< September 19	September 21 >

September 20

Category:Mountains on the Appalachian Trail

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. To restate what has been stated below in other ways and to be clear about this close, a "no consensus" result is not the same as a "keep" result, even though the result is the same—that being that the category continues to exist. "No consensus" in the context of this discussion means that there is no consensus on whether the category should exist. In other words, the question remains open, and further nominations can be made at any time and should probably even be expected to happen since it remains an unresolved issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Mountains on the Appalachian Trail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically a follow up to the no consensus in this discussion. I guess the question is, is being on the Appalachian Trail defining for these mountains or is it a matter of happenstance? If the latter, we don't need the category. If the former, we need someone to give a sound reason. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That a mountain is on a trail is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the mountain (which existed long before the trail). We don't usually categorize places by which roads/railways etc pass through them (example CFD) so why should a walking trail be any different? Note: The list should be upmerged to Category:Appalachian Trail. Note: This category could be listified. Note: The similar Category:Protected areas on the Appalachian Trail contains at least one article for which the trail may be a defining characteristic - however, that category should be purged (and then possibly upmerged). DexDor (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having some trail run across it is not a defining trait of the mountain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a performance (being on trail) by performer category (mountain). WE have in the past deleted places on trails. I presume that there is already a category for the mountaions by range (and probably state), so that I presume there is no need to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I would rather say that it is a category application of WP:NOTGUIDE, but I agree all the same. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, a no consensus close just days ago should not have been reopened again, immediately. The matter did have a full enough airing, even if it was a joint Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This case discussing this category was just closed on September 13th and here it is being nominated again. Can't we accept the decision that was made and move on? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A no consensus in a multiple nomination is reasonable for a new nomination for a discussion on the merits of this one item. Do you have a reason why it should be retained? How is no decision a decision? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, Vegaswikian. I was surprised to see it already nominated again. My argument for keeping it is per ColonelHenry's argument. I think it's a valuable categorization to have. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...Do we really have to through this AGAIN? The Appalachian Trail is a trail through the mountains of the American east coast. Simple. The mountains are typically defined as being part of the trail, and the trail is defined by the mountains. For instance, in NW New Jersey where I am from, Kittatinny Mountain, Blue Mountain in Pennsylvania, and Shawangunk Mountain in NY (all three are the same ridge), are often referred to or associated with (in the same breath) with the Appalachian Trail. Mt. Katahdin in Maine is largely notable because of its position as the trail's start. To delete this category removes a defining feature of these mountains--and for many of them, significant reasons for their notability. Considering the essence of the trail is a hiking path through these mountains, removing the mountain category really strikes at the defining essence of the trail. I supported the deletion of the rivers category. I do not support any effort to delete this category. Apparently some people couldn't live with the decision to keep the mountain category last time. However, the idea or DexDor about creating a list is worth exploring. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no decision to keep. The decision was no consensus which is very different. This is not proposing the deletion of Category:Appalachian Trail. And talking down to me is a failure of WP:AGF. I have helped build structures on the trail so I know what it is! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider renaming it. The pages in this category are about places that are features of the Appalachian Trail -- both discrete high points on the Trail and ridges whose crest the Trail follows. Broadly speaking, they are all in the Appalachian Mountains (along with a lot of other mountains). Their association with the route of the Trail is more of a defining attribute than the names of the various minor named subranges of the Appalachians that they might belong to. The category is needed because the route of the Trail is truly a defining characteristic for these places.

I suggest renaming because "Mountains" seems like a misnomer for many of the article topics. The Appalachians are old worn-down mountains, and while places like Charlies Bunion, Clingmans Dome, Max Patch, The Priest, and Saddleback Mountain (Rangeley, Maine) can be referred to as "mountains", they aren't distinct high mountain peaks like the peaks of the Rocky Mountains or the Cascade Range. These are high places that are traversed by the Appalachian Trail. I don't have a good idea for a new name. The category name "High places traversed by the Appalachian Trail" wouldn't sit well with people, and "Landmarks of the Appalachian Trail" doesn't describe it properly, but maybe somebody can think of other options.

Note that some articles in the category (e.g., Middle Carter Mountain) don't mention the Trail. That needs to be fixed. --Orlady (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Orlady: FYI: While there is no standard definition, USGS used to define a mountain as being 1000 feet or more.[1]. The Mountains of the Appalachian Trail generally are at least that (Kittatinny Mountain, my example, ranges from 1200-1800 feet along its length in NJ).--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding the arguments of "not again", please note that in closing the September 13th discussion, I explicitly encouraged a separate nomination to discuss this category. I apologize if I was not clear, but I meant no consensus without prejudice to immediate renomination. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an appropriate defining characteristic of the mountains included as part of the AT, and probably the only unifying characteristic for these mountains that goes beyond the place they're located. The articles that I've reviewed do reference their inclusion as part of the AT, and if there are any articles where the mention is missing, the issue should be addressed at the article level by either adding details about the mountain's inclusion on the trail or removing the category if the claim cannot be supported. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to list or navbox - We should keep this group together, but a category isn't the way to do it. The presence of a trail, large or small, is not defining for a major geological feature. Mountains are defined by their ranges or inclusion within human boundaries. Using a list or navbox circumvents any controversy on definingness, and would also be more informative. A list would have information about each peak, and could be sorted by the peaks' order in the trail, by elevation, or any other number of properties. A navbox could be expanded to include sections for other features on the trail, including the rivers whose category was recently deleted. Ibadibam (talk) 19:08, 23 September 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.

Category:African-American players of American football

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:African-American players of American football
Nominator's rationale Having gone through the A section of this cateogry I realize a few things. 1-the vast majority of the articles never make an assertion of the person being African-American. I am not sure how many of these articles ever got placed in the category. Secondly, of the two articles I actually came across that mentioned the person being African-American, only one related it to their football career. The other related it to their being the first African-American sherriff in a particular count in North Carolina. Much of this categorization seems to be built around looking at photos of the people, but we do not categorize by race, and so just because someone has the "look" of being African-American, does not mean they are. Alex Boye may look African-American, but he is not. He is a Black British child of Nigerian parents who has been naturalized as a US citizen, this does not make him ethnically African-American. Obama may be Afircan-American, but this is because he has chosen to identify himself as such, other children of immigrants from Kenya will choose not to identify as African-American, but to hold themselves out as part of a distinct Kenyan ethnicity, and if they do so we should not reassign their ethnicity. This is a category built on no clear sources, categorizing by at best race, and without even photos or any in-text mention of ethnicity in many of the articles, normally just categorizing on something that is not quite defined. The subject would be much better served by an article entitled something like African-American pioneers in American football that would limit the subject to people for whom their being African-American was actually noted. LAstly, 2 of the people who used to be in this category were clearly identified as being Muslim without ever saying the were African-American. Are they African-American? I don't know. They might be, but we categorize based on verified fact and nothing in the article verified such. So apparently being Muslim is more likely to be mentioned in an article on a football player than being Afircan-American. Yet we do not have Category:Muslim players of American football. This is in the light of the realities of current football a categorization by trivial intersection. The fact that these people are African-Americans is not altering their careers. At least not enough that in 95% plus of the cases any editor has ever felt compelled to mention the ethnicity of the subject in the text of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Johnpacklambert, good arguments, but let's take Jim Brown as an example. He was born in 1936 in St. Simons, Georgia. Though the text of his article makes no explicit assertion of him being African-American, he clearly is. Also, I think we might be better served to look at the class of categories concerning African-American sportspeople together as the same issues are going to apply to players and coaches of many sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not categorize by "what clearly is", we categorize by sourced statements in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This category can't be seen in isolation, it is a subcategory of Category:African-American sportspeople. Category:African-American players of American football is a category with 941 articles so it is surely being used to identify athletes and what sport they play. I think the difficulty categorizing specific individual athletes is not a strong argument for deleting an entire category.

I don't know why there is an apparent desire to delete so many categories involving ethnic descent and if it continues, it might be time for an RFC on the issue. There are thousands of categories than incorporate aspects of ethnicity or ethnic descent and rather than debating the advantage or disadvantage of having or deleting categories one at a time, maybe a discussion involving a larger group of Editors is called for. I really don't think this is a positive trend and it reminds me of the issues in the spring about gender. I can see this becoming a big deal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issues in the spring about gender were attacks on Wikipedia for categorizing by it at all. A similar attack would claim Wikipedia is racist because we have this category. Also, when the vast majority of articles in a category make no in text claim they belong in the category there is a problem. Lastly, the very clear rules say we only categorize by notable intersections. Thus, we need to determine on a case by case basis if particular intersections are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the application of these types of categories is that if the article actually states with a WP:V fact the person's race, this category can be added. I do a lot of African-American athletes. However, not all of them have citations regarding their race. Only those that have a citation regarding their race should have these categories. This has recently become an issue for two basketball articles that I do. Jabari Parker's race and religion are very topical in the press. Thus, in his article a race related basketball player was a speedy decision. Jahlil Okafor did not have cited references regarding his race when such a category was added so I deleted it. This forced the editor to find a reference in order to readd the category.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone's "race and religion" being "topical" in the press are enough to justify this type of category, then why do we not have Category:Latter-day Saint basketball players. Because I can assure you there has been way more coverage of Parker's religion than his ethnicity, especially since we easily know what his religion is, his ethnicity is more complex, with an African-American father and a mother of Tongan descent. Why is Parker not in Category:Baksetball players of Tongan descent? Also, we Do not categorize by race, we categorize by ethnicity. This is the clear guideline. Ethnicity is what we categorize. You can not determine it by just looking at a person, but as far as I can tell, this is how many articles were put in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issues that apply to players are totally different than those that apply to coaches. I would go so far to argue that this is a relevant issue due to perceptions and ideas for coaches, but it is not a relevant issue for players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Among the articles in this category is Barney Chavous. Can anyone point to anything in that article that at all suggests it should be so categorized. I have no clue how this category was formed, but it was not grounded in actual mentions in the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's rationale is ridiculous. First of all, how is it racist to categorize by ethnicity? You clearly don't know what racism is. Second, there's a category dedicated to American sportspeople of Irish descent, but this guy wants to get butthurt about a category for African-American sportspeople? As an African-American person, I find that highly suspicious. Others can have categories, but we can't? I say keep wholeheartedly and definitively. B-Machine (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order. 1-no one has yet said this category was racists, that has not been argued at all. B-Category:American sportspeople of Irish descent is currently under nomination for elimination, so that argument is total off the way. Lastly, you need to stop just adding this to articles like Rubin Carter (American football). Carter may or may not be African-American, but until it actually says he is in the article, he should not be categorized as such. This is a basic facet of verifiability.

Comment This and its Canadian Football League counterpart were previously nominated for deletion in September 2009. Having created History of African Americans in the Canadian Football League, I felt at the time that it was also sufficiently defining for a category (or two, in fact) and I still do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a strong defining characteristic that has served as an effective aid to navigation. If there are legitimate issues with particular articles they should be discussed at the relevant talk pages. Alansohn (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a defining characteristic if virtually no biographies mention in? This is one of the most egregious cases of mass miscategorization I have seen. We follow the rules of verifiability. Yet, for trying to hold articles to a standard of verifiability I have been accused of engaging in "highly suspicious" behavior by B-machine. This is all the more egregious, because in fact the other categories he mentions were already nominated earlier for elimination by me. People seem to want to ignore the fact that in virtually none of the articles in this category is there any in-text support for the subject being African-American. To insist articles have to have in text support for being placed in categorizes is to just insist on the basic rules of verifiability. To claim that this is some how special treatment of one group is totally out of line with my actual record. I have probably removed more articles from Category:American people of German descent than any other category. We follow verifiability. If the fact is not mentioned in the article, we do not categorize by it, ever. End of story. However, considering how much this rule has been ignored in building this category something has to be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JPL, I do find it highly suspicious behavior that none of these African American football players are of German (or Irish) descent, and I personally blame you for it; Other than that I don't understand your response to the points I have made for retention. Categorizing African American athletes is a real-world means of grouping football players, as evidenced in books, magazines and newspaper articles. If this truly is "one of the most egregious cases of mass miscategorization" can you point to the hundreds and thousands of articles that don't properly belong here? The only relevant issue here is verifiability at the article level, and I suggest that you fight the battle there. Alansohn (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand it either, Alansohn. It's not as if every African-American has that identification in their lead paragraph.

I mean, for example, look at Jay-Z...no one would argue that he is African-American but he is only identified as being African-American because of the categories he is listed under like Category:African-American businesspeople, Category:African-American investors, Category:African-American non-fiction writers, Category:African-American rappers, Category:African-American record producers, Category:African-American sports executives and administrators. Should all of those categories be abolished, too? Should Jay-Z be removed from all of these categories because he is not identified as African-American in his article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the second question is yes. The answer to the first question is, if Category:African-American investors was full of people who were not identified as being African-American, than I would suggest we delete the category. Categorization should always follow facts stated in articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this line of reasoning to its most utterly illogical conclusion.... We categorize by sex, for example, for Category:Female actors and Category:Male actors, despite the fact that few if any of these articles for alleged actors and actresses provide reliably sourced references to support their self-identification as either male or female. I have this very strong feeling that George Clooney is male and Megan Fox female, just to pick two celebrities who appeared on magazine covers in a subscription offer I received, but do I have any definitive sourcing to support this claim, and has either Clooney or Fox (or any of the other people identified as male or female) ever specifically stated their sex identification in a reliable and verifiable source? I don't recall seeing any sources included in articles for men or women that support the identification by sex for these individuals, and how do we "really" know that Clooney is a man and Fox a woman as we so casually assume? While race / ethnicity might be casually deduced using external physical characteristics with fairly strong reliability, most individuals go to great lengths to keep their external sexual characteristics covered (though Megan Fox is an excellent possible counterexample) and these social mores are often enforced by laws that make exposure of "intimate areas" illegal. One of the articles I've worked in is for Shi Pei Pu, an individual whose sexual identity could only be determined accurately after the fact. If we are unable to identify ethnicity / race in this manner, and as we do not categorize by "what clearly is", but rather we must only categorize by sourced statements in the article, then surely all categories based on sex must be eliminated, unless based on reliable and verifiable sources supporting claims of self-identity based on sex in all cases for all articles included in any sex-based category. Alansohn (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you are missing the point. Virtually every article on a person mentions the sex of the person. I have never said "I want these articles to have sources to support the ethnicity". I have never removed an article from Category:African-American people or any of its subcats because it lacked sources. I have only removed articles where there was absolutely no mention of ethnicity in the article. The problem is not that there are not sources for the claim of ethnicity, the problem is that the articles often make no such claim at all. None, sip, nada. The whole article goes on without saying "this person is African-American" at all. On the other hand, Megan Fox's article not only says "actress", but it says "she". Her sex is embedded in the wording of the article. Now, there are articles that mention ethnicity, like Mia Love, Bill Cosby and Martin Luther King.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have made an issue about references and you have said (in other words) that "I want these articles to have sources to support the ethnicity". In your nomination you stated "Are they African-American? I don't know. They might be, but we categorize based on verified fact and nothing in the article verified such." and in a later response you said that "People seem to want to ignore the fact that in virtually none of the articles in this category is there any in-text support for the subject being African-American. To insist articles have to have in text support for being placed in categorizes is to just insist on the basic rules of verifiability." Sex is only embedded in these articles because the use of the second-person singular pronoun in the English language requires distinguishing using either "he" or "she" and an article about a pair of actors can use the word "they" to describe a group of men, women or a mix thereof, without ever disclosing the sex of the individuals involved. There are many articles for actresses that use the non-gender-marked term "actor", but I can't think of ever seeing an article that describes a person explicitly as a "man" or "woman", other than someone who is the first of their sex to accomplish some feat, as you have indicated based on ethnicity / race. Do we really need a reliable and verifiable source to support alleged claims that a person is either male or female? This is a basic facet of verifiability, as you so aptly stated, but there seems to be consensus that it's not necessary and anyone adding a source to support an individual's sex would come off as clueless. Alansohn (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But ethnicity is not sex. It is not my fault that it is not embedded in article, but when there is no mention of it in articles, especially articles with no photos, how does it make sense that we should leave it there?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jay-Z is so "obviously" African-American, that I have had my attempts to place a statement of that fact in his article reverted 3 times. User:STATicVerseatide seems to be the main force behind this. He seems to hold the view that "race" (which we do not categorize by, we categorize by ethnicity, which is what I am identifying, I am identifying that Jay-Z is ethnically African-American, I don't care about his race) is a trait that should not be included in a lead. With such hostility towards identifying something, we need to rethink categorizing by it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have realized people do not understand what we mean when we say "we categorize by race, not by ethnicity". Fortunantly in the last year people who illustrate this have made news headlines. If we categorized by race we would put George Zimmerman in Category:African-American people since Zimmerman has African ancestry. However, since we categorize by ethnicity, he is in Category:Hispanic and Latino American people. Someone might say "well, Hispanicness trumps African-Americaness" but it is not that simple. I have a friend whose parents are immigrants from Panama and she clearly identifies as being African-American, so she would so be categorized. I have another friend who was born in Puerto Rico although he came to Florida when about 10. He identifies as having "European, Native Puerto Rican and African ancestry". My guess would be we would probably not categorize him as African-American, but if he claimed to be African-American I would say we should so categorize him. Some may say "well, your friend whose parents are from Panama looked African-American and Zimmerman doesn't". This may be a factor, but it is not the controlling factor. Walter Francis White looked Euro-American to the point where he could pass as such virtually everywhere, including having someone who claimed to be able to tell anyone with some African ancestry claim that he could tell White wasn't. But White clearly in general functioned as an African-American and so we categorize him as such. On the other hand James Augustine Healy publicly identified as being an Irish-American. Healy's ethnicity was Irish, since ethnicity is a publicly acknowledged construct that while influenced by ancestry is not the same as it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CATEGRS - no one has provided any reliable sources that African Americans play football any differently than their non-African American counterparts. This category is almost identical to the example of prohibited categories in our guidelines: "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. For example, most sportspeople should not be categorized by religion, since e.g. being Catholic or Protestant is not relevant to the way they perform in sports." Pray tell, keepers, how do African Americans play differently. And show us reliable sources for your statements. Otherwise, this category has got to go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer that one for you: African-Americans play football in greater numbers than non-African Americans, and often for different reasons. This country is about 10% Black, but the NFL is about 60-70% Black. That stat indicates that this might be a notable concept to look at. Furthermore, some players play football for an "out" to get out of poverty or other miserable conditions, some people play for other reasons, and some people don't play at all. It's been found that a disproportionate number of people in the first category are African-American p b p 23:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your original research is all very interesting, but even were we to buy what you're selling, why "some people" do something doesn't answer whether the how they do it differs, which is what the existence of this category implies. No doubt, there are may football players with poor upbringings (of all races, ethnicities, or religions) who want fame and fortune in the big league, but we don't categorize on poverty status nor do we categorize on whether people want to get themselves out of whatever. Your answer proves this category is inappropriate because you are trying to justify categorization by race/ethnicity because "some" members of the race/ethnnicity have some (perceived and unreferenced commonality of motive). If race or ethnicity and playing American football is a notable combination, great, write an article; but justifying the classification of people by race/ethnicity based on "some" members of the race/ethnnicity having some (perceived and unreferenced commonality of motive) is stereotyping at best, but certainly not encyclopedic by any normal stretch. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rules for ethnicity and sex categorization are clearly different. We have people in Category:African-American people, we have explicit rules against putting any biographical articles in Category:American women. On the other hand we have Category:Women sociologists and lots of other categories that link women by occupation across nation lines, we have virtually no categories that are Category:Black writers linking all people of who are "black" across international boundaries. As I have said before I am perfectly ok with the article saying at some point "Fred is African-American". I do not question how people come up with that. However, if the article does not at least say that somewhere, how do I know the categorization works?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: JPL's main argument appears to be that some of the players are miscategorized. That in and of itself is not a reason for deletion. See also my above comment about disproportionality of people who play ball at higher levels, and why p b p 23:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, my main argument is that this is so not defining to the players that people have not bothered to mention it in their biographies. Some of your claims about why Afircan-Americans as opposed to other play football are impossible to sustain. There are many "white" players of football who take this course to escape poverty. Not every poor resident of inner cities is black. In fact at least in the early 1990s, Driggs, arguably one of the poorest and most poverty stricken sections of Detroit, was overwhelmingly white. Detroit itself was then over 70% African-American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the other hand there are some African-Americans in football who have never been poor or poverty stricken. The idea that African-American=poor might work on broad studies, but it does not work applied to individuals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Salyersville, Kentucky

The result of the discussion was: merge. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Salyersville, Kentucky to Category:People from Magoffin County, Kentucky

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 4 entries. ...William 14:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge with under 2,000 people does not seem worth splitting off.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball foods

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Baseball foods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There does not seem to be any useful purpose served by linking together this group of foods. It is possible to find uses of the expression "baseball food", but I can't see any evidence that it is a significant or notable concept, and I don't see that putting a food in this category actually adds any useful information. Also, is there anything special about baseball, or should we also add category:Cricket foods to each article in the category, and likewise for any other sport that someone might be watching while eating the food in question? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So far as I can see, an association with baseball is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of only two of the topics in this category: Secret Stadium Sauce and Dodger Dog. Even if there were more such topics, it's hard to see how it could make a viable category. Just how closely associated with baseball would a food have to be for inclusion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the inclusion of "Pretzel", "Nachos" etc. are iffy. I'd argue that Cracker Jacks are a legit baseball food, along with Secret Stadium Sauce and Dodger Dog, but those could go into Category:Baseball culture. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The specific uses of food change with place, culture and time. This is a bad way to categorize food.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the two examples cited by BrownHairedGirl are WP:DEFINING only in name; there's nothing intrinsic connecting the sport with either hot dogs or hot sauce. Miniapolis 02:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify not defining for the food, but is part of baseball culture, so is better served by a list, to explain why it is part of baseball -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly. Listify possibly. This is in the nature of a performance (offered at baseball games) by performer (food) category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, then delete category, turn it into an article like Camping food or Tailgate party that are part of Category:Sports culture.

Food is an important element of subcultures (see Category:Ceremonial food and drink, Category:Competitive eating, Category:Tea culture. I wonder how distinctive "baseball foods" are from other food served at sporting events so maybe this list should be expanded to include food served at other kinds of parks, stadiums and arenas in the U.S. I'm sure that food served at stadiums and arenas in Europe, South America, Asia and Australia are probably quite different. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There might have been a case if Dodger Dog and Secret Stadium Sauce had been among the few articles, maybe even if Cracker Jack or even Peanut had been included, but the definition of this category is so broad -- including the ubiquitous popcorn and pretzel, as mentioned above -- that it is far too broad to be the defining characteristic of these foods. Most could also be included in hypothetical categories for Football foods, Basketball foods, Soccer foods, Hockey foods or even Movie theater foods, and the overlaps would be near complete. Even the listify option seems hard to justify, though an article on Stadium cuisine might address the topic. Alansohn (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that peanuts are used in peanut butter, and many other techniques developed by George Washington Carver, in peanut sauce in Indonesia, that they are one of the main products of Sierra Leone, it is very hard to see how they are definingly linked to baseball.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - JPL, there's a song called Take Me Out to the Ball Game that is traditionally played during the Seventh-inning stretch at baseball stadiums. The song includes the line "Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack", which was the basis for the vague possibility of these two foods being definingly connected to the category under discussion. I am not familiar with this product you call "Peanut Butter" or of this individual "George Washington Carver", a product and person who both seem rather obscure, and I never knew that there were alternative uses for peanuts outside of baseball stadiums. I know the slogan "Nobody doesn't like Sierra Leone", and I enjoy their pound cake, but I don't think that they make any "Baseball foods", at least that I know of. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone really think this concept is notable enough to be the subject of an article? I find it surprising that they do. However, anyone who thinks that is free to create such an article (whether a list article or otherwise) no matter what happens to the category, so that suggestion has no bearing whatever on the subject of this discussion, which is whether the category should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could just as well be Category:Food served at sports venues in the United States and so forth. There's nothing even remotely defining here, and I cannot see even bothering with a list article. Seyasirt (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Not a defining characteristic, and could get out of hand pretty quickly. You can get tacos and a glass of wine at Dodger Stadium, for example p b p 23:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As BrownEyedGirl points out, few true baseball food. The rest are simply foods often eaten at baseball games, which is woefully underdefined. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)----[reply]

Mercury quadrangles

The result of the discussion was: rename. Apparently there are no objections to the recent changes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming
Category:Liguria quadrangle to Category:Raditladi quadrangle

Category:Apollonia quadrangle to Category:Hokusai quadrangle

Category:Solitudo Criophori quadrangle to Category:Eminescu quadrangle

Category:Pieria quadrangle to Category:Derain quadrangle

Category:Solitudo Persephones quadrangle to Category:Neruda quadrangle

Category:Cyllene quadrangle to Category:Debussy quadrangle

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I recently moved our articles on six of the fifteen Mercury quadrangles to new names, per the changes documented at List of quadrangles on Mercury. I am nominating the corresponding six categories (collectively containing about 53 pages on surface features on Mercury) for renaming as well. This may qualify for speedy renaming C2D, but as there was no discussion of the page moves I thought it best to list these proposed category name changes for a full discussion. I will notify the creator of the categories, and if he agrees to this proposal then these would be C2E speedy renames. Carcharoth (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)----[reply]

Category:Military bridges and ferries

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Military bridging equipment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military bridges and ferries to Category:Military bridges or Category:Military bridging equipment DexDor (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This (unusually named) category currently incorrectly (see WP:SUBCAT) places articles like Bailey bridge under Category:Ferries. There are (currently) no articles in the category that are about ferries (unless one counts amphibious vehicles - in which case every amphibious military truck/APC would be eligible for this category and pontoons that can be used as barges). This category might have been intended for that class of amphibious military vehicle that can act both as a bridge or (usually when linked with a similar vehicle) as a ferry, but AFAIK there are only 2 such types (M3 and EFA) and a much less ambiguous name for such a category would be something like "(military) amphibious bridging vehicles". Note: A rename to "Portable military bridges" (or similar) would also be OK (and would make it clear that it's not for bridges located on military bases etc), but would require the Underwater_bridge article to be upmerged from the category. DexDor (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Bridges and ferries are both forms of water crossing, but they are clearly differentiated. Traffic moves over a bridge, even if the bridge is not a fixed structure; but traffic remains stationary on a ferry, which moves between locations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a cable ferry is a mix of the two though, the ferry moves across a fixed structure. Though all the contents of this category appears to be bridging equipment for building bridges -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. As far as I can see all the contents except PTS (vehicle) (apparently an amphibious tank) are some form of bridge. A cable ferry is clearly a ferry: it is in the name! Peterkingiron (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A cable ferry rope bridge with a boat substituting for a cable car, it is a hybrid bridge-ferry, as it's a fixed link with a mobile platform attached to it, and a single cable across a river is all that's needed for a bridge (if you angled it right, you have a zipline) -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about rename to Category:Military bridging equipment? We already have Royal Engineers bridging equipment as a member. Seyasirt (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that works much better (since the contents aren't bridges per se) -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes (note: the Underwater_bridge article should be upmerged). DexDor (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that Category:Military bridging equipment is better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)----[reply]

Category:Duos and duets

The result of the discussion was: split to Category:Musical duos and Category:Duets. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Duos and duets to Category:Musical duos and Category:Duets

Nominator's rationale: Split back to previously existing categories. The merger of Category:Musical duos and Category:Duets was done unilaterally by User:Hyacinth, apparently without any prior discussion. It makes no sense to combine duos (a group of musicians) and duets (a musical composition) into a single category. — Paul A (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Merriam-Webster, a duo is both, "two people who perform together..." and, "a piece of music that is performed by two musicians." Hyacinth (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split I don't know how these two were lumped together in the same category. As you say, a "duo" is a group while a "duet" is a musical arrangement between singers. While some duos sing duets, not all duets are sung by duos and, I think, duets can be sung more than two singers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put it back—While I do agree with Hyacinth that "duo" can mean a piece of music for two musicians, a category that combines performers with the works performed is not a good idea. The end result is that Pet Shop Boys has a parent of Category:Musical forms, which really doesn't make sense. The inclusion criteria for Category:Duets needs to indicate that it covers pieces of music that are called duos as well as duets. i.e. any musical work written and intended for two performers. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Put it back asap — we had 2 coherent categories (a people one and a 'musical forms' one) and now we have an incoherent jumble. (Perhaps Category:Musical duos should be renamed, but to what?) Oculi (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no problem calling it "duo", since this is easily the commonest(er) meaning; as long as there is a clarifying note. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split per Liz: a "duo" is a group while a "duet" is a musical arrangement. And WP:TROUT whoever did the unilateral merger. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Beeswaxcandle; the current mix is untenable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split Mixing articles on musical groups and articles on musical compositions makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split, split, split The present category defies logic. If Rihanna and Beyonce sing a song together, it is a duet. That doesn't mean Rihanna and Beyonce are a musical group (duo). This is a one time affair and they part ways. What they have performed is a duet. Duos are permanent set-ups of groups made by two individuals. By joining these two categories, we are just mixing apples and oranges into one, a cocktail mix if you will. A sort of a duo/duet mega category. It is just counter-productive and confusing to say the least. werldwayd (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split -- The person who merged them has not thought through what they were doing. A duo is a musical group consisting of two people who regularly perform together. A duet is a piece of music requiring two performers, or performed by two people. I presume that User:Hyacinth is an Admin and should be warned not to do this again. Her(?) response to this CFD actually supports what is now proposed! Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split It is obviously confusing to muddle up "pairs of performers" with "musical compositions for two performers". Unfortunately it is not quite as simple as saying the performers are a "duo" and the composition is a "duet" because of the convention (not universal) that a piano piece for four hands at one piano is a "duet" and a piece for two performers on two pianos is a "duo". But this terminological problem should not interfere with sensible definition of categories. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Put it back Just because there is ambiguity in the dictionary definition, that's no reason to restructure the category accordingly. That's why we use disambiguations in the first place. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]