Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 2

April 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Kbdank71 16:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:People of Foo and Category:People from Foo

Voting result:

"Fooian people" (2): VivaEmilyDavies, Joy

"People of/from Foo" (5): Gene Nygaard, Instantnood, Grutness, Thryduulf, Kbdank71

Consensus is to keep.

Category:People of Grenada, Category:People from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Category:People of Swaziland, Category:People from Luxembourg, Category:People from Macao, Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina

Standard practice is to use "Fooian people" rather than "People of Foo" (as seen in Category:People by nationality, although this wouldn't work for Category:People of the Dominican Republic or Category:People of Dominica as "Dominican" in used for both). Category:People from Bosnia and Herzegovina should be merged with Category:Bosnian people, under the name of the latter. "Bosnian" seems to be the preferred "neutral" adjective for Bosnia and Herzegovina, as opposed to "Bosniak" which refers to a particular Bosnian ethnic group - "Bosnian" is neutral even though it does not specifically reference the distinct geographic region of Herzegovina, possibly because that region does not have a distinct political, legal or cultural identity. The others should be moved to Category:Grenadian people, Category:U.S. Virgin Islands people, Category:Swazi people, Category:Luxembourgeois people and Category:Macau people (please note that, perhaps confusingly, "Macau" can serve as an adjective, and that while both "Macao" and "Macau" are used in English, "Macau" is used for both the Macau article and Category:Macau. The adjective "Macanese" refers to people of Portuguese-Macau ancestry and wouldn't be appropriate.) Sorry the length of this proposal! --VivaEmilyDavies 21:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding People from Bosnia and Herzegovina, I'll just paste what I already said on the talk page:

Your argument is correct, except that it unfairly discriminates against the people from Herzegovina. Go ask any Hercegovac if they feel like a Bosanac and they'll probably tell you to go to hell, if not something worse. :)

Hence this entry must not be changed back to "Bosnian people". "Bosnian and Herzegovinian people" would be correct, but cumbersome and awkward, so it might as well stay as it is. --Joy [shallot] 22:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A very good point. (Should Category:Bosnian people be emptied?)

Oh, I just moved that one article over. I had redirected it over previously so I didn't notice the new entry. --Joy [shallot]

Maybe it would be better to actually delete Category:Bosnian people? If people put articles into it they'll think it's worked okay because it shows up in blue at the bottom of the article. Most people won't double-check by clicking on the link to make sure! VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% convinced by you - the adjective "Bosnia-Herzegovinian" is also used in English (actually it is the adjective I usually use), as is the slightly more common "Bosnian-Herzegovinian", so either could provide a slightly less unwieldy fallback. Standard English usage is to use "Bosnian" to refer to the entire country.

That's probably because there are many more things Bosnian than there are Herzegovinian. Bosnia is first mentioned in the name of the country for a reason, but Herzegovina isn't omitted for a reason, either. --Joy [shallot]

Searching the BBC website, which uses fairly standard British English, "Bosnia" and "Bosnian" combined throw up approaching 30,000 hits to "Herzegovinan" 3 and "Herzegovina" 306. (1, 2, 3, 4)It is discriminatory and it is unfair. However, it is standard English (unfortunately... I guess it would soon change if most English-speakers had to meet a Hercegovac on a regular basis!). I dislike the word, but as an English language work, en.wikipedia really ought to use standard English (unless it either technically incorrect or highly offensive). Something that makes me lean slightly further towards "Bosnian" is the fact that the embassy of BiH in the UK calls itself the "Bosnian Embassy" of the "Bosnian government" here - but elsewhere the embassies in the USA, Pakistan and Australia prefer to avoid an adjective altogether by strenuously using the phrase "... of Bosnia and Herzegovina".

*.embassyhomepage.com is a known scam site, so it's not authoritative at all :) Omitting Herzegovina is both technically incorrect (because the country's name includes it) and offensive (because they *never* consider themselves Bosnians). --Joy [shallot]

Oops sorry! VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be silly to cause offence for no good reason, and there are some grounds for saying that BiH lacks a suitable neutral English adjective for use in WP (not uniquely - Dominica and the Dominican Republic do, for a different reason). Yet I think it is impossible to deny that in modern English "Bosnian" is the standard term and some official BiH organisations do use it, so while I wouldn't use it privately, on Wikipedia I still believe it's the correct choice. --VivaEmilyDavies --VivaEmilyDavies 00:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)00:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consider an analogous example: Category:Trinidad and Tobago people. Tobago is much smaller than Trinidad, but it's not discriminated against in the naming. --Joy [shallot]

I guess it probably helps that T&T is an English-speaking country so standard English just copies the way they refer to themselves, whereas we often mess up foreign countries in translation :) Two cringeworthy examples are the most recent BBC news stories with a BiH slant (1, 2) which use "Bosnia" for the country of BiH and "Bosnian" for the adjective. Contrast this to T&T (as the press sometimes refer to it when they don't write it out in full) where "Trinidad" is only used when referring to that particular island, not the entire political entity. However, the reason that WP uses "Trinidad and Tobago people" is that it is standard English. All I was querying was whether "Bosnian" is now so widespread that it has become standard (it's really the opposite situation to "American" where the adjective is underinclusive - rather than to the Americas, we usually, save for e.g. "Organization of American States" use it to refer to the USA alone. Hence, even though it might strictly speaking be wrong, we do have a lot of categories beginning "American...", simply because it is standard. I for one much prefer "U.S." for the USA, "Trinidad and Tobago" as the adjective for T&T and "Bosnian and Herzegovinan" or similar for BiH). Anyway, since you made a lot of very strong points, and I do dislike "Bosnian" myself, I think I'd rather opt for something like Grutness's current idea, but spell it with a "z" as seems to be more usual (Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian people). If anybody is interested the EU manual of style recommends using "of Bosnia and Herzegovina" instead of an adjective. However, if that approach is to be taken I'd prefer "from" (you wouldn't say "X is a writer of Bosnia and Herzegovina", more likely "X is a writer from Bosnia and Herzegovina, unless you're the BBC in which case you'd apparently say "X is a Bosnian writer"!) VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually "Trinidad and Tobago" as an adjective is not correct usage (in my experience as a Trinidadian). The only correct adjectival forms are "Trinidadian" and "Tobagonian". But to call the list "Trinidadian and Tobagonian people" would force the removal of Derek Walcott who, despite being St. Lucian, spent a significant part of his life there, and alludes to Trinidad extensively in his poetry. Guettarda 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have apparently been fooled by usage like "Trinidad and Tobago government", "Trinidad and Tobago Defense Force" and "Trinidad and Tobago Police Service" into believing that "Trinidad and Tobago" has become a kind of quasi-adjective. Thanks for pointing that out! VivaEmilyDavies 20:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(I thought I had made it clear that) it was the inclusion of Tobago that I was referring to, not the actual form with the adjective. That's another matter, please feel free to address it separately. --Joy [shallot] 21:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is just another case of political correctness or of foolish consistency run amok among the Wikipedia categorizers. The very notion of "Foowegian people" is fraught with difficulty, since that is the form usually used in reference to peoples. "Swazi people" can refer to an ethnic group, the Swazi people, and to individual members of that group, rather than to individuals "of Swaziland". Gene Nygaard 00:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do see the point, but it is an overwhelming consistency (see Category:People by nationality) and using "Foowegian ..." rather than "... of Foo" makes more sense for people - precisely because (a) it is a bit fuzzier round the edges (just like people - and unlike, for example, political structures or geographic features which are better categorised by country) and (b) many historical figures can be classed as Foowegian even though Foo did not exist as a country at that time. The real "categorisation gone mad", as far as I can see, would be to try to class people together by country instead, with the view that that, being less fuzzy, it is somehow more exact. "Swazi" is better for categorisation than "... of Swaziland" when referring to people because a person who would fit easier into the first than the second ought to have a place to go (and does it really matter that Swazis who don't fit the Swaziland definition are side by side with those who do? They really aren't so different, and people will know how to find either). On the other hand, "Mountains of Swaziland" and "Olympic athletes of Swaziland" make more sense than their "Swazi" equivalents because the ambiguity would hold no benefit there. Consistency is only a limited good, but here it makes sense - I can't see why Swazis and Swaziland should be treated any differently to Bulgarians and Bulgaria (not everyone in Bulgaria is ethnically Bulgarian, the ethnic group predates the modern country, there are ethnic Bulgarians outside Bulgaria and the adjective doesn't distinguish nationality from ethnicity - but those problems don't cause much fuss and moving "Bulgarian people" to "People of Bulgaria" would probably get little support on its At the current time, elegant redirects to elegance, democratic redirects to democracy, and adjectival redirects to adjective.own) --VivaEmilyDavies 01:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: If consistence is necessary I would prefer "People from Foo" or "People of Foo" to "Fooian people". The latter can mean ethnicity and citizenship, which is ambiguous. — Instantnood 06:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

It is precisely for this reason that I prefer "People of Foo" to "People from Foo". After all, an immigrant can become "of" a country, consider it home, play a major part in its life, and yet never become a citizen, so never be "from" a country. Guettarda 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: please don't assume ambiguity is bad :) In an article, it would be bad, but that's where the ambiguity ought to be elucidated. Some people best fit multiple categorisations. I would really like it if everybody debating this thread had a quick look at Nikola Tesla first. The intro describes him as of Serb ethnicity, yet he worked mainly in the USA. He was, however, born in Croatia - which he regarded as his homeland! He is a messy and ambiguous person, and deserves to be categorised as such: which he is! He's in "American physicists", "Serbian scientists" and "Croatian scientists" - all of these are quite correct, and indeed useful. A person trying to browse for him but who has forgotten his name, yet remembers he was born in Croatia, or that he was of Serb descent, may try to use the category system to find him, and will be successful either way! Now if we did everything by "country from", he would be restricted to "Physicists from the United States" and "Scientists from Croatia". That would be silly, especially when his Croatian link is not even mentioned in the introduction. Just because it is seems less ambiguous and therefore seems somehow more "accurate" doesn't make categorising people by "from country" any better - I believe that it is a genuinely "foolish consistency". Now, I wouldn't want to see "Croatian mountains" - I wouldn't know if it contained mountains that only lay historically in Croatia, or mountains with special cultural significance to Croats, or mountains where the local population is ethnically Croat. But people aren't like mountains - people move around, change affiliations, belong to cultures that themselves rise and fall and very often they either predate or postdate the "country" that would describe them best (even saying that Tesla was from Croatia would actually be wrong, to be strictly accurate you might cat him in "scientists from Austria-Hungary", hence losing even the Croat connection). Also, could people please spend just a few minutes browsing around Category:People by nationality, Category:Professionals by nationality and Category:Nationalities by occupation to see how many hundreds of categories use "Fooian..." for people! You could change them all, but doesn't the sheer existence of this near-universal format suggest there is some consensus for classing people in this way? One that I would like to change to "from Fooland" format is politicians - e.g. ethnic Hungarian politicians in an ethnic Hungarian political party in Serbia-Montenegro ought to be classed in "Politicians from Serbia and Montenegro", because politics relates to the political structure of a particular country (as a political and legal entity). That would be in line with e.g. Category:Political parties by country. But I still think that "Fooian people" and the majority of their subcategories should be preserved, and exceptions without a particularly strong reason ("People from Dominica" and perhaps if, we take the EU convention, Bosnia and Herzegovina... but not Luxemburg) ought to be converted into "Fooian..." form. VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally I too am against this "Fooilonian X" idea, and have said so when this sort of thing has come up in the past. X of Foo tends to work far better in practice. If, howeverm the decision is to go with it, would Category: Bosnian and Hercegovinian people work? Grutness|^hello? 11:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I dislike "Bosnian" too, just suggested it because I thought it had (unfortunately) become standard. If we do use an adjectival approach, would you agree with Category: Bosnian and Herzegovinian people spelt with a "z"? I think the "c" spelling is now regarded as wrong. Also, I agree that "X of/from/in Foo" is far better for almost everything - I just think that on the whole people are an exception. As I said above, please look at Nikola Tesla and have a think about it :) --VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I too much prefer "People from Foo" to "Fooian people" - see the quiz at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (country-specific topics)#Pop_quiz and see how many adjectival forms you can get right, and then look at the answers and see how many are less than obvious. Thryduulf 12:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories are different from articles though in that they are browsed to, and rarely typed in. And even if the adjective is completely non-obvious (e.g. Myanmar not Burma for the country, but Burmese for the adjective, is currently in use) you can still browse via "Myanmar". However, in general, and especially for article titles, I too much prefer "of/from/in Foo". I just think that broadly, the categorisation of people should be an exception.VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly. Category:Glaswegians should be renamed Category:People of Glaswegia as well. Gene Nygaard 17:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would become Category:People from Glasgow (similar to Category:Chicagoans, which would become Category:People from Chicago). Actually I thought about nominating both of these for renaming myself, and if somebody else did, I would support! Cities don't usually have quite the same ethnic/cultural importance as nationalities, and many lack adjectival forms, so I would far prefer these to be standardised as "People from Chicago" and "People from Glasgow" etc. VivaEmilyDavies 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In addition to my comment above, I oppose moving "People from Foo" to "Fooian people". In my opinion "Fooian people" should be move to "People from Foo". — Instantnood 12:52, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose "Fooian people". The naming conventions recommend using nouns, not adjectives. -Kbdank71 14:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Please read the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) you quoted. "The naming conventions for adjectives is a naming convention for how to create Wikipedia pages about adjectives" so "At the current time, elegant redirects to elegance, democratic redirects to democracy, and adjectival redirects to adjective". That's about redirects of articles, in the article space, whose title is purely an adjective. The relevant policy would actually be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) but that is still in "proposed" state. --VivaEmilyDavies 16:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.