Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 24: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
cmts
Line 798: Line 798:
|}
|}
::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. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 20:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 20:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Let's work with actual instances of those found at "''Remaining categories from speedy''" above which is really what this discussion is about.
:::The ''Remaining categories'' list contains 3 basic cases exemplified by these 3 generic types:
::::(1) Something in the US,
::::(2) Something in the NRHP, and
::::(3) American people with some particular function.
:::Three actual instances of those 3 generic types above from the ''Remaining categories'' are:
::::· [[:Category:Cemeteries in the United States by state]] to [[:Category:Cemeteries in the United States by state or territory]]
::::· [[:Category:Road bridges on the National Register of Historic Places by state]] to [[:Category:Road bridges on the National Register of Historic Places by state or territory]]
::::· [[:Category:American models by state]] to [[:Category:American models by state or territory]]
:::That is, Cemeteries in the US are "Something in the US", Road bridges in the NRHP are "Something in the NRHP", and American models are "American people with some particular function".
:::I prefer to use the 3 undisputable cases above and stay away from the generalized so-called "examples" used by some editors here (myself included) like the various "examples" proffered above, including
::::Category:Foo in the US by state or territory or federal district
::::Category:Level 1: (geographic, political, really everything that is a first level potential grouping)
::::Category:Level 1:Martians by subdivision
:::and the reason is the generalized so-called "examples" are more prone to lead to confusion and error.
:::That said, at least one problem becomes immediately evident in that the hierarchy breaks down for all subcategories of type 3, the “American models by state or territory” (the "American people with some particular function") because, unless we assume that the peoples in the territories are American, which they aren’t, we are going to end up with "people with a particular function" (such as [[:Category:Puerto Rican models]]) under "American people with some particular function" who aren't Americans. Specifically, in terms of the unincorporated territories, Puerto Ricans are not Americans, they are [[Puerto Ricans]], and Guamanians are not Americans, they are [[Chamorro people|Guamanians]], and, likewise, American Samoans are not Americans, they are American Samoans, etc. There is a reason why the peoples of the territories have their own WP articles separate from [[Americans]], and --with all respect to the peoples of the territories-- that's because they aren’t Americans.
:::<br>So, these 3 category types need to be located under "by insular areas of the US" (or, "in insular areas of the US", as the case be), which can then be located under "in [or, "from", as the case be] the US" and not directly under "in the US by state or territory". The territories are immensely different from the states, and a proper hierarchy should preserve this distinction by subcategorizing them under "insular areas of the US" and ''not directly'' under "by state or territory [of the US]" as the Speedy Category Move proposal attempts to do. The "by state or territory" categorization is not needed; it creates confusion because it is not a true reflection of the reality of the relationship between the United States and the peoples --and places-- in those insular areas. [[User:Mercy11|Mercy11]] ([[User talk:Mercy11|talk]]) 10:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


====Churches in the United Kingdom by century, 7th-17th century====
====Churches in the United Kingdom by century, 7th-17th century====

Revision as of 10:51, 31 January 2024

< January 23
January 25 >

January 24

Category:Fictional behavioural 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:18th-century Kazakhstani people

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)[reply]

Category:Hafez al-Assad

Nominators rationale: As per the WP:C2D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactinites (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

State or territory

  • Propose renaming:
Remaining categories from speedy
Copy of speedy discussions (only replies)

First discussion

It's clear from the discussion at that page (WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Category:American suffragists by state) that "territory" is being used in an ambiguous way: it could mean the historical Territories but could also mean the current Unincorporated territories (plus, perhaps more confusing yet, it could mean both). This can be a source of serious confusion and of constant mis-subcategorization as 3 groups of editors (perhaps more groups if we consider the combinations of those 3 groups) could emerge. The discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Category:American suffragists by state alludes to a historical Territory, the Territory of Wyoming, while, IMO, most editors will think of any US-rooted category named "by state or territory" to mean the "50 states & DC" OR "the CURRENT unincorporated territories of the US". Mercy11 (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion you cite as precedent clearly concluded for consensus to rename to Category:American suffragists by state or territory, which is the opposite of what you say. Place Clichy (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721@Place Clichy I think that we're going to have to take these to full to reassert this consensus. Mason (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Adding participants from the intial Cfd on this name change: @Fayenatic london and @Peterkingiron. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • *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)[reply]
I agree here. "of" gives the sense of ownership in this context. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    That is what I would advocate for. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    What is unincorporated is the provisions of the Constitution. See above for multiple sources that explicitly state that the territories are part of the United States. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Question: Are people open to an alternative name? @Koavf@Mercy11@Place Clichy Mason (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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 territories areas 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Great. My hope is that Mercy11, is open to the idea. I know that @Mercy11 feels very strongly about insular territories areas, so I would like to wait to get their input. No one is disputing that the insular territory area 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, insular territory area 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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
    ...
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Let's work with actual instances of those found at "Remaining categories from speedy" above which is really what this discussion is about.
The Remaining categories list contains 3 basic cases exemplified by these 3 generic types:
(1) Something in the US,
(2) Something in the NRHP, and
(3) American people with some particular function.
Three actual instances of those 3 generic types above from the Remaining categories are:
· Category:Cemeteries in the United States by state to Category:Cemeteries in the United States by state or territory
· Category:Road bridges on the National Register of Historic Places by state to Category:Road bridges on the National Register of Historic Places by state or territory
· Category:American models by state to Category:American models by state or territory
That is, Cemeteries in the US are "Something in the US", Road bridges in the NRHP are "Something in the NRHP", and American models are "American people with some particular function".
I prefer to use the 3 undisputable cases above and stay away from the generalized so-called "examples" used by some editors here (myself included) like the various "examples" proffered above, including
Category:Foo in the US by state or territory or federal district
Category:Level 1: (geographic, political, really everything that is a first level potential grouping)
Category:Level 1:Martians by subdivision
and the reason is the generalized so-called "examples" are more prone to lead to confusion and error.
That said, at least one problem becomes immediately evident in that the hierarchy breaks down for all subcategories of type 3, the “American models by state or territory” (the "American people with some particular function") because, unless we assume that the peoples in the territories are American, which they aren’t, we are going to end up with "people with a particular function" (such as Category:Puerto Rican models) under "American people with some particular function" who aren't Americans. Specifically, in terms of the unincorporated territories, Puerto Ricans are not Americans, they are Puerto Ricans, and Guamanians are not Americans, they are Guamanians, and, likewise, American Samoans are not Americans, they are American Samoans, etc. There is a reason why the peoples of the territories have their own WP articles separate from Americans, and --with all respect to the peoples of the territories-- that's because they aren’t Americans.

So, these 3 category types need to be located under "by insular areas of the US" (or, "in insular areas of the US", as the case be), which can then be located under "in [or, "from", as the case be] the US" and not directly under "in the US by state or territory". The territories are immensely different from the states, and a proper hierarchy should preserve this distinction by subcategorizing them under "insular areas of the US" and not directly under "by state or territory [of the US]" as the Speedy Category Move proposal attempts to do. The "by state or territory" categorization is not needed; it creates confusion because it is not a true reflection of the reality of the relationship between the United States and the peoples --and places-- in those insular areas. Mercy11 (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Churches in the United Kingdom by century, 7th-17th century

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • @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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
I guess you are - thanks! Caring is optional at Cfd. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Fictional travelers

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Delete, a rather trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Finno-Ugric 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Category:Financial commentators by nationality

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge/rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Partial satellite launch 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose per Dimadick AHI-3000 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Demons by culture

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. Move Category:Demons in religion back to Category:Demons. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:18th-century South 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:Cheondoists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's really not enough here for a category. Mason (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Humor and wit 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Articles generated by AI

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lawyers from the Colony of New South Wales

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)[reply]

Category:Republic of Venice 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)[reply]

Category:Franklin Athletic Club football seasons

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category Let'srun (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Noblesville Athletic Club football seasons

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category Let'srun (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wabash Athletic Association football seasons

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maritime Privateers football

Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory with one page. Let'srun (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maritime Privateers football coaches

Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category Let'srun (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Carleton Knights football seasons

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:South Bend Athletic Association football seasons

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in category. Let'srun (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_24&oldid=1201323747"