The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT that only contains two lists (one of new species described since 1963, the other those described since 2000), not articles on species recenly described themselves - which is (a) what the category implies it contains, and (b) would be a "modern" category (is a bird discovered in 1963 still "new to science" in 2012)? WP:OC. There is likely a better target category for the merge so I'm open to suggestions. The BushrangerOne ping only22:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I don't remember creating this category but it was probably as a nascent parent category for subcats on the centuries or decades the birds were first formally described. I agree that it does not seem very useful as is and have no objection to the proposal. Maias (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify - Category:Animals by year of formal description is the right category tree (thanks User:Maias). A list of "recently discovered species" would be of interest but I'm not quite sure how to do it. Can we do a "recently ..." or "last ten years" list and just rigidly police it? Or should we just have lists that are named by decade -- i.e., 2000-2010, 2010-2020 ...? --Lquilter (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. There appears to be an emerging consensus to combine each pair of "people by town" and "people by city" container categories for each state into a single "people by populated place in Foo state" category. However, the city categories have not been included in this discussion, so I am closing this discussion as "no consensus" without prejudice to an immediate new group nomination to upmerge both sets to the appropriate subcats of Category:People by populated place in the United States by state. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a shotgun nomination that attempts to do several different things at once, while ignoring a wide range of side effects. The biggest issue is the presumption that "city" means "place", and that "town" and "city" are synonymous, neither of which are true. That 31 of 50 states have such a category demonstrates that much of the issue here could be addressed by simply creating the Category:People by town in the United States by state. Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of which only have 1-3 entries per subcat. This "tree" was the result of somebody creating a whole bunch of cateories without bothering to first check if proper categories already existed (which they do - the targets). Now, perhaps changing the tree to "People by city or town in Foo" might be in order - but either way we need one tree here, not two. - The BushrangerOne ping only22:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That the thought is that a superior choice for a name might be "People by city or town in Foo" only demonstrates that this needs to be thought out far better, as this could also be "People by city or town or township or village or boro in Foo" or maybe "People by place in Foo". It is clear that "city" is not adequate to capture what is needed here. Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe, at all, that it's a "superior choice for a name". I do, however, believe that it could work as a compromise. And for the record, the preferred phrasing isn't "city or town or..." but rather "populated place". - The BushrangerOne ping only19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposal, per Alansohn. I think, however, that some sort of "People from Foo by place" may be appropriate, but this needs a wider discussion than the categories listed in this CFD. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu19:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I hate this suggestion, it may well be the only reasonable alternative to a host of problems. If nothing else, it could end the discussions over what is or is not a city. It would also no longer artificially restrict the by city categories to cities but expand them to cover all types of populated places. Having said that, this is far from problem free. I would support this approach only if this would be used to eliminate the lower level breakouts. Adding this and keeping by city does not really help the problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It'd replace/be renamed from "city"; I don't like it either but it seems to be the best way to avoid seperate "People by town in Foo" "People by village in Foo" "People by two yurts and a camel in Foo" categories based on the comments above... - The BushrangerOne ping only02:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
create/merge/etc Create a category 'people by populated place in foo-state' for each state as well as category Category:People by populated place in the United States supercategory to include the 50 categories so created. Then merge all the 'people by town in foo-date' 'people by etc in foo-state' categories to the the appropriate 'people by populated place in foo-state' categories while retaining 'people by city in foo-state' as a sub-category. There are enough 'by city' categories in all but the thinly populated states to justify this. Several years ago, WP did choose to use 'populated place' as generic for cities, towns, villages, etc so this is a natural extension to include people. Hmains (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further in states where there are many town (also known as township) and well populated people categories such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, the town subcategory for that state would also be retained. Hmains (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This category tree is not about whether people are notable by being from a certain place. This tree is about notable people, determined by their having WP articles saying so, and then where they happen to have come from (place) or are living, which has little/nothing to do with their notability. Hmains (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But is the type of place significant? If someone comes from a city of 2,000 is that the same as coming from a city of 10,000,000? Is that different from coming from an unincorporated place with a population of 300,000 or a CDP of 50,000? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When that tree is created, what happens to the above categories? If they will be merged into the new naming, than all is well and good. Given that I see no reason to keep the current breakout, Support the merge proposed as a step towards this cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally dislike the "populated places" construction, but I'll support a merge of all town/city/village people categories into people by populated place in foo, as having one category with a meh name is better than having two or three categories that essentially cover the same thing by different names. - The BushrangerOne ping only22:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
most of the town categories are adquately populated (and no reason to think they will diminish for any factual reason) and there is no reason to merge to the adquately populated city categories. They also need to be made children of the applicable 'cities in foo' and 'towns in foo' categories for each state where they belong--something which is now missing. Hmains (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am missing nothing. They are not merged in their populated places categories becauase they are different types of legal entities in the United States. They are sibling childen of approrpiate higher categories. No difference here at all. Hmains (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to schema Category:People by populated place in x. The difference between towns and cities is a state by state thing, other states have boroughs, townships and villages that might also come up. It gets even more complicated because over time a specific place may have multiple legal existences, especially if it is in New Jersey. Populated place is a good catch all term, that can work here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cat:People by populated place ..., because of the regional differences in the meanings of towns, cities, villages, parishes, etc. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
