't be upmerged into the camogie category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.205.12 (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting my error. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Navboxes were incorrectly categorised and, as this has now been resolved, the category has been populated. However, this category should really be renamed Category:Ladies' Gaelic football navigational boxes to reflect its brother categories, Category:Gaelic football navigational boxes and Category:Hurling navigational boxes and their parent category Category:Gaelic games navigational boxes. Ladies' Gaelic football is the sport, the Senior Championship is the main competition within the sport. So it's not so much a case for deletion as that the title is currently just too specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.205.12 (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Ladies' Gaelic football navigational boxes, per above; or, since the category contains just two members, upmerge to Category:Ladies' Gaelic football templates and Category:Gaelic games navigational boxes. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've revised my position. A navbox category generally should be a subcategory of a more inclusive 'templates' category. With only two members currently, there's no need for a Ladies' Gaelic football navbox category at this time. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge (as small cat) to Category:Ladies' Gaelic football competitions (which exists) and Category:Gaelic games navigational boxes. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We generally don't place multiple templates in a content category, do we? We have only two templates at the moment but that number likely will rise and prompt a need for Category:Ladies' Gaelic football templates. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Ladies' Gaelic football templates and Category:Gaelic games navigational boxes per BF. - jc37 02:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Demographics of Canada by province

 * 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: speedy rename (CSD G7: category creator consents to the change). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Demographics of Canada by province to Category:Demographics of Canada by province or territory
 * Nominator's rationale: I think that we should expand the scope of this category to include Demographics of Northwest Territories, Demographics of Nunavut and Demographics of Yukon, which currently are categorized in the 'demographics of Canada' category. Most other categories of this sort do so already—see Category:Categories by province or territory of Canada. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename Examination shows that 'by province or territory" is the usual form. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Debate not really necessary on this one. I'll speedy rename it right now. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Quebec communities with significant anglophone populations
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. This is already listified at what appears to be a "significant" level (35%+). If more is desired, add more to the list.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose listifying Category:Quebec communities with significant anglophone populations to List of Anglo-Quebecer communities (or its talk page)
 * Nominator's rationale: What is the threshold for a "significant ... population"? Should we consider raw numbers (e.g., more than 1,000 people) or population percentage (more than 10%)? The problem with both is that, ultimately, virtually any specific threshold will be arbitrary and likely not defining: compare the hypothetical situations of 1,000 English-speakers in a population of 100,000 (i.e. 1%) versus 10 English-speakers in a population of 20 (i.e. 50%).


 * We could restrict the scope of the category to communities with majority Anglophone populations. This threshold, while arbitrary, at least is somewhat natural. However, such a category would need to be updated constantly to reflect demographic changes. Alternatively, we could avoid this problem entirely by choosing to forgo a precise definition and to rely on (near-)explicit identification by reliable sources (e.g. "Foo (is/was) an Anglo-Quebecer community"). The problem here, of course, is that different sources will use different definitions and criteria.


 * Therefore, I believe that the best option is to listify this category to List of Anglo-Quebecer communities (or its talk page, so editors can format and source it). The ideal solution, in my opinion, would be delete both the category and list and, in their place, to create Language demographics of Quebec by community as an extension of Language demographics of Quebec.


 * If there is no consensus to listify, then the category should be renamed to one of the following, in order to capitalize 'Anglophone' and/or reflect the 'populated places...' wording that has been adopted for settlements: Category:Anglo-Quebecer communities, Category:Populated places in Quebec with majority Anglophone populations or Category:Populated places in Quebec with significant Anglophone populations. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that the current name is problematic (I've actually raised that issue more than once in the past, but it didn't end up going anywhere). Part of the problem is that the category appears to be a bit of original research collated by applying an arbitrary cutoff to a raw statsdump of language demographic numbers. Unlike the situation in Ontario, where there's at least an actual legal designation for communities that have a large enough francophone population to warrant the provision of French language provincial government services and the corresponding category simply collects those designated areas, I'm not clear whether Quebec has a specific legal designation for communities with sizeable anglophone populations or not. Accordingly, I don't think categorization is appropriate in this case, although the list is acceptable. Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a specific legal status for such communities in Quebec, and during the megacities merger process, there were some governmental assurances given to communities that after merger would become more francophone (which have since been abrogated). One of the legal definition requires that 50%+1 of the population is non-Francophone, which means the community is allowed to offer certain services in English. If there is less than that, then the community can get a visit from the language police for being insufficiently francophone in their services, IIRC. It's rather simple to look up, but I didn't when I lodged this opinion, so I'm relying on my memory. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a news report on the town of Huntingdon being charged with violating the Charter by providing English language services, when only French is legally allowed., and that not just arrondissements and municipalities, but that sectors can also have bilingual status. And the abrogation of grandfathering for Aylmer.  which also includes the spokesman for the OLF stating that such services are only allowed for officially recognized communities. And that grandfathering is from  Bill 86 (1993). -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep restrict to the Quebec government's legal definition, instead of the common definition found in Quebec, (which end up with visits from the language cops to city hall, (there was one of those just this year, when a town in l'Estrie wasn't sufficiently francisized in its services, and the francophone mayor defied the OLF) ) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is Quebec's official definition? I searched Quebec's Government Portal but could not find a relevant page or document. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, according to Laval Unveristy  ; the law is the Charte de la langue française but various bills have modified it, so depending on what time period it was, status recognition was granted under different criteria. Some municipalities have been grandfathered in, even though they no longer meet the cutoff, others have had their status revised. Some arrondissements have kept their bilingual status even though they were merged in the megacity merger bill that forcibly merged many Quebec cities. Though municipalities have to apply for status. The periods to deal with are 1974-1977 (Bill 22);1977-1993 (Bill 101); 1993-2001; 2001+; IIRC.  -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed and informative reply. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or Rename if this was Category:Quebec communities with anglophone majority populations it would be workable. It would then be roughly equivalent to such categories as Category:Populated places in Michigan with African-American majority populations.  However the term "significant" just turns this into an amorphous, undefined category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment it can be reformulated to Cateogry:Quebec communities with bilingual legal status (communities lacking such status would make it illegal to provide certain services in English, those must be provided in French), so would be a much more significant distinction than your example from Michigan, which carries no legal ramifications. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I could support such a change in scope, which would shift the focus from an unstable characteristic (population ratio) to a more stable one (legal status) that, as you say, at least invokes certain legal consequences. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per anon above; the distinction that matters is bilingual status because there are repercussions, not that slightly more folks speak anglais than francais. Carlossuarez46 (talk)


 * Delete per the discussion above. Listify if wanted. Oppose all the suggested rename targets. - jc37 02:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:All-Ireland Minor Football Championships
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:All-Ireland Minor Football Championships to Category:All-Ireland Minor Football Championship
 * Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content at this time to justify a separate category for articles about individual championship years. This set category can be upmerged into the parent topic category for the Championship as a whole. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Hopefully in time we will have sufficient information, but until then, I'm afraid I have to agree. Mac Tíre   Cowag  20:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Franco-Ontarian education
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Franco-Ontarian education to Category:French-language education in Ontario
 * Nominator's rationale: There does not exist, as far as I know, a distinct category or type of education known as "Franco-Ontarian"; rather, the scope of the category is French-language education in Ontario. The current name was, I think, based on Category:Franco-Ontarian culture; the proposed name matches the format of Category:French-language education in Canada. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Sounds well-reasoned to me. Mayumashu (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename since this is a type of education + place category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons to Category:Candidates for the House of Commons of Canada
 * Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons by election to Category:Candidates for the House of Commons of Canada by election
 * Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons by political party‎ to Category:Candidates for the House of Commons of Canada by political party
 * Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons by province‎ to Category:Candidates for the House of Commons of Canada by province or territory
 * Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Members of the House of Commons of Canada and, more generally, Category:House of Commons of Canada and House of Commons of Canada. If there is consensus for the change, I will nominate the remaining subcategories at WP:CFD/S. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The only significant change is "province" to "province or territory", which expands the scope of the category to include the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon and follows the convention of Category:Members of the House of Commons of Canada by province or territory. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.