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: Listify & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and Delete Category:Populated places in the United States with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Alabama with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Arkansas with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in California with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Connecticut with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Delaware with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Washington, D.C. with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Florida with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Georgia (U.S. state) with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Counties of the United States with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in the United States with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Illinois with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Indiana with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Kentucky with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Louisiana with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Massachusetts with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Maryland with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Michigan with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Minnesota with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Mississippi with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Missouri with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Nebraska with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Nevada with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in New Jersey with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in New York with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in North Carolina with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Ohio with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Oklahoma with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Pennsylvania with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in South Carolina with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Tennessee with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Texas with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Virginia with African American majority populations
• Delete Category:Populated places in Washington (state) with African American majority populations (currently empty because the only article that was in it provided only data that showed that it was in 2000 not an African-American majority population location, with no data provided for any other year)
• Delete Category:Populated places in West Virginia with African American majority populations
• Nominator's rationale These categories are much better served by lists. With cities we generally only apply categories that current fit for the city, otherwise Istanbul, Uzhgorod and Lviv among many other cities would be in an unmanagable amount of place categories. So in theory we would apply these categories only when it currently works. Well we have West Las Vegas, an article which does not even tell us if the category currently works, in fact, the article never provides evidence that it ever actually was a majority African-American area. On the other hand we have St. Louis, Missouri which in the Missouri category even though its population was 51.2% African-American in 2000. In 2010 the most often reported African-American percentage for St. Louis is 49.2%. However that is the African-American alone including those who marked themselves Hispanic. The non-Hispanic African-American percentage is 49.0%. However African-American alone or in combination with one or more other races was 50.7%, so over half the population of St. Louis self-identified as African-American in the 2010 census. with a list we could include these three different percentages, but we can not with a cateogry. Another place like this is Bowie, Maryland, African-American alone was 48.7% at the 2010 census, however African-American alone or in combination with two or more races was 51.1%. Over half the population checked that they were African-American in the 2010 census. Considering that South Carolina and Louisiana once had African-American majority populations but no longer do, it is likely there are lots of places that at times in the past fit inclusion criteria for this category but do not presently fit it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also emptied the Nevada category. The West Las Vegas article lacked any information proving an African-American majority at any time. I moved that to the clearly justifiable Category:African-American history of Nevada.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is and has historically been African-American from what I know about the area. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment after the lists with proper citations exist (names here would help), then this can be considered and not sooner. Too many nominations here say listify without any evidence that the lists are actually created at any time. Hmains (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Working/Manual is where listifications go until they're listified; the categories remain until it's done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a strong defining characteristic of these locations, such as Lawnside, New Jersey. Unsourced entries should be pruned and removed, though that has no relevance as to the merits of the category structure itself. Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete - while it is a strong defining characteristic, this is a potentially-epheremal categorisation as population tides shift and ebb and flow. As a rule, we don't categorise by things that aren't permament, or at least in cases where the categorisation won't remain appropriate even after a change (i.e. if a ballplayer changes teams, he remains in the original team's players category, but if one of these cities was no longer African-American majority at the next census, the categorisation would suddenly be inappropriate). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete all. This is often a defining characteristic of an area at a particular time, but as others have noted it is often an ephemeral characteristic. The USA has a highly mobile population, and there have been huge demographic shifts in the 20th century; phenomena such as white flight and gentrification have involved radical changes in the demographic mixes of urban areas.
  A further problem with these categories is that they are based on arbitrary criteria. An area which is 50.1% African-American is included in this category, while a 49.9% African-American neighbourhood will be excluded from it. Categories are like a binary switch; an article is either in the category or not, and this crude labeling creates a distorted picture of the demographics of an area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to BHG: we do have Category:Populated places in the United States with African American plurality populations, with its tree, for places where the largest single group is african americans, but the %is below 50. However, i do think her point about changing demographics matters, and thus the plurality tree may be just as problematic, if not more, as there is Category:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic plurality populations, which groups various ethnicities. PS im leaning towards BHG's listify and deleteMercurywoodrose (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the main problem with the Hispanic plurality category (and for the record I created that category, as well as the African-American plurality one) is not that Hispanics can be of any race. It is that Hispanicness is defined by the US census in a binary system. You have two choices, either you are Hispanic or you are not Hispanic. If the majority of a population is not Hispanic, the Hispanic are in the minority, there is no other choice in a binary system. If the census also included similar options of Francophone, Slavic, Arabic and Jewish along with the Hispanic question, it would be possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify & delete per the above, and in addition, these are WP:CURRENT categories - otherwise every place would be categorized in and forever remain in Category:Populated places in the United States with Native American majority populations. All the other race/ethnicity majority/plurality categories have the same failings, so those should go as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically a lot of places in the United States never had Native American majority populations in any meaninful way because they did not exist until created by Euro-Americans. However the South Carolina and Louisiana among other categories under this nomination would have to be creatly expanded if they covered any place that ever had an African-American majority population.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify & delete per nomination. Altairisfar (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2013 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Films featuring the Howrah Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We do not categorize films by what landmarks appear in the film. See, eg, CFD for Films featuring the World Trade Center. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This type of categorisation is a recipe for horrendous category clutter, and the landmarks are rarely a defining characteristic of a film. This sort of association is much better handled by lists or by a section of the head article, and in this case the films are listed at Howrah Bridge#Cultural_Significance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & BHG. Certainly trivial and non-defining for nearly all of the films; only three of the 23 articles currently in the category even mention the bridge. Maralia (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is a Performance by performer category in substance. I do not like the idea of listifying, as this would constitute a popular culture trivia article or section, of a kind that were culled wholesale some years back. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is like Category:Films that John Wayne performed in. It is the opposite of performance by performer, which is sticking John Wayne in Category:The Quiteman actors and similar categories for other films he was in. This is putting films in categoires by the actors. Thus we could but Star Wars in Category:Films that Harrison Ford performed in, Category:Films that Alec Guinness performed in, Category:Films that Mark Hamil performed in, Category:Films that Carrie Fisher performed in and so on. This is a horrible idea and will lead to lots and lots of category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2013 (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 result of the discussion was: no consensus.---Mike Selinker (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Saltpeter works to Category:Nitraries

Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. The article about saltpeter works is at Nitrary, so it makes sense for the category name to match. "Saltpeter" is a term that was used, and often in the Americas, but our article is at nitre. (Regarding the statement in the speedy discussion that the category only contains articles about saltpeter works in the Americas—the category is not so limited by its name. It is not "Saltpeter works in the Americas", and such a subcategory would probably not be warranted, since there are overall so few articles to include right now. If we get an article about a nitrary in Europe, for instance, it could be included in this category. The article Nitrary is certainly not limited to a discussion of nitraries in the Americas.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you think too short. The history of the Salitreras in Chile has different consequences in that country than the history of Nitrary in the USA. Saltpeter was for a long time the main export product of Chile and Chile's economy was strong dependent of the saltpeter. The worst economic crisis in the history of Chile is related to the end of the Salitreras, in the 1930s. This is not the case of the USA. The USA, as far as I know, were never dependent of the nitre. So your rationale it makes sense for the category name to match doesn't match: the name is, for you, the same, but the history isn't.

The "Salitreras" (Saltpeter works) are an important phase of the economic, social and political life of Chile at the end of the 19 century and beginning of the 20 century and they must be put in a common category in order to inform the reader about the relation to other articles in the wikipedia.

This rationale is valid also for some articles that are still "stub"-class. The fact that the Salitreras are not mentioned in the stub doesn't mean that it is not related to. It means only that the article has to be improved to a standard WP article, this regards for example Pedro Gamboni.

Of course there have been another places in the world with "nitra". They must have their own (place related) category and we can unite them all under "Category:nitraries". But to mix, as you want to do, Montpellier with the Santa María de Iquique (cantata) doesn't make any sense. The social, economic and political history of Montpellier is very different to the history of Pisagua and Maria Elena, for example.

I am not very interested in the history of the USA, but, tell me, what have to do

• Pedro Gamboni
• Santa María School massacre
• Santa María de Iquique (cantata)
• Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works
• María Elena
• etc

with the history of the USA?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ever say they have anything to do with the USA. I only mentioned the "Americas", meaning North and South America. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose, probably merge instead I see two reasons for not going through with this rename. In the first place, evidence suggests that "nitrary" was never a common name for this sort of factory. GBook searching produces almost nothing but typos of "on the contrary", and one of the legitimate hits is for a book on the OED that states that the word "nitrary" didn't appear in the first edition. Assuming that this claim is true, it's extremely unlikely that the term is anything but an extreme obscurity, and that some other name was more typically used. The bigger problem, though, is that only two of the articles on the category are on places where saltpeter was produced. Most of the articles are on places or facilities related to the Chilean nitrates trade. The history of nitrate production is a much bigger topic than this, and if there were a category for that, I would merge all this to such a category. But as it stands both the proposed name and the scope of the category are in question. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be pointed out that the category and at least one main article was recently created. So making assumptions on what is right based on these could be unwise. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to what, Mangoe? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's a good question. I was hoping that someone knew of an overall category for nitrate manufacture. Mangoe (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think there is anything of that nature currently. The closest thing we have are the parents Category:Nitrate minerals and Category:Potassium minerals, and they are pretty much just categories for the different types of minerals. I think you're right though that there is probably potential for something broader. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- It is Nitrary that should be renamed to Saltpeter Works. Actually, since most of the article is about England and Europe, it should be Saltpetre works. I acknowledge that the category is largely about mining in Chile, which is in America, but the mines were (I suspect) developed by British industrialists. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I have tried to include in the category some of the articles of the wikipedia that are directly relationed with the Salpeter:

1. Caliche sangriento
2. Chacabuco
3. FC Caleta Coloso a Aguas Blancas
4. FC de Junin
5. Pedro Gamboni
6. Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works
7. List of Saltpeter works in Tarapacá and Antofagasta
8. María Elena
9. Santa María School massacre
10. Santa María de Iquique (cantata)
11. John Thomas North

Another name for the War of the Pacific is Saltpeter war (so the name of the German article de:Saltpeterkrieg de:Salpeterkrieg. The causes of the Chilean Civil War of 1891 were, among others, the differences between Congress and President about the salitre policy and the first move of the (Navy) insurgents was to occupy the Salitreras.

So, this short list demostrates the importance of the Saltpeter in Chile. Is there any place in the world, where Saltpeter had such importance?. In the USA?, France?. No. Is there any place in the world where Saltpeter had any importance?. I believe there is no such place, nowhere are more than 200 Saltpeter works diseminated in a (relative) little region as in Tarapaca and Antofagasta and I don't want to include in the category places in the USA or France. This is a category regarding Tarapaca and Antofagasta.

IMO, to name the category with another name than "Saltpeter works", Nitrary, Nitratine, Caliche, Niter, would only make the issue complicated and unintelligible for most of the reader, who aren't interested in chemical terms and "Caliche" is really unknown in the English speaking world.

Do we need to add "in Chile" to the category name?. No. IMO, it would be like to rename the Category:Gangs of New York to Category:Gangs of New York in New York.

Should we merge it to other categories?. No. As far as I know, Saltpeter was known and used before 1850, but not in a such industrial form as after 1850.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the current name is more common.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to (History of the) nitrate industry by analogy with Category:History of the textile industry‎, Category:History of the petroleum industry‎ etc. I can see why the less common Nitre has been used for the article, to avoid the WP:ENGVAR problems of salt petre/-er even though the latter is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME, but that doesn't mean that the category has to slavishly follow. I think a name involving "nitrate industry" is a much more self-evident title to modern readers. I'd also make the comment that the discussion hitherto has been very Americas-centric. India was the original source for much of Europe's saltpetre in the Middle Ages, with domestic European production starting in significant volumes a century before Columbus, the Chilean mines are an afterthought in comparison. (source Weapons & Warfare in Renaissance Europe, Bert S. Hall (Johns Hopkins 1997)).Le Deluge (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't build an analogy to the petrol or textil industry. All over the world are a lot of places where we will find oil: in the north sea, in Venezuela, in Iran, Iraq, in Siberia, in USA. The same for the textil industry. That is not the case of the Saltpeter. There is no UNESCO World Heritage Site for the Indian Saltpeter works, there was no Indian Railway built only for the Saltpeter industry, etc, etc. There is no such analogy.

Initially I thought the category only for Tarapaca and Antofagasta Saltpeter works, but now after looking in google for "Saltpeter works" and "nitraries" I noted that the second one gets only 276 hits. "Saltpeter works" gets 171.000 hits. There is really no reason to sustain "nitraries" as a posible option. I solicited the rename of the article Nitraries to Saltpeter works in the talk page Talk:Nitraries. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that the Chilean industry has a special place in the history of the nitrate industry, and there should probably be a dedicated Chile subcategory - but it is not exclusive. The analogy with textiles is pretty exact - traditionally it was made by many people working in small units, then production was industrialised. I don't know how many places outside England have textile factory World Heritage Sites or railways primarily intended for textiles - but that doesn't mean England is the only place textiles have ever been produced. The pre-industrial stage always leaves less impressive archaeology - you can get a feel for it on p25 here, but note these archaeologists describe Bengal as for centuries "the saltpetre centre of the world". And the world used a lot of saltpetre before the industry took off in Chile - think of the many wars of the Middle Ages let alone before you get to the Napoleonic wars, which were all supplied from Europe and India on a grand scale. That book I mentioned has 64 pages devoted to gunpowder between 1325 and 1500, including six pages just on salt petre - this was a very big industry before any nitrate arrived in Europe from Chile. As I mentioned above, the reason the article has ended up at the less common word nitrary will be to avoid the conflict between US and British English on salt petre/peter. Have a read of WP:ENGVAR to see why a less common word ends up getting used in those situations. The current category has the same problem, peter versus petre. Le Deluge (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (nominator). I agree with the merging to a new category such as Category:Nitrate industry or Category:History of the nitrate industry, as suggested above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The community has opposed to rename the article and the given reasons are also valid for other fantasy names. Please, stop proposing new pseudo-scientific names for the category, count the votes and close the discussion. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 21:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is not a vote but a process to determine a consensus. So we don't count opinions to close a discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't see the case for moving. According to the niter article, saltpeter or saltpetre are used and from the discussion have a better claim on WP:COMMONNAME. Likewise niter alludes to it being ambiguous and potassium nitrate points out that it is a form of saltpeter and not niter. Also it is clear that saltpeter is ambiguous. So the only question for this discussion seems to be is the current name ambiguous? I'm not sure that it is not, but on the other hand I have no idea how to change it. But the proposed options don't work. So leave it where it is. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, we are still faced with the problem that the majority of the articles in the category are not about saltpeter works, or nitraries, or whatever we call them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vegaswikian - what's the problem with something involving the "nitrate industry"? It's a WP:COMMONAME (92k Ghits), WP:ENGVAR-neutral, has Wiki category precedents, and is chemically precise whilst flexing sufficiently to cope with the fact that medieval chemists couldn't distinguish KNO3, NaNO3, Ca(NO3)2 and Mg(NO3)2 and the natural and purified forms. Le Deluge (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue really is that the category as it stands is only about the Chilean nitrate industry of some point in the past. I feel the need for a main article to pull this all together. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The current Nitrary article could be that article, its unsatisfactory title aside. It's coming at it from the other end, it's all about the Indian/European industry with not enough about the Chilean industry (and some pretty major holes in the earlier stuff as well). I think we can square this circle by renaming the article Nitrary to History of the nitrate industry and renaming Category:Saltpeter works to Category:History of the nitrate industry.Le Deluge (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago Good Olfactory proposed a new name for the category, but the name was absolutely refused and other proposals were also refused. I closed the discussion, but, God heavens, Le Deluge open it again. That is fine, finally I found a English Wikipedia page for talking about anything: history, chemical products, countries in Asia and America, any thing, any issue, any time.

Well, what can we talk now?. I propose two new names for the category:

• Category:Saltpeter or Salpeter but in any case Nitrate

It is a little bit too long, so I propose a second one:

• Category:SS may be N

Deluge, Good Olfactory, please, give your opinions to my proposal, and do not close the discussion, I have a lot of such proposals to be thrown in the page. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 14:06, 26 April 2013 (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 result of the discussion was: delete as re-created material previously deleted as a result of a discussion, which was here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Isms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't categorize topics by aspects of their names. Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. See also a past request here . Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Deaths by date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Category:April 5 deaths‎
• Category:August 14 deaths‎
• Category:December 8 deaths‎
• Category:January 21 deaths‎
• Category:March 26 deaths‎
• Category:March 28 deaths‎
• Category:March 5 deaths‎
• Category:November 26 deaths‎
• Category:November 29 deaths‎
• Category:September 18 deaths‎
• Category:September 9 deaths‎

Nominator's rationale: Like Category:Births by date, this is overcategorization. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:OCAT like births below. – Fayenatic London 19:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, per FL. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a trivial characteristic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 20 March 2013 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. See also a past request here. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Births by date (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Category:April 1 births‎
• Category:April 20 births‎
• Category:April 22 births‎
• Category:December 16 births‎
• Category:December 18 births
• Category:December 26 births‎
• Category:February 20 births‎
• Category:February 25 births‎
• Category:July 7 births‎
• Category:June 18 births‎
• Category:May 24 births‎
• Category:November 27 births‎
• Category:October 10 births‎
• Category:October 9 births‎

Nominator's rationale: Births by date is excessive categorization. Year of birth is much more meaningful. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Births by date allows us to see who shares a common birthdate. Any user would be able to quickly and easily see who shares his or her own birthday.Hoops gza (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why does this not work better as a list which can also show the year? How exactly are these not over categorization? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every date already has a page (see April 20, for example), which is superior to a category in this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I agree that the lists in Category:Days of the year do a better job already. – Fayenatic London 19:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete; over categorization. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete again. Not again! See here. Every few years, an editor seems to decide that this is a good idea. But this is not a good idea. "Sharing a birthday" is trivial. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - categorise by year, list by date. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 20 March 2013 (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 result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Magic: The Gathering duel decks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty category. All pages in this category were deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duel Decks: Jace vs. Chandra pbp 15:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete then, and it could simply have been tagged for C1. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:49, 20 March 2013 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. The contents are all in the parent categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

• Category:1947 World University Cycling Championship to all parents
• Category:1949 World University Cycling Championship to all parents
• Category:1950 World University Cycling Championship to all parents
• Category:1978 World University Cycling Championship to all parents
• Category:1986 World University Cycling Championship to all parents
• Category:1990 World University Cycling Championship to all parents
• Category:2006 World University Cycling Championship to all parents
• Category:2008 World University Cycling Championship to all parents
• Category:2014 World University Cycling Championship to all parents

Nominator's rationale: 8 of these sub-categories of Category:World University Cycling Championships contain only an eponymous article. The 9th (Category:2006 World University Cycling Championship) contains only 3 articles. These small subcats are an impediment to navigation, and the parent categories will not be overloaded by upmerger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cycling has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge even when all of these are upmerged Category:Wolrd University Cycling Championships will only contain 25 articles, which is hardly enough to justify a split (and that is assuming none of the articles involved in upmerging are already there).John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2013 (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 result of the discussion was: keep all. All sportspeople categories are "(demonym) (sport) (players)." Greater issues should be tackled globally.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationaile: Awhile back the by-state subcategories of "American racing drivers" were renamed to the "X of Y" format as being clearer and more precise; note that the by-subdivision categories for Canada, Australia, and Germany also already follow "X of Y". This follows the same logic - the format currently used ("Y X") produces some awkward demonyms (both in the 'name as demonym' format i.e. 'Liechtenstein racing drivers' and the 'where the heck is that' format i.e. 'Sammarinese racing drivers'), as well as some tehnically-correct-but-still-odd situations (a driver who was born in Canada but moved to Australia is 'from Australia' but is not 'Australian', for instance - with Hong Kong hitting both the 'name as denomym' and 'from not from' options - note also that 'American' isn't as unambiguous as 'United States' as a Peruvian friend repeatedly reminds me, and this also avoids the 'British' vs 'United Kingdom' trap). Now it's true that the sportspeople trees generally use the "Y X" format, but that has all the same issues, and it may eventually be desirable to rename the whole tree, at least as much as possible, to "X of Y", but the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, as they say. Also note that "X of Y" better fits the formats of parents Category:Sportspeople by sport and nationality and Category:Motorsport people by nationality - sport, then nationality, not the other way around, and Commons also uses "X of Y" (albiet with the en.wiki-depreciated "racecar drivers" phrasing). (Note that if this passes, the subcategories of Category:Formula One drivers by nationality and Category:Rally drivers by nationality will be speedy nominated to the new standard.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nominator.
  As the nom notes, this is the first step in what will be a long journey. However, it's a long-overdue journey, because the use of the adjectival format causes a lot of problems. The cumbersome "name as demonym" problem is the most widespread, but there are also a number of neutrality issues (e.g. United Kingdom/British), as well as scope issues. Some of those scope issues are very messy: e.g. "Afghan people" may mean either i) people from Afghanistan, or ii) ethically Pashtun people. As the nominator notes, "Fooers from Bar" is clearer and more precise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly use "Afghan" to refer to nationals of Afghanistan, and have a Pashtun category for the other meaning. I do not think this is the problem you claim it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Keep as is. I don't think subdividing by occupation then by citizenship is a broken categoring system, nor the use of demonyms to denote citizenship one that should be avoided. I think there could be, though, a separate category tree that divides people by occupation by the country is which they are active, as this is often less trivial information, but it would need to be named Category:Actors in the United States, Category:Racing drivers in Japan, etc. On the other hand, 'drivers from the United States' is ambiguous, meaning both drivers whose citizenship is American and those active in the States regardless of citizenship; but perhaps we want such "dual-purpose" categories, to be less precise? The other key here is of course use of hatnotes on category pages that explain the intended meaning beyond that which necessarily should names can convey. Literally a few demonyms are ambiguous, but these few can still be used when accompanied with an effective hatnote. As for some others that aren't so commonly known; if published dictionaries say these are actual words, they need to be used on WP, not avoided. Mayumashu (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatnotes do not work with categories. You don't see the hatnote when adding a cat to a page. Also, these already in many cases include "residence" not "citizenship". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's impossible to name categories without any ambiguity, unless you want names to be ten, fifteen words long, etc. Besides, who would add a cat to a page without doing a edit preview, to view the hatnote, to see if in fact the category added to is indeed correct? Mayumashu (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doing a preview doesn't show the hatnote, and I'd bet that the majority of editors don't click the category to see if it's correct. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A driver who was born in Canada but moved to Australia may well be 'Australian'. Most people who have moved to and live in a country permanently are nationals of the country they live in—typically permanent residents. You don't have to have citizenship of a country to be a national of it. Generally, you just have to be "from" there. I find that's the #1 confusion people have about the categories by nationality—they are about nationality, not citizenship, and the former is a much broader concept than the latter. Anyway, I would generally oppose seeking a mandate/consensus for the broad elimination of the widespread "FOOian BOOers" format via this isolated discussion. I think if users want to propose changing that, it will require a discussion with much broader input. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the inevitable result of such an attempt would be "speedy oppose, you're nominating too many categories at once". Been there, seen that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I wasn't thinking of a CFD at all. Because it is such a major change, I think such a change would probably be best discussed via a request for comment or some other similar method, accompanied by notices being placed on all the country-specific WikiProject discussion boards. If users are serious about pursuing it, I think this is one of the rare instances where we would definitely need to reach beyond just CFD. And I would certainly object to the change being taken project-wide based on a handful of discussions about racecar driver categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support GO's idea of an RFC on the wider issue. However, I think that this discussion is useful as a preliminary testing of the waters, and I congratulate The Bushranger for starting it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I understand now. And I can certainly see your point, and the need for a broader discussion. That said, as BHG suggests, perhaps this could be an 'example case', to show how the tree would appear after the move for the purposes of the discussion? If so, I won't nominate further sportspeople categories following this one for 'Y X to X of Y' pending such a discussion. (Well, I wouldn't either way, but as I said having a 'test case' to say "this is how it would be afterwards" might be good. ) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just to be clear, my comment was not meant to state any opposition to this particular rename proposal for the nominated categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Categorization_of_people which states under the "occupation" section that "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians." Tim! (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually, yes. As pointed out before, that causes...problems, though. And the guideline even notes that that requires some to use "X of Y" as it is, leaving category trees in mixes of formats, which looks silly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there are drivers whose official nationality is different from their nominal citizenship/residence and their birth country. Isn't this categorized by the country of their professional driver's license? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure. I'd presume so, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This is a case of change for the sake of it. British is perfectly acceptable as an adjective for UK. There may be cases of some variety of dual nationality, but that can easily be reflected by allowing the article to have two separate national categories. Czech is an ethnicity; Slovak is another; so that there is no need to split the Czech category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure the Czech Republic and Slovakia would argue that point with you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The common way to describe someone from a given nationality in a given profession is nationality + profession. People speak of "American actors", "French runners", "German chemists", "Soviet physicists", "Indian singers", "Ethiopian dancers", "Spanish bull fighters" and so on. The categorization of people by nationality works as long as people realize these are by nationality categories. The rename just leads to longer names that do not help. The reason we do not use the denonyms for sub-units is because they are non-standard and not widely known. There may be csome cases where the denonym chosen is not the best one, but in most cases it is very clear the one we chose is the best one. The biggest problem I have seen in this regard is applying current country names to people who were clearly not from that country (Pakistan is probably the most egregious offender in this regard), but that comes from misapplying the category, not from being poorly named. Another problem comes when people who are clearly just foriegn nationals working abroad, such as actors who retain connection with their home countries but act elsewhere get classed as nationals of the country where they work, but the new names would not help with that really. The current system works, it does not need to be changed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, last december there was an attempt to rename the American category that failed. It is 100% clear that in common usage American has a precise meaning and is the most common way to refer to nationals of the United States of America. Complaints by some people about this do not change the fact that that is how the term is used in actual speach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if the issue is with Category:Afghan people and its uses than a better solution would be to propose renaming to Category:Afghanistan people, not messing with perfectly clear categories. However to me a bigger question is, to what extent can we use Category:Afghan people to group those who were subjects of the Durrani Empire when it streched far past the later imposed Durand Line. The general consensus is that Afghan, just as much as German, French, Chinese and Turkish refers to nationals of a specific country, and we use it to describe people by nationality, not ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is that "X of Y" is much clearer and just as valid as having forced country-name-as-demonym cases that look distinctly unprofessional. When we have two valid choices, one of which is better than the other, shouldn't we use the better one? The fact that there are cases where we have to use the country name, instead of the demonym, indicates that the current system does not work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that is your issue, than seek to get the specific cases to be renamed to "Writers of the Republic of the Congo" or some such. That is clearly not an argument to get rid of all the real denonyms that really do work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My issue is that having some at "Y X" format with demonyms and others at "X of Y" format with country names only feeds the nabobs who point fingers at Wikipedia and laugh at "how silly it is". When we have a choice between one naming system that, ideally, might be preferable but only works most of the time, and another that perhaps isn't as ideal but works all the time, we should choose the latter. Having a single, uniform standard is encyclopedic and professional; having one that requires "exceptions" is the opposite of that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • • The reality is that common usage is to use denonyms. We follow common usage and should keep the denonyms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then we need to use demonyms in all cases instead of picking and choosing. It's not just cases like Georgian = Georgia (country) vs Georgia (U.S. state), I've had my wrist slapped in the past for suggesting changes to demonyms at CFDS because the demonyms were deemed "too obscure". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Another problem that will naturally arise is how to deal with categories that use more complex variations. Category:Canadian people of American descent—so will that become "People of American descent from Canada", or "People from Canada of people from the United States descent", etc. Can we use a demonym in one context but not another? Category:Canadian emigrants to the United States—"Immigrants to the United States from Canada"? "Emigrants from Canada to the United States"? That's a bit forced and artificial, I would say, and will attract as much mockery as the current inconsistencies. If we changed to the other format, we would really just shift the problems of inconsistency to another subset of categories. It won't be a panacea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • And another problem (as long as I'm bringing some up) is that not all people who are accurately described as "FOOian BARs" are accurately described as "BARs from FOO". For instance, there are many Samoan people who were born in and live in New Zealand, who never set foot in Samoa their entire lives. They cannot be described as being "from Samoa", but they are accurately described as "Samoan people" whether you are considering nationality, citizenship, or ethnicity. This issue is relatively widespread across a number of countries/nationalities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Another problem is all the Americans born abroad. There are a bunch of people born in Germany who are clearly, without question Americans, and who never were Germans. The same would come up for a lot of other groups as well. The from categories would actually make the whole thing worse. Fromness works on a non-national level because there is not nationality being implied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also our current system rightly treats Category:American expatriates in Germany as a distinct group from Category:German people. The proposed change would conglomerate them all into Category:People from Germany. On the other hand it would open up to some interpretations claims that people who were naturalized into a given nationality might not qualify for the "from x" categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually like the FOOian form exactly because it is a little bit ambiguous. "FOOian people" can be identified as meaning people of the FOOian nationality, but it can also be interpreted as meaning simply "people from FOO". A "French person" can be a person from France, or it can mean a person with French nationality. This allows us to tie multiple category trees into Category:French people—such as Category:Expatriates in France—while maintaining a plausible argument for accuracy. That same flexibility might be lost if we nail the meaning of the categories to one meaning in preference over the other. (Anyway, this is off topic and would be more appropriate in the proposed request for comment, so I will save my other comments for there.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:02, 26 March 2013 (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.