Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 24: Difference between revisions
→State or territory: Reply |
→State or territory: Reply |
||
Line 720: | Line 720: | ||
*::::::::For a political entity --like a US territory-- to be "in" the US, it must be "a part of" the US. Territories aren’t "in" the US because they are not a part of the US; they belong to the US, but aren‘t part of it. Analogy: your heart is "in" you; therefore, it is "a part of" you. Your car is not "in" you (but it belongs to you, like territories belong to the US); therefore, your car is not "a part of" you. [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 23:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
*::::::::For a political entity --like a US territory-- to be "in" the US, it must be "a part of" the US. Territories aren’t "in" the US because they are not a part of the US; they belong to the US, but aren‘t part of it. Analogy: your heart is "in" you; therefore, it is "a part of" you. Your car is not "in" you (but it belongs to you, like territories belong to the US); therefore, your car is not "a part of" you. [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 23:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
*:::::::::{{Ping|The Eloquent Peasant|Mercy11}} Cornell is quoting the U. S. Code. The actual laws of the United States supersede an encyclopedia or dictionaries as a reliable source. The territories are part of the United States, just like the states and federal district. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 05:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC) |
*:::::::::{{Ping|The Eloquent Peasant|Mercy11}} Cornell is quoting the U. S. Code. The actual laws of the United States supersede an encyclopedia or dictionaries as a reliable source. The territories are part of the United States, just like the states and federal district. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 05:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
*::::::::::By definition, when something is unincorporated it means "not a part of". So the territories aren't part of the US. The US consists of the 50 states and DC only. The US Code Cornell makes reference to doesn't say anywhere the territories are part of the US. This is supported by the [[SCOTUS]] who determined in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) the territories aren't part of the US. "They territories belong to the US but aren't part of the US." [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 06:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::This is how territories are not a place: when we categorize by "place" we are categorizing by the concept of location, that is, '''geography'''. However, when we attempt to categorize "by state or territory" we are categorizing by types of '''political status'''. The one thing that makes territories different from states is their political status, nothing else. If a territory where to become a state, it's location doesn't change, only its political status changes. For example, the [[Oklahoma Territory]]. A categorization "by location" would certainly not help. [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 21:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
*::::::This is how territories are not a place: when we categorize by "place" we are categorizing by the concept of location, that is, '''geography'''. However, when we attempt to categorize "by state or territory" we are categorizing by types of '''political status'''. The one thing that makes territories different from states is their political status, nothing else. If a territory where to become a state, it's location doesn't change, only its political status changes. For example, the [[Oklahoma Territory]]. A categorization "by location" would certainly not help. [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 21:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 06:00, 30 January 2024
January 24
Category:Fictional behavioural scientists
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional behavioural scientists to Category:Fictional social scientists
- Nominator's rationale: rename to match the parent category. there isn't a Category:behavioural scientists Mason (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename and purge, Category:Fictional ethologists does not belong, certainly not after renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: in fact, when only two subcategories would be left, we can just as well upmerge the entire category to Category:Fictional scientists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- We'd be able to add Fictional linguists and Fictional anthropologists making it slightly larger. Mason (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, that makes sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- We'd be able to add Fictional linguists and Fictional anthropologists making it slightly larger. Mason (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: in fact, when only two subcategories would be left, we can just as well upmerge the entire category to Category:Fictional scientists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Firelighting using electricity
- Nominator's rationale: best to treat these as an article. And I am usually pro-categories!!n. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge this category in addition to Category:Firelighting using friction and Category:Firelighting using percussion to Category:Firelighting. They seem like WP:NARROWCATs for an otherwise small topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:19th-century Kazakhstani people
- Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping categories, and Khazakstan did not exist yet. The category does not contain articles about Kazakh people before the Russian Empire ruled the area. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Alt rename/merge to Category:Kazakh people from the Russian Empire, as for siblings in Category:People from the Russian Empire by ethnic or national origin. Note that Kazakh refers to the ethnicity, while Kazakhstani refers to people from Kazakhstan regardless of ethnicity. Place Clichy (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- For renaming the target (which I agree with) see follow-up nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:18th-century Kazakhstani people
- Propose renaming Category:18th-century Kazakhstani people to Category:People from the Kazakh Khanate
- Nominator's rationale: rename, the name of the country at the time was Kazakh Khanate, not Khazachstan. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Hafez al-Assad
- propose renaming Category:Hafez al-Assad to Category:Hafiz al-Assad.
- Nominators rationale: As per the WP:C2D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactinites (talk • contribs)
- @Cactinites: the article has been moved three months ago without RM, so the usage of C2D as the main argument is questionable. It requires more substantive arguments. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Inconsistent even within the main article. It seems that the article move was probably motivated by an interpretation of Arabic-to-English transcription rather than common English usage. Place Clichy (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have submitted a technical move request to move the article back. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Battles involving Saudi Arabia
- Nominator's rationale: Saudi Arabia was founded in 1925 but the battles in this category date back into the 18th and 19th centuries. The category description refers to "independent Saudi states (1744–present)" linking to the House of Saud for which we have a parent Category:House of Saud. – Fayenatic London 09:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom, or alternatively to Category:Battles in the Arabian Peninsula. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Most of Category:Battles by country is "Battles involving X", but there are Battles in medieval Macedonia, Battles in Jamaica and Battles in Uganda, so that has precedents. However, it would exclude the Wahhabi sack of Karbala (1802). – Fayenatic London 10:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be leaning towards a split, but further comments on split target would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)- Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
State or territory
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by condition by state to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by condition and state or territory
- Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state or territory
- Category:Populated places in the United States by state to Category:Populated places in the United States by state or territory
- Category:Roads in the United States by territory to Category:Roads in the United States by state or territory
- Category:Sports in the United States by state to Category:Sports in the United States by state or territory
- Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States by state to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States by state or territory
Copy of speedy discussions (only replies)
|
---|
First discussion
Second discussion
Third discussion
|
- Nominator's rationale: Moved from Speedy to full Cfd. This matter needs to be settled becasue a lot of categories are dependant on this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Place Clichy, @Smasongarrison, @Aidan721, @Mercy11, @Marcocapelle, @Ymblanter, @The Eloquent Peasant, and @Elizabeth Linden Rahway from the speedy discussion. If I missed anyone, please add them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- I do not have an opinion, but just want to mention that some categories have been speedy processed (this happened before first objections were raised). I do not have a list of those, but it probably can be taken from the page histories. If the outcome of this discussion is oppose or no consensus, those categories must be moved back. Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: the alt rename from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_1#People_by_populated_place_in_the_United_States would be included as part of any change here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Adding participants from the intial Cfd on this name change: @Fayenatic london and @Peterkingiron. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Qualified support for renaming, but I do not support including things that are not states or territories in this scheme (i.e. [x] from Washington, D.C.). The United States has four-top level administrative divisions under our federal government and states and territories are not the same thing as the federal district or tribal lands, so I don't support conflating those. If someone wants to make the category scheme actually be about more than states and territories, then I suggest some other kind of name, possibly "[x] by place in the United States" which itself can include categories for states, territories, or even general regions like the Midwest. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- However, in reference to "possibly '[x] by place in the United States' which itself can include categories for states, territories..." that would not be factual for the territories are not in the United States. Please review what constitutes "the United States". Mercy11 (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Procedural comment, I have tagged the category pages but I do not have a particular opinion in this discussion. This was merely technical assistance. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. The broader tail allows for states, territories, historical territories, and federal districts to be included. See List of states and territories of the United States. It may be helpful to add a {{Cmbox}} to clarify insular area relationship to the United States and the inclusion of both current and historical territories as well as the federal district. Having all the top-level subdivisions in the same category scheme is best for navigation purposes. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom and echo Aidan721. I think that the broader tail is extremely valuable as it doesn't impose a hierarchy on the types groups/territories etc. In many cases, the type of district/state etc isn't a meaningful intersection (like are Jews from Washington DC uniquely different from Jews from Montana because one is a state and one is a district?), but rather a means to diffuse a very large category. Mason (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- However, in reference to "the broader tail is extremely valuable as it doesn't impose a hierarchy on the types groups/territories etc", that argument would be the Straw man Fallacy as it doesn't say why imposing a hierarchy on the types of groups/territories would be a bad thing. Mercy11 (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Aidan721: The proposed scheme and its naming would not include Washingotn, D.C. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Koavf, it would. That is the point of making it "state or territory", so the territories and federal districts don't require a seperate tree. I know you don't agree but I would say that everyone voting "support" on here (and in previous related Cfds) is in agreement on that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Washington, D.C. is not a territory. The Navajo Nation is not a territory. Thule Air Force Base is not a territory, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, Native American reservations and military bases don't have categories like Washington, D.C. does. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- E.g. Category:Prisons in Guantanamo Bay and Category:Prisons in Puerto Rico or Category:Prisons in Arizona, also Category:Navajo Nation airports and Category:Airports in Guam or Category:Airports in Nebraska. Washington, D.C. is not a territory. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Washington, D.C. is a federal district, which is a special type of territory. [1] –Aidan721 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is why too many concepts in one category leads to problems and requires careful thought out discussion. I was amazed when you attempted to do this during the busy holidays as a speedy change. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @The Eloquent Peasant, Aidan did it because a previous Cfd on the matter (this one) changed the names of all such categories from "State" to "State or territory". I think it is unfair to imply that he did without any previous discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think you ought to owe me an apology for the absurd accusations you've thrown my way. If you'd have done any ounce of investigating into how this category divide came to be, you'd see that the root category was moved via discussion in 2019 OF WHICH I WAS NO A PART OF NOR THE ONE ABOVE. I moved the categories according to the consensus reached BY PRIOR DISCUSSIONS. To make this into some kind of personal attack in a slippery slope my friend. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Washington is not a federal district, but the federal district. Words carry weight here. Additionally, Washington is not a territory, so it couldn't possibly be a "special type of territory" either. Let's not craft our own definitions when the SCOTUS has already done that work for us. The only way we could argue Washington is a territory is to define it using the general meaning of "territory", that is, "an area of land". But in that case, of course, all the 50 states would also be territories of the US, and we would then have to look to rename all categories in "Category:Foo in the United States by state" into "Category:Foo in the United States by territory", which would contain all 50 states and DC as territories of the US, but not Puerto Rico, the USVI, American Samoa, etc., since they aren't in the US. Is that really what we want? Mercy11 (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of what a Scottish encyclopedia says:
- The District of Columbia is not a territory
- The United States controls 14 territories, none of which are D. C.
- The United States controls 14 territories, none of which are D. C.
- There are only five populated American territories
- An insular area is "not a state or a federal district" and there are 13 unincorporated territories and one incorporated territory
- There are five populated territories
- Please stop spreading this misinformation. WASHINGTON, D. C. IS NOT A TERRITORY and cannot be a territory. Do not categorize it like it's a state or territory when it is not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is why too many concepts in one category leads to problems and requires careful thought out discussion. I was amazed when you attempted to do this during the busy holidays as a speedy change. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, Native American reservations and military bases don't have categories like Washington, D.C. does. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Washington, D.C. is not a territory. The Navajo Nation is not a territory. Thule Air Force Base is not a territory, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Koavf, it would. That is the point of making it "state or territory", so the territories and federal districts don't require a seperate tree. I know you don't agree but I would say that everyone voting "support" on here (and in previous related Cfds) is in agreement on that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- However, in reference to "Support...the broader tail allows for...territories, historical territories, and federal districts to be included", that would be like saying "Oppose...the narrower tail allows for territories, historical territories, and federal districts to be excluded," both irrelevant conclusion fallacies. Mercy11 (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom and echo Aidan721. I think that the broader tail is extremely valuable as it doesn't impose a hierarchy on the types groups/territories etc. In many cases, the type of district/state etc isn't a meaningful intersection (like are Jews from Washington DC uniquely different from Jews from Montana because one is a state and one is a district?), but rather a means to diffuse a very large category. Mason (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and propose - I propose the following scheme.
- Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by condition by state to Category:Buildings and structures OF the United States by condition and state or territory
- Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state to Category:Buildings and structures OF the United States by state or territory
- Category:Populated places in the United States by state to Category:Populated places OF the United States by state or territory
- Category:Roads in the United States by territory to Category:Roads OF the United States by state or territory
- Category:Sports in the United States by state to Category:Sports OF the United States by state or territory
- Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States by state to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges OF the United States by state or territory without the capitalization of the word of, of course. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes, "of" sounds odd. For example with buildings: a building is of the owner of the building, rather than of the United States. It also creates inconsistency with other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- The general rule on Wikipedia is that "of" is used for things occurring naturally, such as rivers and mountains, and "in" for human-made/cultural things such as roads and buildings. As such, I'd oppose Eloquent Peasant's suggestions. Grutness...wha? 03:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- *Why the use of "of" or "in" is important here:
- Search for any of the 50 US states and the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to them as "constituent states of the US" https://www.britannica.com/place/Virginia-state Search for any of the US territories and the EB states they are "associated with", or "unincorporated territories of". Constituent means part of.
- Please refer to an example here: The US Census indicates that this map is "...of the United States and Puerto Rico." https://www.loc.gov/item/2004628731/ that is because PR is "associated with the US" https://www.britannica.com/place/Puerto-Rico and not "in" it.
- Would we want to then / need to update US school curriculums and have the world over update US maps to show that the territories are "in" the US?? That is what WP would be trying to accomplish with this category move request. If we reword the categories to say "in the United States by state or territory", as a group we'd be perpetuating a lie, mistake, or ignorance. Prepositions are important. The 50 states and DC are in the US, the territories are "subject to", "associated with", in "free association with", "unincorporated territories of". Yes "of". "of" doesn't only need to be used for rivers. Just like the powerful comma changes the entire meaning of a statement, here the word "of" or "in" needs to be correct. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree here. "of" gives the sense of ownership in this context. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's precisely why it makes sense to block the category being proposed in this discussion, "Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States", and need to continue building instead on "Category:Insular areas of the United States", because the Insular areas are owned by the US but the states aren't. The states already had their own category since 2004, namely, "Category:Categories by state of the United States". Mercy11 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, prepositions can make a difference. However, prepositions alone will not solve the fundamental problem triggered by the proposed Moves from Foo IN the United States by state -----TO----> Foo IN the United States by state or territory. The fundamental problem is that the move introduces an assumption that is false: that the territories are part of the United States. So, whether the move is from "Foo IN the United States by state" or from "Foo OF the United States by state" and into "Foo IN the United States by state or territory" AND/OR "Foo OF the United States by state or territory", it makes no difference because the problem is conflating those 2 in the same root category, i.e., the problem is in adding "territories" to the category tail.
- For example, "Category:Hot springs of the United States by state" is fine because the states are a constituent part of the United States, but "Category:Hot springs of the United States by state or territory" would not be because the territories aren't a constituent part of the United States, therefore Hot Springs whether IN or OF the United States would not include hot springs in the territories because hot springs of the United States cannot possibly include any hot springs in the territories because the territories aren't part of the United States. Another example, "Category:Military installations of the United States in Puerto Rico" is fine as is "Category:United States Army officers" (would contain Puerto Ricans like Pedro Albizu Campos) and "Category:Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives" (would contain Puerto Ricans like Santiago Iglesias). "Category:Foo on the National Register of Historic Places by state" is fine as would "Category:National Register of Historic Places by insular areas of the United States" because NRHP sites in the territories are located in insular areas of the US, not in the US proper. By the same token, "Category:Foo on the National Register of Historic Places by state or territory" would not be correct because it would needlessly duplicate the NRHP in the insular areas. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- support with caveat those in the OP and moved from the speedies. I am concerned about changing the "Buildings and structures in the United States by condition by state" to "...by condition and state or territory", though. Firstly, I don't think that's the normsl naming on WP, and second, "condition and state" is confusing given the different meanings of "state". I'd mane that "Buildings and structures in the United States by condition by state or territory" Grutness...wha? 04:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the categories of the form "American fooers by state or territory" are unopposed and there appears to be some mixed opinions/ideas for how to handle the remaining categories (i.e. Foo in the United States by state or territory). –Aidan721 (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also any of the "Foo on the National Register of Historic Places by state or territory" seem fully supported as well. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Aidan721, just for clarification - because one user here is strongly against Washington, D.C. being a part of "state or territory" categories - D.C. WILL be included if the change is in favor of "state or territory", correct? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is what I would advocate for. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not quite. Those two categories, "American fooers...by state or territory" and "Foo on the NRHP...by state or territory" (as well as "Category: People by populated place in the United States" where the territories are assumed to be part of the US, when they aren't), are all intertwined with the parent discussion on the root category "Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States" because they all stem from the same faulty premise that "since the territories are in the US, appending 'or territory' to those categories won't hurt anything". But the territories (and its residents) cannot be piggybacked to the categories on states because they aren't states, aren't part of the US, and aren't in the US. Mercy11 (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Aidan721, just for clarification - because one user here is strongly against Washington, D.C. being a part of "state or territory" categories - D.C. WILL be included if the change is in favor of "state or territory", correct? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also any of the "Foo on the National Register of Historic Places by state or territory" seem fully supported as well. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment and proposal. Regarding "I think the categories of the form 'American fooers by state or territory' are unopposed", we don't lump residents of the territories with those of the United States because the territories aren't part of the US, so their residents couldn't possibly be Americans. Manifestations of this are seen in many common instances in real life; for example, the US Census Bureau in its population of the US, doesn't include the populations in the territories. Another example, it would be an error for people born in the unincorporated territory of, for example, Puerto Rico (examples Antonio Correa Cotto, Filiberto Ojeda Rios, and Isabel la Negra) to be included in "American fooers by state or territory" because merely being a resident of one of the territories doesn't automatically make the person an American, which is the implication of the category title "American fooers by state or territory", that people in the territories are Americans. This is why we have categories for residents of the insular areas (e.g., Category:Mayors of places in insular areas of the United States).
- I propose the "or territory" in the category root "American fooers by state or territory" be removed and become simply "American fooers by state", so the residents of the insular areas can continue to categorize under "Category:Foo in insular areas of the United States" without duplication under the "by state or territory" root category. Mercy11 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would advocate for this and this could work with the existing top level "Category:Political divisions of the United States". We should continue to develop the existing category, "Category:Foo in insular areas of the United States". Could the issue with Washington DC be solved by having "Category:Foo in the US by state or Washington, DC"? Then would also have "Category:Foo in the US by tribal lands". That way we would move down the tree via the "Category:Political divisions of the US.", without conflating different political divisions of the US.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Approve of Mercy11’s proposal above. Also approve eliminating the root tree Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States which is the main source of this unnecessary confusion. Yarfpr (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose removal. This suggestion serves to exclude many people from territories from a ton of categories, where it the state/territory is just there for diffusion. Mason (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand this comment. Naming a handful of such "ton of categories" might help. Comment appears contradictory. Mercy11 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose removal. This suggestion serves to exclude many people from territories from a ton of categories, where it the state/territory is just there for diffusion. Mason (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Approve of Mercy11’s proposal above. Also approve eliminating the root tree Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States which is the main source of this unnecessary confusion. Yarfpr (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would advocate for this and this could work with the existing top level "Category:Political divisions of the United States". We should continue to develop the existing category, "Category:Foo in insular areas of the United States". Could the issue with Washington DC be solved by having "Category:Foo in the US by state or Washington, DC"? Then would also have "Category:Foo in the US by tribal lands". That way we would move down the tree via the "Category:Political divisions of the US.", without conflating different political divisions of the US.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Opposed and proposal. There is nothing in common between the U.S. states and the U.S. territories to warrant placing them in the same category; categorizing the territories with the states erroneously implies there is. For example, unlike the states, the territories are not in the United States, nor are they a part of the United States, nor do they have the same constitutional rights as the states. btw, these 3 aren't an exhaustive list.
- Since WP's founding decades ago WP editors have recognized this distinction, which is why we have used separate tree roots for the US states (Category:Categories by state of the United States) and for the US territories (Category:Insular areas of the United States): they have nothing in common.
- Additionally, expanding "Category:Foo in (or, OF) the United States by state", into "Category:Foo in the United States by state or territory" would make the existence of "Category:Insular areas of the United States" unnecessary because it will no longer be needed if all its groups were already categorized under the proposed "Category:Foo in the United States by state or territory". Thus, a vote in support of Category:Foo in the US by state or territory is a vote to eliminate the root "Category:Insular areas of the United States". Is that really what we want?
- Additionally yet, the proposed "Category:Foo in the United States by state or territory" is a bad option in that it can be confusing as Territories of the United States can also refer to those that would include places like the Wyoming Territory, but not places like Puerto Rico.
- Keeping "Category:Categories by state of the United States" as it currently exists (i.e., without subcategories such as "Category:Foo in the United States by state or territory") represents the correct political and geographical reality as it exists today. Statehooders have oftentimes attempted to push their political agenda via WP by making seemingly insignificant tweaks to WP like this one. We should keep such POVs out of WP by eliminating all categories of the type "Foo in the United States by state or territory" because a territory becomes a state when Congress says so, not when statehooders try to pass them as such in WP. Recategorizing that entire root category to also include territories implies the territories and states are somehow linked, which is not factual. The 2 tree roots "Category:Categories by state of the United States" and "Category:Insular areas of the United States" already successfully categorize groups related to United State and its possessions while also keeping political overtones out of the categories.
- I propose the request for the Category Moves not only be disallowed but, also, that the (recently created) entire branch Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States be eliminated altogether. Mercy11 (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States dates to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_13#United_States_locations, which I would not call recent. I for one do not see the consensus Timrollpickering saw in that discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- The category "Insular areas of the US" (DOB 2004) is almost 20 years old while the one proposed in this discussion, "Foo in the US by state or territory" (DOB 2019), is only a bit more than 4. Mercy11 (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that the root of Category:Insular areas of the United States should be removed, and I don't think that this proposition implies that it should. Place Clichy (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neither do I.
- What I was proposing is for the root of Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States be done away with as it is redundant with the union of the two (and long-standing) categories "Category:Categories by state of the United States" and "Category:Insular areas of the United States". That is, the latter two already account for all the subcategory families related to the incorporated territories of the US (aka, the states and DC) as well as to the unincorporated US territories (aka, the Insular Areas). Perhaps most important, the category "Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States", in attempting to act as a catch-all, actually introduces ambiguity, in addition to presumptions that are contrary to reality, such as equating --albeit unintentionally-- the territories with the states of the Union (see explanation above). Mercy11 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- State and territory is not just for insular areas, it also includes Washington D.C., historic territories and the uninhabited minor outlying islands. Insular areas categories can be a child of the state and territory categories, one does not contradict the other. Place Clichy (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States dates to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_13#United_States_locations, which I would not call recent. I for one do not see the consensus Timrollpickering saw in that discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The discussion above about whether Washington, D.C is a territory shows that this rename introduces ambiguity, without actually solving any clear problem. The few categories by non-state subdivisions of the United States can be put directly in "foos in the United States" without further subcategorization. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? I don't understand. You appear to be contradiction yourself. Mercy11 (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? I don't understand how you think my comment is contradictory. Reiterated: this discussion shows several conflicting definitions for the term "territory". Without taking a position on which is correct, having categories with ambiguous names is not helpful. It's better to have one unambiguous name, and accept that things that don't fit whichever name is chosen don't go in the resulting category. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? I don't understand. You appear to be contradiction yourself. Mercy11 (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support a renaming that uses by state and territory. What matters here most is how to organize content that's relative to American subdivisions. What matters less, but has in the past unfortunately polluted such discussions as well as the organization of categories, is the respective status of these places. An obvious need is to diffuse large US-related categories by geography, per WP:DIFFUSE, and an obvious solution is to have children diffusion categories that cover all types of subdivisions, i.e. states, historic and present-day territories, minor outlying islands and the federal district. A similar solution is used for Categories by state or territory of Australia, Categories by province or territory of Canada and Categories by state or union territory of India which are comparable. We unfortunately still see pernickety editors removing places like Washington D.C. from geographically diffused American categories, placing them at the root of U.S. categories, which defeats the purpose of diffusion by geography. Place Clichy (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's pernickety. @Koavf: Could the 1 issue with Washington DC be solved by having "Category:Foo in the US by state or Washington, DC"? The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but that would not include territories. There's no simple way to diffuse this: there are inaccurate and simple ways or mush-mouthed and accurate ways. I suggested the "by place" possibility above, but no one wants to seem to bite. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- And it shouldn't include territories 'cause those are Insular areas covered under a separate category. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- How are territories not a "place"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Koavf: of course, territories are a place just not "in" the US which is what this renaming is spearheading to do. It's trying to say the Insular areas (territores) are "in" the US. An editor or 2 argued that using "of" in the category name would not work because it sounds odd or something. Never mind, that it'd be accurate. See above for arguments against "of the US". I wish people would stop spreading misinformation as well. WP:PRUS The insular areas are not "in" the US. There are 50 states and DC in the US. The territories are Insular Areas "of" the US. But this renaming insists on saying they are "in" the US. So, no consensus.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- The territories are just as much "in" the United States as the states or federal district:
- You are making a distinction that does not exist legally. Where are you getting your infformation? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- A distinction does exist. One of the polaces I get my information from the Encyclopedia Brittanica: The US https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States you can see here what it includes AND Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States. https://www.britannica.com/place/Guam AND Northern Mariana Northern Mariana Islands, a self-governing commonwealth in association with the United States. https://www.britannica.com/place/Northern-Mariana-Islands AND If you search any of the 50 states in the EB, it will say, for example: North Carolina - the EB will say "North Carolina is a constituent state of the US" https://www.britannica.com/place/North-Carolina-state Constituent means "part of" because the states and Washington DC are constituent parts of the US. BTW, the definition you posted is regarding a code regarding Trade of Tobacco BUT that a specific code defines the US as such doesn't mean the territories are "in" the US. The code is stating it applies to the US and the territories. Other codes / US laws exclude the territories, when the specific code doesn't apply to them. That definition does nothing to define what is "in" the US. Why do you want to say the territories are in the US. The insular areas are not in, they are associated with, unincorporated territories of --> insular areas of the US. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- In this map by the US Census the distinction is clear. The map is labeled "Combined Statistical areas of the United States and Puerto Rico". Why would it need to say Puerto Rico if PR were in the US? That would be like saying here is a "Combined Statistical areas of the US and Virginia". Yeah if Virginia were not in the US, the label would need to be written that way. https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3701e.ct001208r/?r=0.277,-0.008,0.661,0.239,0 The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, @Koavf, the territories are not just as much "in" the United States as the states or federal district, no matter what the Cornell U. website chose to write in its website. Cornell U. isn't a dictionary. To define what most people understand by "United States" we don't go to Cornell but to dictionaries, and all major dictionaries state United States is "the 50 states and DC", nothing else. [2] [3] [4] [5]
- For a political entity --like a US territory-- to be "in" the US, it must be "a part of" the US. Territories aren’t "in" the US because they are not a part of the US; they belong to the US, but aren‘t part of it. Analogy: your heart is "in" you; therefore, it is "a part of" you. Your car is not "in" you (but it belongs to you, like territories belong to the US); therefore, your car is not "a part of" you. Mercy11 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @The Eloquent Peasant and Mercy11: Cornell is quoting the U. S. Code. The actual laws of the United States supersede an encyclopedia or dictionaries as a reliable source. The territories are part of the United States, just like the states and federal district. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- By definition, when something is unincorporated it means "not a part of". So the territories aren't part of the US. The US consists of the 50 states and DC only. The US Code Cornell makes reference to doesn't say anywhere the territories are part of the US. This is supported by the SCOTUS who determined in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) the territories aren't part of the US. "They territories belong to the US but aren't part of the US." Mercy11 (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- @The Eloquent Peasant and Mercy11: Cornell is quoting the U. S. Code. The actual laws of the United States supersede an encyclopedia or dictionaries as a reliable source. The territories are part of the United States, just like the states and federal district. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is how territories are not a place: when we categorize by "place" we are categorizing by the concept of location, that is, geography. However, when we attempt to categorize "by state or territory" we are categorizing by types of political status. The one thing that makes territories different from states is their political status, nothing else. If a territory where to become a state, it's location doesn't change, only its political status changes. For example, the Oklahoma Territory. A categorization "by location" would certainly not help. Mercy11 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Koavf: of course, territories are a place just not "in" the US which is what this renaming is spearheading to do. It's trying to say the Insular areas (territores) are "in" the US. An editor or 2 argued that using "of" in the category name would not work because it sounds odd or something. Never mind, that it'd be accurate. See above for arguments against "of the US". I wish people would stop spreading misinformation as well. WP:PRUS The insular areas are not "in" the US. There are 50 states and DC in the US. The territories are Insular Areas "of" the US. But this renaming insists on saying they are "in" the US. So, no consensus.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- How are territories not a "place"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- And it shouldn't include territories 'cause those are Insular areas covered under a separate category. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but that would not include territories. There's no simple way to diffuse this: there are inaccurate and simple ways or mush-mouthed and accurate ways. I suggested the "by place" possibility above, but no one wants to seem to bite. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's pernickety. @Koavf: Could the 1 issue with Washington DC be solved by having "Category:Foo in the US by state or Washington, DC"? The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note Category:American rabbis by state and Category:American racing drivers by state were tagged in the original CFDS nomination but not listed or tagged for this discussion until now. It should probably be added. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Are people open to an alternative name? @Koavf@Mercy11@Place Clichy Mason (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I believe the most important issue here is to have categories that allow diffusion by any type of place regardless of status. Although I feel that by state or territory would accomplish that, I am willing to consider maybe by state or territory or district instead for the one user (it seems) who feels that such a name would exclude Washington D.C.
- Also, I do agree that insular
territoriesareas categories are useful. In my opinion they should be made a child category of the by state or territory [or district], rather than left completely out of U.S.-related categories, because despite their different status they have a defining relationship with the United States. Note that the geographically diffused American categories also include, when appropriate, the historic territories and the uninhabited minor outlying islands. Place Clichy (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)- For the record, TTBOMK, there is no such thing as an "insular territory". The terminology used by the US government, and that in general use, uses the terms "insular areas" and "unincorporated territories" only. When the term "territories" is used alone (i.e., as opposed to "incorporated territories" and "unincorporated territories") it defaults to unincorporated territories. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- My bad, I meant to write insular areas categories instead of insular territories. However, territories also applies to places like Alaska Territory, Hawaii Territory or Michigan Territory before they became states. TTBOMK, there is little or no difference between the status of these places and the present-day territories of the U.S., who happen to be all located on islands and are rightfully called insular areas for practical reasons. Place Clichy (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, TTBOMK, there is no such thing as an "insular territory". The terminology used by the US government, and that in general use, uses the terms "insular areas" and "unincorporated territories" only. When the term "territories" is used alone (i.e., as opposed to "incorporated territories" and "unincorporated territories") it defaults to unincorporated territories. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm open to "by (administrative) division" or "by place", but I do not think we should call Washington, D.C. basically just a state or a territory because it's easy for us. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- E.g. see Category:Russian people by location, where Russia has krais and oblasts and republics and districts and federal cityies, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Great. My hope is that Mercy11, is open to the idea. I know that @Mercy11 feels very strongly about insular
territoriesareas, so I would like to wait to get their input. No one is disputing that the insularterritoryarea categories are useful or value or that they have a unique relationship with the united states that is not properly captured by the the current category naming of "state or territory". I believe that are scenarios, where the distinction between each type of state, territory, insularterritoryarea and district aren't particularly defining (and more serve to break up larger categories). But there are also cases were it *really* matters. Mason (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)- There is no distinction between "territories" and "insular territories". Whatever the latter is supposed to mean (the United States Minor Outlying Islands?), they are just territories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- While "by state or territory or district" may allude to differences in political status and function, the fact is their common thread is they are all political entities. Likewise, the nomination seeks to categorize by political entities ("by state or territory"). However the suggestion to categorize "by location" alludes to something totally different, something more akin to geography. If the category is going to have a "by location" in it, that would NOT allude to California, Puerto Rico, DC, etc. because those aren't locations; they are political entities. When we categorize "by location", we expect to see subcategories such as Western US, Caribbean, East Coast, etc., because they are locations, and we do not expect to see subcategories like "California" (a state), "Puerto Rico" (a territory), or "DC" (the federal district). BTW, the terminology used by the US Government is both "insular areas" and "unincorporated territories", both of which are interchangeable. I do not recall ever seeing the term "insular territories" employed in US Govt literature. I think we should try preserve that (US Govt) terminology in the categories for it's easily associated with factual entities in real life. Mercy11 (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Like Mercy11 here, I prefer categories based on the principle of political divisions. By place or by location could also refer to lower divisions such as counties and cities, which IMHO completely misses the point. I also support keeping by insular area categories, because we also have category structures for dependent territories of other countries such as British Overseas Territories and Overseas France, a tree in which the U.S. insular areas deserve to be parented. I believe the insular areas categories should be a child of the U.S. by state or territory [or district] category. Again, other comparable federal countries whose subdivisions have different statuses use similar wordings: Categories by state or territory of Australia, Categories by province or territory of Canada and Categories by state or union territory of India. Re: Russia, the comparable category is Category:People from Russia by federal subject, per Federal subjects of Russia (a collective name for all the first-level subdivisions of the country i.e. oblasts, krais and republics etc.). The by location category also includes cities and districts (equivalent of counties). Place Clichy (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification @Mercy11 in terms of terminology, as well as the distinction between geographic groupings and political groupings. Because it sounds like the contention is that we need a satisfactory name for the category that parents both types (level one in this diagram). Note that"()" denotes a single category within a single level , where as "|" is used to denote different categories in the same level:
- Level 1: ( geographic, political, really everything that is a first level potential grouping)
- Level 2: (any geographic) | (any political)
- Level 3: (more specific geographic) | (more specific political)
- ...
- Level N: (individual geographic units)| (individual states) |(individual territories) |(individual districts )| (individual units that have some geographic parents and some political parents) etc
- ...
- Thanks for the clarification @Mercy11 in terms of terminology, as well as the distinction between geographic groupings and political groupings. Because it sounds like the contention is that we need a satisfactory name for the category that parents both types (level one in this diagram). Note that"()" denotes a single category within a single level , where as "|" is used to denote different categories in the same level:
- Does this structure map onto to everyone's understanding/is not objectionable? @Aidan721@Koavf@Place Clichy. I'm intentionally keeping to devoid of content, so that we can focus on the levels. Mason (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am not smart enough to understand what you wrote. Maybe give a fer instance? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Like Mercy11 here, I prefer categories based on the principle of political divisions. By place or by location could also refer to lower divisions such as counties and cities, which IMHO completely misses the point. I also support keeping by insular area categories, because we also have category structures for dependent territories of other countries such as British Overseas Territories and Overseas France, a tree in which the U.S. insular areas deserve to be parented. I believe the insular areas categories should be a child of the U.S. by state or territory [or district] category. Again, other comparable federal countries whose subdivisions have different statuses use similar wordings: Categories by state or territory of Australia, Categories by province or territory of Canada and Categories by state or union territory of India. Re: Russia, the comparable category is Category:People from Russia by federal subject, per Federal subjects of Russia (a collective name for all the first-level subdivisions of the country i.e. oblasts, krais and republics etc.). The by location category also includes cities and districts (equivalent of counties). Place Clichy (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Great. My hope is that Mercy11, is open to the idea. I know that @Mercy11 feels very strongly about insular
- E.g. see Category:Russian people by location, where Russia has krais and oblasts and republics and districts and federal cityies, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: I think including content would be good and also please include in your proposal for the new category, the entire name you are proposing. Just saying "...by state or territory" is not clear. Please be clear. I am opposed to a parent category that states the insular areas are in the US because they are not. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- See map of the US ..50 states and DC. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/united-states-regions/ The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Copying this here because I accidentally posted it above the relisted section. See what the Encyclopedia Britannica calls the unincorporated territories. Nowhere does it state they are in the US.
- Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States. https://www.britannica.com/place/Guam AND Northern Mariana Northern Mariana Islands, a self-governing commonwealth in association with the United States. https://www.britannica.com/place/Northern-Mariana-Islands AND If you search any of the 50 states in the EB, it will say, for example: North Carolina - the EB will say "North Carolina is a constituent state of the US" https://www.britannica.com/place/North-Carolina-state Constituent means "part of" because the states and Washington DC are constituent parts of the US. PR is a "commonwealth in association with the US." https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3290m.gct00217/?sp=37&r=-0.181,0.128,0.733,0.265,0 None of these reliable sources talk about the territories being in the US. That is why keeping categories that collect Foo by Insular areas of the United States is correct... The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Category:Foo by state or other first-level political subdivision would probably cover the district and territories and Indian reservations, altho not Air Force bases which I also saw mentioned above. it's unwieldy but the autofill and robots won't mind. jengod (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that if we can agree on a general structure of the nesting, we can hammer out some of the semantic details, that folks like @User:The Eloquent Peasant have brought up. I am going to use an example that is explicitly not American.
People of Mars Level Shorthand Description Examples of categories within it 1 Martians by subdivision geographic, political, really everything that is a first level potential grouping Martians by first-level subdivision, Martians by 2nd-level subdivision 2 Martians by method of subdivision (any geographic) | (any political) Martians by geographical subdivisions; Martians by political subdivisions 3 Martians by level and method (more specific geographic) | (more specific political) Martians by mountains; Martians by state; Martians by district 4 Martians by individual unit. (individual geographic units)| (individual states) |(individual territories) |(individual districts )| (individual units that have some geographic parents and some political parents) etc Martians from the Red Mountains; Martians from the Green Round State; Martians from the Square District.
- Does this help? I really really don't want to start with content examples as then we can get derailed by which preposition we should use or whether folks are using the proper phrasing. Mason (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Churches in the United Kingdom by century, 7th-17th century
- Propose deleting Category:7th-century churches in the United Kingdom, move countries to Category:7th-century churches by country
- Propose deleting Category:8th-century churches in the United Kingdom, move countries to Category:8th-century churches by country
- Propose deleting Category:9th-century churches in the United Kingdom, move countries to Category:9th-century churches by country
- Propose deleting Category:10th-century churches in the United Kingdom, move countries to Category:10th-century churches by country
- Propose deleting Category:11th-century churches in the United Kingdom, move countries to Category:11th-century churches by country
- Propose deleting Category:12th-century churches in the United Kingdom, move countries to Category:12th-century churches by country
- Propose deleting Category:13th-century churches in the United Kingdom, move countries to Category:13th-century churches by country
- Propose deleting Category:14th-century churches in the United Kingdom, move countries to Category:14th-century churches by country
- Propose deleting Category:15th-century churches in the United Kingdom, move countries to Category:15th-century churches by country
- Propose deleting Category:16th-century churches in the United Kingdom, move countries to Category:16th-century churches by country
- Propose deleting Category:17th-century churches in the United Kingdom, move countries to Category:17th-century churches by country
- Nominator's rationale: The United Kingdom didn't exist as these predate the Acts of Union 1707. As they were separate countries, churches by century categories for each nation should be in corresponding century and country category. Suonii180 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as part of Category:Architecture by country and century. The rationale of this nomination would equally touch the "architecture" parents in Category:Architecture in the United Kingdom by century, and Category:19th-century churches in the Republic of Ireland and a good many other country hierarchies. We should not delete "anachronistic" intersections of architectural period and modern country, e.g. we should keep Category:Baroque Revival architecture in the Republic of Ireland even though the period of Baroque Revival architecture ended before the Republic of Ireland was established. Likewise we should not delete architecture by century. The content is clearly understandable as buildings within a modern border that were completed in a past century. – Fayenatic London 12:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Even though 7th-century church buildings in England etc would be kept, losing the UK hierarchy before C18 would not be helpful for navigation. The C11 and C12 categories also include member pages in the Channel Islands, which would no longer be accessible by country and century if the nomination were approved. Moreover, 11th to 14th also have subcats for RC churches. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Both of the categories regarding RC churches only contain churches which are in England. They could be renamed accordingly and fit into 11th and 14th-century churches in England categories and Category:11th-century Roman Catholic church buildings by country and Category:14th-century Roman Catholic church buildings by country. Suonii180 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This means buildings now in the United Kingdom that date from those centuries. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. We cannot pretend that the United Kingdom existed before its foundation. Alternatively, rename to Category:YYth-century churches in Great Britian to match Category:17th century in Great Britain, etc. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't mean buildings that were built in the United Kingdom in those centuries; it means buildings built in those centuries that are in the United Kingdom. Fundamental difference, as I said only one line above. Are we going to rename Category:7th-century churches in Italy or Category:10th-century churches in Germany or Category:17th-century churches in the Czech Republic too? How about Category:Paleo-Indian archaeological sites in the United States or Category:Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Albania? We need to speedy close this now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep "The United Kingdom didn't exist" How the heck is that factoid relevant? This is a category for centuries-old buildings, divided by their geographic location. Dimadick (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)- Merge per nom. That said, I also like the alternative by Aiden: rename them to "YY-century churches in Great Britain" per Aiden's suggestion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Nonsense proposal - no modern country except perhaps Egypt existed 2,000 years ago, yet we have dozens if not hundreds of categories for Roman/Greek/Indian buildings by modern country. If the cats said "of" rather than "in" there might be the glimmering of a case, but they don't. Or has this proposal been very badly explained? The main stated grounds make no sense at all. Johnbod (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- U still around? I think you are one of the better editors on WP so I am surprised you are sticking it out! And I agree with you on this one. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and speedy close. The nom does not see the difference in "in" and "of" ("or constructed in"). 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.204.148 (talk)
Category:Medieval European scribes
- Propose renaming Category:Medieval European scribes to Category:Medieval scribes
- Nominator's rationale: There's no need to narrow this category to only European scribes. The sibling category, "Category:Ancient scribes" doesn't constrain themselves to a single continent. Mason (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- In fact Category:Ancient scribes contains only Egyptian, Greek and Near-Eastern subcats, so is "constrained" to the Mediterranean. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't constrained, someone could still be added to the main category of Ancient scribe if they were from somewhere outside the mediterranean. But "Medieval European scribe", does not allow someone from medieval egypt to be added. Mason (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- In fact Category:Ancient scribes contains only Egyptian, Greek and Near-Eastern subcats, so is "constrained" to the Mediterranean. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose They are in fact all European, & there is no harm in helping the reader by saying so. Other traditions are in the extensive tree under Category:Medieval calligraphers. Btw, the Irish ones (nearly all authors who wrote out their own books) represent about 50% of 80-odd in the category, & should have their own sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- But is european+medieval scribe a meaningful intersection? I don't see how it helps readers to exclude non-european medieval scribes. Mason (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- One might drop the "medieval", as there are no "scribes" in Europe after the Renaissance, and "medieval" is not a term that works or is used for eg East Asia. Or one might drop "European" for that reason, but hoiw does that help anyone? The current category is a useful definition of a distinct tradition & function. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which scribes are being excluded? I see Category:Calligraphers of the medieval Islamic world, which could possibly contain articles that would fit "Medieval scribes". Those ones, at least, seem pretty discoverable where they are. Are there others? -- asilvering (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- But is european+medieval scribe a meaningful intersection? I don't see how it helps readers to exclude non-european medieval scribes. Mason (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just delete, per WP:OVERLAPCAT, articles are already in a more specific branch of the tree of Category:Medieval writers or in Category:Medieval calligraphers. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nonsense - scribes should not be in a "writers" category at all, unless they clearly did both (as authors or translators), which very many did not. I don't think you actually looked at Category:Medieval calligraphers; it consists entirely of by-century subcats, each containing only a Chinese, Japanese and Korean sub-cat. So there is no OVERLAP at all with this category! Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: I am not sure why writers should be limited to authors and translators. According to whom? The articles of this category just factually are in another writers subcategory, so apparently there is consensus that scribes is also a subset of writers. With respect to calligraphers, I found David Aubert in Category:Medieval European scribes but he was not yet in the Category:Medieval calligraphers tree, I added this article there just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- And I reverted you! You didn't even put him in a century sub-cat! He was left as the only entry outside one, and the only European in that whole tree. What RS do you have that call him a calligrapher? It is not a term used of Medieval European scribes, hence the diffferent categories. The aim of medieval scribing was to produce a clear and accurate text in a variety of very tightly-defined scripts; once printed type could do this more reliably the scribing industry mostly vanished at the top end, just leaving scriveners for legal work etc. This is very different from other cultures where artistic calligraphy was and is pursued. It is clear from the cats above that the "writers" tree is for authors, to which the many translators can be added - Aubert was a translator and adapter of texts, so he is rightly there. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: I am not sure why writers should be limited to authors and translators. According to whom? The articles of this category just factually are in another writers subcategory, so apparently there is consensus that scribes is also a subset of writers. With respect to calligraphers, I found David Aubert in Category:Medieval European scribes but he was not yet in the Category:Medieval calligraphers tree, I added this article there just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nonsense - scribes should not be in a "writers" category at all, unless they clearly did both (as authors or translators), which very many did not. I don't think you actually looked at Category:Medieval calligraphers; it consists entirely of by-century subcats, each containing only a Chinese, Japanese and Korean sub-cat. So there is no OVERLAP at all with this category! Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Speaking as a topic expert here, I find little to disagree with in Johnbod's comments. Scribes are not necessarily calligraphers, and they are certainly not usefully categorized as "writers". We could change the category to "Medieval scribes" broadly; this is how many works in the field describe them. But these works omit "European" typically because it is assumed, not because they mean to include scribes who were not European. We could use the term most often used in palaeography ("Latin"), but I believe this will be unhelpfully confusing to the typical Wikipedia user. -- asilvering (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why relist this? There are no supports at all, apart from the nom, and he seems less sure of his case now. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: when I wrote "I am not sure" I said I was not sure about your response. And you haven't answered my question why scribes need to be excluded from writers. "It is clear from the cats above that the "writers" tree is for authors," -> No that is not clear, in fact categories above have nothing to do with the question. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't mean you - you are not the nom and not supporting the proposal anyway. Authoring and copying are two very different activities - you might as well categorize scriveners and court reporters as judges. I have explained why your suggestion to delete (also with no other support) is based on more than one misunderstanding. Imo too many discussions are being rolled-over ad infinitum.asilvering, are you actually a "Keep"? Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod I don't particularly care either way, but I guess that's a weak keep. -- asilvering (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I guess you are - thanks! Caring is optional at Cfd. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't misgender me. @Johnbod. And I don't understand what your opposition is to making the category broader.Mason (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I guess you are - thanks! Caring is optional at Cfd. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't mean you - you are not the nom and not supporting the proposal anyway. Authoring and copying are two very different activities - you might as well categorize scriveners and court reporters as judges. I have explained why your suggestion to delete (also with no other support) is based on more than one misunderstanding. Imo too many discussions are being rolled-over ad infinitum.asilvering, are you actually a "Keep"? Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Dimensional travelers
- Nominator's rationale: Only the first category encompasses actual dimensional travelers. The others have members that are not necessarily defined by being a dimensional traveler, though they may have engaged in it. Therefore, the category is redundant, as well as potentially confusing due to its lack of "fictional". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- If not kept it should probably be merged to Category:Fictional travelers (or to Category:Fictional characters by behavior if Category:Fictional travelers is merged in the discussion above). If kept, rename to Category:Fictional dimensional travelers to avoid confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See also #Category:Fictional travelers below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fictional travelers
- Propose merging Category:Fictional travelers to Category:Fictional characters by behavior
- Nominator's rationale: The vagueness of this category makes it a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Being a traveler in general is not a defining aspect of a character, whereas the subcategories arguably are defining, as they depict specific types of traveler, that aren't subjective in nature. Of course, the individual articles in the category would be purged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)- Comment. I agree that it is confusing and vague, but we have the non-fictional version as well, which I think has the same problems. Mason (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fictional bibliophiles
- Nominator's rationale: This would appear to be your standard WP:SUBJECTIVECAT as it is unclear what would qualify a fictional character to be a bibliophile, or what would make them defined by that trait. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, a rather trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, a lot of the entries seem to surpisingly fit, with Belle (Disney character), Twilight Sparkle and Hermione Granger all having a strong fascination with reading that defines their characters. Presuming the category is well maintained, that seems to be more objective of a category for fictional characters.
- Keep "surpisingly fit" Not that surprising, since this is an entire type of characters, and not than rare either. In Twilight Sparkle's case, she spent part of her series living in a library and was the closest thing to a librarian which the main setting had. She did not just read books, she offered or lend books to other characters. Dimadick (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Finno-Ugric peoples
- Propose merging Category:Finno-Ugric peoples to Category:Uralic peoples
- Nominator's rationale: The terms Finno-Ugric and Uralic are often used interchangeably[6] and it is often unclear whether to classify pages under 'Uralic' or 'Finno-Ugric' (example) The subcategories of Uralic peoples should also mimic the structure of the template Template:Finno-Ugric peoples. Compare also with Category:Uralic languages, which is in a better shape. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Samoyedic peoples are apparently not part of Finno-Ugric peoples but part of Uralic peoples. By the way I wonder to what extent Finno-Ugric peoples and Uralic peoples are established terms because we do not have articles about them, they are just redirects to languages. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- The terms are quite conventional, even though one always needs to be aware of the dangers of using such ethnically loaded concepts. Nevertheless, the notion of 'Finno-Ugric peoples' is particularly important in Russian history. Both articles used to exist [7][8] but were made into a redirects without any discussion. I am working on the topic now, and in my sandbox you can find a long list of references which do establish the terms. About the Samoyeds: In principle, Uralic is only synonymous with the long phrase "Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic", but in practice the mention of Samoyeds is often dropped and Uralic and Finno-Ugric are treated as synonyms. This is also supported by the fact that it does not seem possible to make linguistic distinction between things like Proto-Finno-Ugric and Proto-Uralic. Some further examples of usage: Category:Finno-Ugrists is correctly categorized in Category:Uralic languages, and all the individual articles currently in Category:Finno-Ugric peoples should more correctly be categorized to Category:Uralic peoples, since they all concern also the Samoyeds. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Los Angeles Dodgers Legend Bureau
- Nominator's rationale: Delete category per WP:NARROWCAT. I can't find any reliable source for this "Dodgers Legends Bureau" nor is there a Wikipedia article on it. From what little I found, I THINK its a community services thing linked with the Dodgers organization but not entirely sure. Its definitely not an award and I can't find another Major League Baseball team which has this type of category that lists ex-players associated with a team-ran community service/charity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison, @Marcocapelle, pinging for an opinion because sometimes "small" nominations get missed out when (a lot of) relistings happen. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support in principle: but shouldn't it be merge to Category:Los Angeles Dodgers players, instead of delete? Mason (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison, the articles are already in that category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Great! Mason (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison, the articles are already in that category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support in principle: but shouldn't it be merge to Category:Los Angeles Dodgers players, instead of delete? Mason (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not defining to the articles, at least as currently written. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Financial commentators by nationality
- Propose merging Category:Financial commentators by nationality to Category:Financial commentators
- Propose renaming Category:German financial commentators to Category:German commentators
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are only two categories in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. I'm also skeptical as to whether we really need to diffuse by nationality at all. Mason (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. The German subcategory may be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Added to nom. per @Marcocapelle: rename rationale: Too small of a category for just "financial commentators". Mason (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)- Merge/rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Partial satellite launch failures
- Propose renaming Category:Partial satellite launch failures to Category:Satellite launch partial failures
- Nominator's rationale: This is for partial failures among satellite launches. Parent is Category:Satellite launch failures. I am open to other suggestions. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: a few articles refer to a launch "anomaly" so we might rename the category to Category:Satellite launch anomalies. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Fictional characters involved in incest
- Nominator's rationale: The "involved in" is a dead giveaway that this isn't defining for a character, just an aspect of the story itself. Therefore it clearly fails WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom Mason (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose "just an aspect of the story itself" Incomprehensible. The story is what tells us about the life events of a character. Dimadick (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Something outside of the character that happens to them is not the same thing as an intrinsic trait of the character that would be defining for them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dimadick AHI-3000 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Demons by culture
- Propose renaming Category:Demons by culture to Category:Demons by continent
- Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. Move Category:Demons in religion back to Category:Demons. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose rename. I included Category:Demons in religion as a subcategory of Category:Demons by culture for a reason. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is just daft. A category tree by culture presupposes that every subcategory represents a culture. But a continent is not "a culture". And religion is not "a culture". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: The continent categories contain subcategories by culture/location. And religion is integral to cultural identity, especially when it comes to mythological entities. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. I don't understand the opposition. A continent isn't a culture and neither is a religion. Mason (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- There are several other categories like this: Category:Legendary creatures by culture; Category:Deities by culture, Category:Dragons by culture etc. These should all be renamed. @Marcocapelle, the grand parent category does the culture grouping closer to right: Category:Legendary and mythological characters by culture Mason (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. I don't understand the opposition. A continent isn't a culture and neither is a religion. Mason (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: The continent categories contain subcategories by culture/location. And religion is integral to cultural identity, especially when it comes to mythological entities. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is just daft. A category tree by culture presupposes that every subcategory represents a culture. But a continent is not "a culture". And religion is not "a culture". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Legendary creatures by culture to Category:Legendary creatures by continent
- Propose renaming Category:Deities by culture to Category:Deities by continent and move Category:Deities by religion back to Category:Deities, move Category:Goddesses by culture and Category:Gods by culture to Category:Legendary and mythological characters by culture
- Propose renaming Category:Dragons by culture to Category:Dragons by continent
- Oppose rename. I included Category:Demons in religion as a subcategory of Category:Demons by culture for a reason. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. If you know more, feel free to add them here. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per nom, it's incomprehensible that one would equate continents with individual cultures. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:18th-century South African people
- Propose splitting Category:17th-century South African people to Category:17th-century Cape Colony people and Category:17th-century African people
- Propose splitting Category:18th-century South African people to Category:18th-century Cape Colony people and Category:18th-century African people
- Propose splitting Category:19th-century South African people to Category:19th-century Cape Colony people and Category:19th-century African people
- Nominator's rationale: split, South Africa did not exist yet before the 20th century and in that period the Cape Colony does not have a shared history with other regions in what is now South Africa. Presumably the subcategories of the 19th century can just be renamed to Cape Colony, but let's look at that in more detail in a later follow-up nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Question: were would someone like Krotoa be categorized with this rename? They're from the area, but aren't really defined by the colony. Mason (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- As she worked for the Dutch East India Company, she would belong in Category:17th-century Cape Colony people. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Question: were would someone like Krotoa be categorized with this rename? They're from the area, but aren't really defined by the colony. Mason (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. And reparent as appropriate. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Cheondoists
- Propose merging Category:Cheondoists to Category:Cheondoism
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's really not enough here for a category. Mason (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Humor and wit characters
- Propose merging Category:Humor and wit characters to Category:Comedy characters
- Nominator's rationale: Seems like a complete overlap; humor and wit is by definition comedy. Category was also made by a blocked user. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Question about the target: does "comedy" include folklore tales? Because that is what a number of articles are about. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- If the characters aren't explicitly comedic, they should probably just be purged. Calling a non-comedic character humorous or not, is personal opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is a bit of a grey area though. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- If the characters aren't explicitly comedic, they should probably just be purged. Calling a non-comedic character humorous or not, is personal opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:BBC Daytime television series
- Propose renaming Category:BBC Daytime television series to Category:BBC daytime television series
- Nominator's rationale: 'BBC Daytime' isn't an official name: [9] Fuddle. Similar to Category:Late night television programming. (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Articles generated by AI
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep My definition of redundant is "it will probably not be necessary for a long while, if ever". That doesn't seem to be the case here, as the moment someone creates an article with a non-GPT AI, this category will need to be recreated. It seems like minor quibbling to delete it now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not the moment someone creates such an article. The moment their doing so becomes a matter of attention by the community and needs to be noted. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, but I'm not sure how much this would be a defining category beyond maintenance. Mason (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not the moment someone creates such an article. The moment their doing so becomes a matter of attention by the community and needs to be noted. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Lawyers from the Colony of New South Wales
- Propose merging Category:Lawyers from the Colony of New South Wales to Category:19th-century Australian lawyers and Category:New South Wales lawyers
- Propose merging Category:Writers from the Colony of New South Wales to Category:19th-century Australian writers and Category:Writers from New South Wales
- Propose merging Category:Scientists from the Colony of New South Wales to Category:19th-century Australian scientists
- Propose merging Category:Artists from the Colony of New South Wales to Category:Artists from New South Wales and Category:19th-century Australian artists
- Propose merging Category:Businesspeople from the Colony of New South Wales to Category:Businesspeople from New South Wales and Category:19th-century Australian businesspeople
- Nominator's rationale: Dual merge, non-defining intersection between colony location, occupation, and century. I also think it is worth noting that for the VAST majority of people, being from the Colony of New South Wales is not defining. Same logic as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_17#Category:Writers_from_the_Colony_of_Western_Australia Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_7#Category:Engineers_from_the_Colony_of_New_South_Wales Mason (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- If merged, then triple merge, also to Category:Colony of New South Wales people. Unless we are going to delete that category, the articles here ought to stay in this tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Republic of Venice novelists
- Propose splitting Category:Republic of Venice novelists to Category:Republic of Venice writers and Category:Italian novelists
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support with some regret, since the Italian parent is a bit odd. I think this is the only case where we have a huge tree by occupation for what was just a region at the time (pre-1800). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: it appears that the subject of the article was born in Zadar which was part of the Republic of Venice but was not in Italy at all. I would suggest to drop the second merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, I think we'll have to manually merge then, to ensure that we don't lose the fact that these are novelists. Mason (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- The article is already in Category:16th-century novelists so it stays in the novelists tree regardless. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok sounds good, happy to do a single merge then Mason (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- The article is already in Category:16th-century novelists so it stays in the novelists tree regardless. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, I think we'll have to manually merge then, to ensure that we don't lose the fact that these are novelists. Mason (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Smasongarrison: it appears that the subject of the article was born in Zadar which was part of the Republic of Venice but was not in Italy at all. I would suggest to drop the second merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Franklin Athletic Club football seasons
- Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category Let'srun (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Let'srun: which Athletic Club does the target refer to? We only have Athletic club as a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Franklin Athletic Club Let'srun (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Let'srun: you may have misunderstood my question. Obviously Category:Franklin Athletic Club football seasons refers to Franklin Athletic Club, but which Athletic Club does Category:Athletic Club football teams and seasons refer to? Did it exist at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I share the same skepticism as Marcocapelle. Category:Athletic Club football teams and seasons seems to be a miscellaneous category of teams. What is Athletic Club football? –Aidan721 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Athletic Club football teams and seasons is indeed weird, and the capitalization is confusing. Parent Category:Athletics clubs in the United States (uncapitalized) seems to indicate that this is just synonymous with sports club, in which case the former category seems to have been created with the intent of gathering clubs named Athletic Club but who have nothing in common (WP:SHAREDNAME). I suggest splitting Category:Athletic Club football teams and seasons between Category:American football team seasons/Category:College football seasons by team and Category:Athletic clubs in the United States/Category:Sports clubs and teams in the United States. Some of the Athletic Clubs in this category don't apparently have anything to do with football, e.g. Detroit Athletic Club. Place Clichy (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Athletic Club football teams and seasons is definitely a messy category. The C in club should certainly not be capitalized. Also it's a messy grouping of articles about athletic clubs that played football and articles about specific seasons played by such clubs. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Athletic Club football teams and seasons is indeed weird, and the capitalization is confusing. Parent Category:Athletics clubs in the United States (uncapitalized) seems to indicate that this is just synonymous with sports club, in which case the former category seems to have been created with the intent of gathering clubs named Athletic Club but who have nothing in common (WP:SHAREDNAME). I suggest splitting Category:Athletic Club football teams and seasons between Category:American football team seasons/Category:College football seasons by team and Category:Athletic clubs in the United States/Category:Sports clubs and teams in the United States. Some of the Athletic Clubs in this category don't apparently have anything to do with football, e.g. Detroit Athletic Club. Place Clichy (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Franklin Athletic Club Let'srun (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Noblesville Athletic Club football seasons
- Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category Let'srun (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which Athletic Club does the target refer to? We only have Athletic club as a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't to any specific one, from my understanding. Let'srun (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Wabash Athletic Association football seasons
- Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Maritime Privateers football
- Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory with one page. Let'srun (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep subcategory now contains two articles; will grow. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Maritime Privateers football coaches
- Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category Let'srun (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep category now contains two articles; will grow. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Carleton Knights football seasons
- Propose merging Category:Carleton Knights football seasons to Category:Carleton Knights football
- Nominator's rationale: Only two articles, one of which is a redirect. Upmerge to Carleton Knights football. Let'srun (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. There is an accepted categorization scheme that all collegiate football programs with season articles should have categories for their articles, especially considering the potential for many more to fill it - I'm 100% certain there's more than one notable Carleton Knights season. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. "Potential for growth" is NO LONGER a reason to keep per COMMUNITY CONSENSUS. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Then what is the policy? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per BeanieFan11. It's silly to delete a populated category that's part of an established categorization scheme that would just have to be recreated in the near future. Let'srun, these nominations are, frankly, a waste of time. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:South Bend Athletic Association football seasons
- Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in category. Let'srun (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support in principle, but not delete. @Let'srun for tiny categories like this that are too small at the moment, a merge target is important so that the page isn't isolated from the tree. Do you have a suggested merge? Mason (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:18th-century biochemists
- Nominator's rationale: This category is effectively empty. The only page in here, is a redirect who was born in the 19th century. Mason (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and the fact that biochemistry wasnt even defined then. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)