Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 6 December 8 >

December 7[edit]

Category:Governors of Illinois currently in prison[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Governors of Illinois currently in prison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. In the extensive tree of Category:Prisoners and detainees, we never categorize prisoners for being either currently or previously in prison. WP categories in general avoid such classifications in favor of categories that are "timeless" and not subject to change in the future. In any case, it's a small category—I won't say "and unlikely to expand", since there seems to be a "thing" going on in this state—but no real loss of navigability will result from deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2011 (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:Spiritual books[edit]

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: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Spiritual books to Category:Books about spirituality
Nominator's rationale: poor grammar. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming that Category:Religious literature / Category:Religious poetry should become sub-cats of "literature/poetry about spirituality". – Fayenatic (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2011 (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:MediaWiki virtual library (MVL)[edit]

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. Userspace pages aren't supposed to be categorised anyway... The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:MediaWiki virtual library (MVL) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Bad name and per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:48, 7 December 2011 (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:Human experimentation[edit]

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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Human experimentation to Category:Human subject research
Nominator's rationale: The main article for this category is Human subject research. There is no article for "Human experimentation", and the articles already tagged with this category would be better tagged with "Human subject research". "Human subject research" is the best name for this, and not "Human research" or anything else. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also -
Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this more and I still feel the change needs to be made, but I want to clarify something also - all experimentation is research, but not all research is experimentation. Sometimes I want to put this category on pages which refer to research, like collecting blood samples and doing blood testing. No experiment is done when blood components are measured; this would be "human subject research." There should not be a separate category for these two concepts, because in many other cases both research and experimentation are happening. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2011 (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:American singers of Native American descent[edit]

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 & merge to Category:American people of Native American descent. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American singers of Native American descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American models of Native American descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American rappers of Native American descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As per WP:OC#EGRS. Non-defining combination/characteristic; at least in its current form. For example, Jessica Simpson is listed in this category. Is she notable in any way for being of Native American descent? If not, the category is arbitrary. Nymf hideliho! 18:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but here's the problem:
someone reads something about Jessica Simpson or whoever having a great-great-great-grandmother who was a full-blooded Cherokee princess (common NA joke) and adds Category:Native American singers, which is wrong since it is reserved for tribal members, e.g. real Native Americans. That happens so often, esp. for people in show-business where either they or their fans feel the need to spice up or exoticize their public image with "Ooo, Indian, wow", that we kinda got sick of cleaning it up at WP:IPNA. So this was the compromise; and since there's a crapload of people in the industry who claim some NA descent for the above reasons, the Category:People of Native American descent is ever-growing. So either you keep this one or the main category will be extremely large.
And by the way, the notability of such "traits" can be questioned for the entire Category:American people by ethnic or national origin, but that's a different discussion I guess... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally fine with the "American people of Native American descent" category being large. I don't see an "American actors of Jewish descent", for example. The problem is the combination (as per WP:OC#EGRS) of the above being non-notable. Nymf hideliho! 20:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish is not a citizenship. But anyways, I'm just telling you that this will go back to a nightmare to keep clean. Without this category, people will keep insisting that Jessica Simpson (nice and perfect example by the way) is a Native American actress and singer. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish is an ethnicity, which is what we're talking about in this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"That's true, but" — The better comparison is Category:American actors of Danish descent and Category:American models of Japanese descent (which should probably be deleted along the same lines); if those get deleted, it won't make the people in that category Danish actors or Japanese actors. Correct? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor will deleting these ones make someone a native American singer or model. I don't really see the distinction you are trying to draw. We pretty much treat all of these ethnic and national descent categories the same. That's why the categories that house them use the terminology "of ethnic or national descent". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True again. I am simply further explaining the concern I voiced: people will flood the nationality-category if there is no ethnic category. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could happen, but I kind of doubt it will be a significant problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization by combining two or more defining attributes to result in a categorization that is not defining—simply merge to Category:American people of Native American descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American people of Native American descent. Trivial intersection - the descent and the career are not related. Occuli (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The origin of the category was for people who are of Native American descent but we are unsure as to if they are enrolled in a specific tribe or not...even if the person i.e. Della Reese has significant Native American heritage. I originally created Native American singers, Native American rappers...and so on because of the lack of representation and the fact that there are people that applied to the categories. However, other editors felt to be more specific and made the seperation of those we KNOW are enrolled members like Radmilla Cody vs those we honestly don't know or haven't been able to obtain information on i.e. Ludacris.Mcelite (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one-drop rule is a bit anachronistic and basically racist; there is no indication that those American singers with Native American ancestry perform any differently and no one has shown reliable sources to the contrary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that it is a redundant category..like I said the only difference was if were known to be enrolled in a tribe or not..I honestly have no problem if the category is deleted as long as those in the category are moved to Native American singers category..I would hate to move all of them myself.Mcelite (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They won't be. That category has a clear definition, and anyone who doesn't meet that definition won't be included. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even as stupid to me as the seems because I've never heard even mention that and the fact there is no credible resource for it..anyone in the categories has a reliable source stating they are native by blood..there hasn't been any recent major problems with people extensively adding ppl to these particular categories when there is no credible source provided.Mcelite (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you haven't been there before the cleanup; it was full of the Jessica Simpsons and Chers. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that must have happened when I had a brief period of absence because I was swamped with school work...well as long as the people in the categories get acknowlegement I'm fine. A person should be able to find Della Reese and Jana Mashonee in the same category.Mcelite (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you bring a reliable source showing their tribal membership, they will be. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:50, 16 December 2011 (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.

Political offices[edit]

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: Closed. The creation of categories is not within the remit of CfD; Be bold or discuss it at the WIkiProject level.The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss creation of categories for political offices. The only one starting with this name is Category:Political offices of the European Union. I looked in vain for a category to hold the articles about national offices of President, which exist in plenty (see Special:PrefixIndex/President_of). Some are categorised under Category:Lists of presidents, but in some cases there is an article about the office, separate from the national list naming the office-holders. I found that Category:Presidents by country stated its purpose as "This category contains articles about the office of president as it exists within a country or nation-state", but that is no longer accurate as it holds no articles directly, and its national sub-cats mainly hold biographies by country as well as lists and any separate articles on the office. Should the articles on national presidential offices be alongside each other in a category, or is it right for them to be mixed in with national categories of biographies? – Fayenatic (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I confirm that I find no category for offices of presidency. I agree that it seems like a good idea to have a category only for the articles describing this office in different countries, and that this category should not include any biographical articles for specific holders of these offices. There are already Wikipedia articles for this office for many countries. I think that the category you are describing, Category:Presidential offices, should be within the category Category:Heads_of_state as I think the president is always a head of state. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2011 (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.

Amusement rides by theme[edit]

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: Rename. Apparently a noncontroversial proposal. The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename:

Nominator's rationale: I want to try an establish a naming convention with these related categories which come under Category:Amusement rides by theme. A series of articles exist within that category that match the proposed format (x in amusement parks) and I therefore feel that the categories should be renamed to match. Themeparkgc  Talk  03:30, 7 December 2011 (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:Articles with MusicBrainz release links[edit]

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles with MusicBrainz release links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Why does this exist? Similar templates—{{metacritic}}, {{allmusic}}, {{discogs master}}, etc.—lack this, so I don't see why it's particularly useful for {{MusicBrainz release}}. There is no explanation in the category itself and nothing links to it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this seems to be a hidden maintenance category added by {{MusicBrainz release}} but I can't see that there is any maintenance value whatever. Occuli (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now) - I created this category due to the recent major changes in MusicBrainz (commonly referred to as NGS for Next Generation Schema). As a result of this change, the semantics of what constitutes a 'release' changed. What Wikipedia should now be linking to is a release group (for which there is a different template) as releases are specific to a date and country, while a group collects together all releases on different countries and dates (as Wikipedia pages do). Releases can also now be multi-disc, whereas in the past they was a release per disc. As a result, some Wikipedia pages have multiple MusicBrainz release links which need converting to a single release group link. Such conversion requires finding all releases and changing them (similar to how albums currently need to have the reviews in the infobox replaced). If someone could point me to a good way to add this information to the category page, I'll do so. I do think the cat. should be kept until it becomes redundant (by being empty or near-empty if some special cases are found). Gnu andrew (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I would recommend simply adding this rationale to the category page by using the edit button. As for whether or not this is worth tracking and amending, I'll leave that to other commentators. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2011 (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:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States[edit]

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: administrative close: another user has relisted these at 2011 DEC 19 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't see how this is defining for these places. Likewise if kept, I fail to see how having a Spanish name make this part of Category:Hispanic and Latino American history. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also including
Category:Place names of Czech origin in the United States‎
Category:Place names of Dutch origin in the United States‎
Category:Place names of English origin in the United States‎
Category:Place names of French origin in the United States‎
Category:Place names of German origin in the United States‎
Category:Place names of Irish origin in the United States‎
Category:Place names of Norwegian origin in the United States‎
Category:Place names of Scottish origin in the United States‎
Category:Place names of Swedish origin in the United States‎
Category:Place names of Welsh origin in the United States‎
Category:Place names in Nebraska of French origin
Category:Place names of Ulster origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cuban origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Bedfordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Berkshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Buckinghamshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cambridgeshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cheshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cornwall origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cumberland origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Derbyshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Dorset origin in the United States
Category:Place names of County Durham origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Essex origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Gloucestershire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Hampshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Herefordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Hertfordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Huntingdonshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Kent origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Lancashire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Leicestershire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Lincolnshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Middlesex origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Norfolk origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Northamptonshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Northumberland origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Nottinghamshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Oxfordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Rutland origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Shropshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Somerset origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Staffordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Suffolk origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Surrey origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Sussex origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Warwickshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Westmorland origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Wiltshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Worcestershire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Yorkshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names in Nebraska of Native American origin
Category:Place names in the United States of Native American origin
Category:Place names in Alabama of Native American origin
Category:Place names in New York of Native American origin
Category:Place names in New Jersey of Native American origin
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To me, this just seems like WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Not every case of a place being given a Spanish-origin name means that the place is somehow connected to Hispanic and Latino American history. Sometimes names are just chosen because someone likes a name! I see that there are a ton of "place names of FOOian origin" categories in Category:Names of places in the United States. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per multiple precedents and common sense; although someone could reformulate these as Category:Places in the United States founded by Spain, etc. which is shared history, not shared names. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how this is different from Welsh or Swedish place names. Either delete this one or all of them. I can well imagine that someone would want to do research on this subject. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how this is different from French or Irish place names.--Alfredalva (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep. If this gets consensus to delete, then the other ones can also be nominated. Or, if you want them all considered at this time, feel free to include them in this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really don't see any difference between Spanish and others. I want to keep all. I think people often don't know the origin of place names and it is important. This category adds knowledge to wikipedia.--Alfredalva (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The ones that were added by User:Seb az86556 were not tagged with Template:Cfd, and there is still an extensive number of these within Category:Place names of English origin in the United States‎. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You may be confusing encyclopedic facts in the article with a category. Clearly the reasons for choosing the name of a place should be covered in the article. But is the fact that it is based on a name in a specific language defining? Isn't the name choice more one of chance based on the language the person who passed through spoke rather then some defining tie to the country or the language? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If it were chance, we wouldn't see such a strong pattern in which Spanish place names are very common in California and the Southwest and much rarer elsewhere. Those places used to be part of the Spanish empire and that history has a lot to do with their names. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now that all have been added I would support deletion of them all. They all are examples of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES overcategorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, per above comments on potential research topic. I don't agree that WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES applies - placenames can be georeferenced and their etymology can be a defining characteristic of the individual name and the wider region. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think it's a defining characteristic of the places themselves, but it is defining of the place name, and many of our articles about places also say something about their names (like why they have that name, historical variants of the name, etc). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that the point of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES? The information can placed in the encyclopedia, just not in category format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OC#SHAREDNAMES says "a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related" and in this case I believe that the subjects are directly related by having some Spanish heritage that caused them to have the same types of names. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine—if a category limits itself to instances where the items are directly related. This is worded in such a way that is sweeps up any place that is given a Spanish name, whether or not there is some Spanish heritage to the place itself. If someone chose a Spanish name for a town simply because they liked the sound of it, it could be categorized in this category. It's too broad, if nothing else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is merely a variation on WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. This is not a defining characteristic of the places themselves, and the articles are on the places themselves, not on the names of the places. Occuli (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or most --The origin of a name is likely to indicate the ethnic origin of the founders. Dedications of churches and surnames, the cases cited for WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, are largely random and at best should exist as a list article (usually a dab article), but the origin of a name is different. Nevertheless, the category should only be applied where the article says something about the source of the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be hard pressed to find any Spanish influences in the Las Vegas area from it's founding. So the inclusion criteria here is rather arbitrary. The same goes for Nevada which is named after the Sierra Nevada mountain range. So it's a stretch to say that the name of the state is of Spanish origin. So how does this justify inclusion in the category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 04:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What an uninformed statement. Go read History of Las Vegas., especially the first two paragraphs of the 1829–1905 section (the parts within which the place was named, and was subject to the Mexican government). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Likewise, read the history of the name in the article Nevada to see that the name is not "arbitrary"; it is very much related to the Spanish heritage of the area. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Heritage is a rather strong word there. The history of Nevada and Las Vegas is more dependent on the Mormons then it is on the Spanish. Maybe you can offer some wording for the introduction and a name that would make this defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful uncontroversial categories and selective nomination. - Darwinek (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since origin is somewhat subjective I fail to see how this can be considered uncontroversial. And I have no idea what selective nomination means. Maybe part of the problem, is that the actual words belong in Category:Spanish loanwords? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES does not apply, because the category being listed is not a "non-defining characteristic of the subject", or a "characteristic of the name rather than the subject itself". On the contrary. The origin of a place name is not a random thing but almost always relates directly to the history and/or geography of the area. Personally, I found the "Spanish" category here to be such a useful one that I have been busily adding it to appropriate articles; I have probably added 50 names to the category in the past week. I was astonished to find it nominated for deletion, and even more astonished to see all the categories in Category:Names of places in the United States subsequently nominated. If you want to remove this category from Category:Hispanic and Latino American history, fine, but it should continue to exist as a category. --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is much akin to the various Category:Eponymous cities and subcats that were deleted. Yes it's interesting, yes it's useful. Yes, it makes good articles, but no it makes bad cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete put move cases where the names reflect settlement or large latter populations connected with a specific ethnic group to the relevant Fooian American history categories, such as Category:Dutch American history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these categories are grouping two unlike things. On one hand they put together place names where the city was named after a city in some other place. That is clearly what is going on with Category:Place names of English origin in the United States. On the other hand categories like Category:Place names of French origin in the United States has Sault Ste. Marie (among others), which is French in that the name comes to us through French. If we applied the same rules to English than we would have way more places in that category. It might be good to propose the English category sub-cats for deletion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment others of these places are actually named after the last names of specific people. Do we really want to get into classifying the origin of last names of given individuals and then figuring out what that means for the place names. For examples Fremont, Nebraska is in the category Place names in Nebraska of French origin, but actually it is named after John C. Fremont, it was named by English speakers after a person who was born in the United States, there is nothing French about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to make things more fun Batavia, New York is actually using the Latin form of the name of a place in the Netherlands. These categories are not used consistently for the same things. They seem to not be based on a significant factor about the place itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these are not even consistent about whether it is an issue of the language origin, or the geographic origin of the name. The Irish ones are clearly based on the location origin of those names, and then we have Category:Places names of Ulster origin in the United States. Yet with the Spanish and French we also have language origin. This category is combining all sorts of unrelated things. On the issue of founding, Toledo, Ohio was neither founded by Spain nor by people of Spanish origin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to the claims abouve, not only Toledo, Ohio, but Las Vegas, Nevada and Mesa, Arizona were also not founded by people who were in any way Hispanic. Why exactly are Buena Vista, Virginia, Rio Grande, Ohio and a lot of other places not in here. This is not an issue of Spanish heritage in founding, because many of these places lack it. That also applies to many of the French and German places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment then there is Salamanca (town), New York which is in the category while Salamanca, New York is not. They are both named after a Spanish banker with the last name of Salamanca who was a large stockholder in the main railroad in town. The city of Salamanca was originally named Bucktooth, and the city is located on the Seneca Indian Reservation. It has no connection with Category:Hispanic and Latino American history. The places that belong in that category should be put there, not put in some amorphous category that puts many places in it that really do not belong there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition I added the Nebraska category. I would encorage people to go look at the headings of the category. Compare the English and Czech category headings. Then look at the Nebasak category heading. What exactly does Fremont, Nebraska have to do with French people in Nebraska?John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition I added the Ulster category. It should cause people to rethink their arguments about this category, as should Toledo, Ohio. To make things more interesting if we applied the English and Irish cats headings consistently to all categories than Las Vegas does not belong here at all because there is no place in Spain called Las Vegas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to Alfredalva's claim that this category adds knowledge to wikipedia, in the case of Salamanca, New York and Fremont, Nebraska it adds misinformation, since it implies these places named after people were named based on a language or after a place in another country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition I added the category Category:Place names of Cuban origin in the United States. This is because Miramar, Florida was named after a place in Cuba, not a place in Spain. On the other hand there is not a consistent rule for these categories. If we are going to keep them we need to figure out a consistent rule for inclusion. On another matter, many of the places included here have no mention in the article where the place name came from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nevada, Utah and Colorado were never "part of the Spanish Empire" in any real sense of the term. The same can be said for Arizona north of the Gila River. Even in a case like Palo Pinto County, Texas, the name was applied in 1856 by the Anglo government of Texas and the area was a reservation for the Caddos, Tonkawa, Choctaw and Delaware Indians before Euro-American settlers such as Oliver Loving and Charles Goodnight moved in. There is nothing connecting this place to Hispanic or Latino history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see "File:Iberian Union Empires.png" or "File:Spanish Empire Anachronous 0.PNG".--Alfredalva (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I know that Spain claimed to control Utah, Nevada and Colorado. However they never did, and the same is true for a very large part of Texas and Arizona.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Almanor, California belong in the Spanish category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huachuca City, Arizona is also a questionable case. The name goes back to the name of a Pima Vilalge, that the Spanish applied to the mountains near the village, but it is not in origin a Spanish word, and it is clearly not based on the name of a place in Spain. In fact I see no justification for this application at all, especially since the city was not so named until 1958.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the category that some people are suggesting the Spanish category represents is actually Category:Colonial United States (Spanish). Some other places might properly go Category:Hispano history or the like, refering to the Hispano people of New Mexico and southern Colorado. Others might belong in Category:Mexican American history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From Category:Place names of Scottish origin in the United States I have removed cases like Dunbarton, South Carolina where the article says it was named after the Dunbar family, clearly meaning it does not fit the given description for the category. Many other places the article does not say how the name came about. If we are to keep these categories we should at least insist they be used only when the articles support their use. Since I have added a lot more categories to this discussion, which if people had seen them initially they might have interacted with the whole debate differently, I think we should relist this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Reading, Kansas article very clearly states that place was named after Reading, Pennsylvania. It seems incorrect to claim it was named after a place in Berkshire, as its current categorization does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Truro, Iowa was named at the suggestion of someone whose hometown was Truro, Massachusetts according to the article, which makes its claim that the place is named after the place in Cornwall odd at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Camarillo, California is another example of the odd use of categories since it was named after the Camarillo brothers. This might be a last name that has origins in Spanish, but this seems just too different from others uses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Casa Grande, Arizona is another really odd inclusion. It was so named after the Casa Grande Ruins by Anglo railroad executives. For some reason the ruins are not considered a place that has a Spanish origin name (the fact that they were abandoned about AD 1450 might be part of it).John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition I have now put all 39 sub-cats of the English category up for deletion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition I just added the Native American origin place names, which have the added problem of conflating hundreds of languages into just one. Beyon this Logan is put on this list, when in fact there is a town of Logan in Scotland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per MelanieN's statement above. This entire AfD is interrupting WP to prove a point. A misuse of AfD. • Freechildtalk 15:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per points raised above. Altairisfar (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a discussion about specific uses of these categories I was told this ":Category:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States was not (and still is not) as clearly defined as you seem to think it is; please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 7#Category:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States for a great deal of discussion on this point, where a final decision is still pending. I took the term "Spanish" in this category name as the Spanish language, not Spain nor the Spanish Empire. All of the names I added to the category are of Spanish language origin: who gave these places their names is an entirely different matter. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk)". The main point is that people recognize 1-that these categories have not been clearly defined and 2-that contrary to what has been asserted above, the linguistic origin of a name often has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the founders. I can cite many, maybe even hundreds of, examples of this for Spanish names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can cite all the examples you want to; if you cite hundreds maybe we all will learn something. I agree with "the term "Spanish" in this category name as the Spanish language, not Spain nor the Spanish Empire". Sorry, I do not agree with "the ethnicity of the founders" statement.--Alfredalva (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Most of the comments were made before the nominated categories were expanded fully, and even some made after it was expanded beyond just the Spanish categories focused on just Spanish. We need a discussion of these categories to address the issues more fully.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_7&oldid=1074807201"