Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 30 January 1 >

December 31[edit]

Ethnic culture by state and city in the USA categories[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. If there are outliers that don't fit this scheme, bring them up for separate renaming nominations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming

Ethnic culture by city in the USA -

Ethnic culture by state in the USA -

Nominator's rationale: Some of these city and state categories have already been renamed by others. I think that they should all be renamed collectively, rather than continuing this pattern of renaming them one at a time. The categories were being incorrectly used for biography articles, when the purpose is for cultural and historical articles. Also, I feel that all categories should be uniformly hyphenated. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We have already renamed several of the by-state categories and a few of the by city categories. I was actually about to nominate at least some more of these categories when I found it had already been done. We seem to have began a general trend towards this new form, althogh there are still several related by-state categories to nominate and rename.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, come to think of it, I should probably list those categories here too. Rename them all at once. Give me a little bit and I will add the rest. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wholeheartedly support the expanded list. I also added category to the Ukrainian-American name so the category is linked to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. I believe I have added all of the state and city categories. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Do NOT for any reason name the categories with the "-American" suffix. I fully support the move towards CULTURAL_NAME culture in PLACE but not as CULTURAL_NAME-American culture in PLACE. You can have Scottish people living in the United States but that doesn't make them Scottish-American. Scottish-American would be a citizen, not just a resident (please see Illegal immigration to the United States). I beleive it is better if we move rename them to CULTURAL_NAME culture in PLACE instead. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However in general the heading already say they are about the history and culture of x-Americans in the given place. Realistically most of those involved with these things are to some extent American, and since many have never have lived anywhere else it really does not work to not use the American modifier. Since the US grants citizenship with birth in the US, among other ways, it is inevitable that large numbers of the people involved in any of these things will be US citizens.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean but it just doesn't work that way in real life. Take Netherlands for example. They have a big influx of Turkish people but you will never listen to someone say, "Dutch-Turkish culture in Amsterdam". They would say, "Turkish culture in Amsterdam". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the Netherlands, unlike the United States, does not give citizenship to all people born there, so that is a horrible example to use to try to decide how to name categories involving the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Ahnoneemoos, the proposed format narrows the focus in a nationalistic way. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as per nom. Given the actual content, the renames are more appropriate than the current names. Fooian cultural events in the U.S. are generally more Fooian-American in nature than (simply) Fooian. Mayumashu (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the objection raised here, but support the proposed title change suggested by Ahnoneemoos as a more accurate one. Daniel the Monk (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not all Fooish culture in State of Foo is Fooish-American - methinks that papal visits that packed venues with Polish pride are not wholely Polish-American the pope after all was Polish (full stop) or Polish-Vaticanish (?) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be supportive of either the 'Fooian culture' name change or the 'Fooian-American culture' name change. I think both convey the idea better than the present names. However, there are articles that focus on institutions and churches founded for temporary migrants (such as Norwegian and other Scandinavian sailors), so there are indeed some cultural articles that are not simply for Fooian-Americans. Given the existence of these articles, I think that the 'Fooian culture' format might be better since it is a broader categorization. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Some of these categories included are painted with a broad brush and the renaming is insensitive to the original intent of the category. On that grounds, I would oppose but I only have one dog in this fight. Specifically: [[Category:Germans in New Jersey]] isn't "German-American" by any stretch. It's a collection of sites and locations connected to Palatine German settlement in the northwest of the state in the 18th century (1709 to 1780/1790, roughly). It should be renamed to [[Category:Palatine German settlement in New Jersey]] or something appropriate and similar. The current proposed move to [[Category:German-American culture in New Jersey]] lacks precision vis-a-vis given the nature and intent of the category and quite frankly, I fear the nominator has probably made this mistake throughout the list of proposed changes. Please review each before unwise moves get discovered later. But on the basis of [[Category:Germans in New Jersey]], I oppose.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. I created many of these categories. Other editors were nominating categories for renaming and many categories had already been renamed per the 'Fooian-American culture' format, while a few categories had been renamed per a 'Fooian culture' format. I felt that rather than continue this piece-by-piece approach, it was better to discuss them all collectively. I just want the categories to be sensible and consistent. Given the existence of articles such as those concerning German Palatine settlement and other similar articles, I see the problem with the 'Fooian-American culture' format. I would support moving these categories to a 'Fooian culture' format. I haven't heard a reason to oppose such a format. I'd have nothing against a 'Fooian diaspora' format either. Surely, there must be a naming convention that could be applied consistently for all of these categories? Vis-a-visconti (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Apart from agreeing with the points already made about adding "-American" indiscriminately, if one actually looks at the pages in many of these categories the focus of them is not on culture. Such a blanket approach is too simplistic. Moonraker (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The articles address settlement, culture, history, etc. There is one category that I have seen that deviates from either naming pattern, the category Category:Irish-American history and culture in Texas. I did not create this category. The category name conveys the idea, but I think it would be cumbersomely long to add "culture and history" to all of these categories. 'Fooian diaspora' seems like it could work as a naming pattern, though there may be negatives to that I'm overlooking. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment nearly every category has the following inclusion criteria "This category includes articles related to the culture and history of fooians in foostate/foocity". And that is what what the categories contain. So why not Category:Irish American culture and history in Texas, for example. Those states with extra/special conditions, such as New Jersey, could just use subcategories (which can be created at any time) to handle their articles. Hmains (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "-American" suffix per points raised above. It also seems dubious to me that just because somebody was (for instance) born in Sweden and lives in Oregon, that she would have have any significant impact on Swedish culture in Oregon; the fact that she is a Swede in Oregon is simple and clearly captured by "Swedes in Oregon," but her relationship to "Swedish culture in Oregon" is a matter of opinion and judgment, and I would guess in many of these cases the proposed new category name does not pertain. -Pete (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to implement standard naming convention, which has been partially implemented already. I think the proposed rename is a fair representation of what these categories are meant to include. As currently named, it sounds like the categories could include only people, but that is not what they are for, it doesn't look like to me. It also solves some ambiguity problems with the current names: "Poles" and "Swedes", for instance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 6 January 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:Night series[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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category does not properly explain its overall purpose or significance. Paper Luigi T • C 22:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not even sure how some of the things in the category got there. Even with TV shows that generally get shown at a fixed time, the use of night=after dark in American English makes it hard to say a given showing time equals night. I do not think this is really a useful way to categorize television shows.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not useful, nor clearly defined or defining. And what about shows shown simultaneously across several time-zones? (often happens with sport programs) --Qetuth (talk) 07:55, 1 January 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:People from Eldorado, Texas[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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 02:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just 1 entry ...William 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Unless an abnormal number of notable people come from a smallish place, and this doesn't seem the case here. Mayumashu (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Only 1 for the town, only 2 for the whole county. Unneeded. --Qetuth (talk) 02:34, 3 January 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:Dragonlance organizations[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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's a category with only one article, which looks like it will be shortly merged into another. It also seems too precise for our purposes as an encyclopedia. —Torchiest talkedits 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category is now empty. --Qetuth (talk) 07:23, 5 January 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:Rauma[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 (C2B, C2D). The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To distinguish it from Category:Rauma, Finland, see also Rauma, Finland and Rauma, Norway. 91.155.210.216 (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Toy Hall of Fame inductees[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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That an organization has expressed it's approval of something (e.g. Ball, Bicycle, Blanket) is not a defining characteristic of that thing. The articles in the category are listed in the National Toy Hall of Fame article. If it's decided that this category is OK then would a category such as "Things the UK does not levy sales tax on" be OK ? DexDor (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – one of the better examples of 'non-defining'. Oculi (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator); this is akin to a sports hall of fame, where inclusion is recognition of an item's notability and importance to its field. Powers T 16:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - most/all sports hall of fame categories would fail WP:OC#AWARD (recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category) and I can see even less justification for placing objects in such categories. DexDor (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, there are exceptions; I see no reason this shouldn't be one likewise. Powers T 21:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point being that this is a defining characteristic, unlike (say) recipients of honorary degrees from Harvard. Powers T 21:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing the general rules on award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reason to make an exception for this unofficial induction - can anyone point to reliable sources that unaffiliated news media regularly refer to any of these toys as "hall of famers", like they do each time they mention Willie Mays or Stan Musial? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:29, 3 January 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:Falklands War weapons[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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being used in a small conflict isn't a defining characteristic of a particular weapon. We don't have such a category for most conflicts/wars (Kosovo, Gulf I, Gulf II ...) which leads to the anomaly of an article such as Mark 82 bomb having a single "by war" category. There is already an article at Weapons of the Falklands War (which is, in effect, a list article). The following subcategories would also be deleted: Category:Falklands War artillery, Category:Falklands War guided missiles, Category:Falklands War infantry weapons, Category:Falklands War naval weapons. If this is deleted then consideration should also be given to deleting categories such as Category:Falklands War aircraft. Note: A category for weapons used in a global conflict may be OK - "World War II weapons" is virtually synonymous with "weapons introduced between 1919 and 1945" which is a defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is sufficient for this small a conflict. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The issue here is not if a list is sufficient, it's if a category is appropriate. There are weapons that did have a defining connection with the Falklands war, such as the Exocet missile, but the rest of this structure just happens to list weapons used in the conflict. The category is not defining overall for the weapons used and would overlap with the too many other wars that took place in that same era for it to be an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a bad idea for categories. There are some weapons that have been used in hundreds of wars. The wars they were used in are not really a characteristic of the weapons at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify all in one article. These are in the nature of performance (=war) by performer (=weapon) categories, which we habitually listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response to some one who questioned my vote: "listify" consists for converting the category to a list article - the term is well understood by regular CFD contributors and frequently applied to performance by performer categories. This usually applies to singers and actors: we do not allow the participants in a particular TV show or the actors in a film or musciians who have played in a venue to be categoirised as this produces too many categoiries a the foot of the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 5 January 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:Stations on the Jinghu Railway[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: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merging with Category:Stations on the Beijing–Shanghai Railway to be consistent with the article Beijing–Shanghai Railway. Makecat 04:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Yogyakarta[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: it looks like we will have both, then? Category:Yogyakarta Special Region was created but has been nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Special Region of Yogyakarta. Feel free to nominate either again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As it is, this category is being used for both the city and special region, but not in an organized way. Since the city lies within the special region, there will be likely be less work tidying it up for this rename, but alternatively we want to savage this category to be used for the city specifically. Mayumashu (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - english - save perhaps rather than savage? From memory the reason for creation of the separate categories was assuming a specific separation of the city/special region on the basis that conflating the city with the separate special region is an error of judgement - the region has historically some important features that should not be confused in the difference between the city and region... SatuSuro 13:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, meant 'salvage' Mayumashu (talk) 17:15, 2 January 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:Populated places in Yogyakarta[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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is for places in the Special Region of Yogyakarta and not the city of Yogyakarta. Mayumashu (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this word order does seem better too but the article was renamed 'The Special Region of Y' from 'Y Special Region' - I didn't look into the reason. Mayumashu (talk) 17:13, 2 January 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:List of Black Fashion Models[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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not totally sure how these categories go, but it seems per WP:EGRS#Ethnicity and race that we categorize people by ethnicity, not race, and we already have a fleshed-out category tree for models of African ethnicity. Plus, I see no categories for "Black actors" or "Black musicians," so there doesn't seem to be a precedent for such categorization. At the very least, if kept, the category should be renamed Category:Black fashion models or Category:Black models.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept an edit or new name for the category. SunDevilKnitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunDevilKnitter (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Category:African-American female models / Category:African-American models (and others as appropriate) We do categorize by race, both in Wikipedia and in the real world. My eagerly awaited subscriptions to Ebony and Jet all indicate that individuals are identified and self-identify by race, and mainstream publications do the same. The issue is not with whether or not we do it, it's the correct title to use, and the fact that there are existing categories that seem to handle what's intended here is the driving issue. Alansohn (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and definately do not merge. Since the category at present has no indication of nationality, it could contain people who are in no way, shape of form "African-American". To merge it would just be incorrect. Anyway, wikipedia explictily says that it does not identify people by race. African-American is an ethnicity. African-American does not equal black, since there are black people who are Jamaican, Afro-Brazilian, Black Candian, Black British, Afro-Argentine, Nigerian, Kenyan, South African, Zimbabwean and hundreds of other nationalities/ethnicities. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:41, 3 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_31&oldid=1080994560"