Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 27



Category:Segregated schools in the United States

 * 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 to Category:Historically segregated African American schools in the United States; create Category:African American segregated schools in the United States as a parent; recreate Category:Segregated schools in the United States as a grandparent; revisit if necessary. There are various proposals in the discussion but this one covers most of the issues; if it's excess categorisation then individual categories can be reconsidered one by one. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Segregated schools in the United States to Category:African American segregated schools in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename is needed to make the category name match the actual scope of the category. All category contents are, in fact, schools that were segregated schools for African Americans. White-only schools also are properly termed "segregated schools," but there are no such schools in this category, and the article Black school is identified as the main article for the category. I do not recommend "Black schools in the United States" as a category name because I'm uncomfortable with the name "black school" as a descriptor for the category scope. The proposed name "African American segregated schools in the United States" is consistent with the category hierarchies for Category:Segregated schools and most African American topics. Orlady (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I should disclose that the category did also contain some articles and categories generally related to the topics of racial segregation and desegregation in U.S. schools (including one article about segregation of Hispanic children), but I created a broader category, Category:School segregation in the United States for those items, and moved some content out of this category. --Orlady (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the nom's reasoning is very sound, but I'm going to have to oppose this one as not all racially segregated schools were segregating black people. California also had Asian schools, while the Southwest had Mexican schools. I would support a rename to Category:Racially segregated schools in the United States to avoid quibbling over whether single-sex schools count, though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so rename this category (because it was developed as a category for African American schools, notwithstanding its broader name) and recreate Category:Segregated schools in the United States as a shell category to sit one level above it, to be populated with subcategories for segregated schools for other groups. I don't think the name "racially segregated schools" works because Hispanic status is not technically considered to be a "race". --Orlady (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Please note that the term "segregated schools" does not just apply to schools for students from oppressed groups -- the U.S. has had thousands of white-only segregated schools, too. --Orlady (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Segregation academies, but also many many more. Maybe most white attended schools up the 1960s and later. Hmains (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another problem here: a number of the schools in the category (the ones that are still around), and even more of the ones that would be in the category if we included schools that were white-only as well, are obviously not segregated anymore. Conversely, schools that were notably segregated in the past, such as Little Rock, are not in the category because they are no longer segregated. We should decide on a standard for including schools in this category. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the category is essentially historical. The schools in the category are schools that were established to educate African Americans during the segregation era. --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment what about renaming this one to Category:Historically segregated schools in the United States, along the lines of Category:Historically black universities and colleges in the United States? That would make it easier to include schools that were formerly segregated but today are open to all students. As for the issue identified by the nominator, perhaps Category:African American segregated schools should be created as a subcategory and the 'black schools' moved there, as an alternative to renaming this one. It could then be expanded to include all American schools that were segregated, especially once renamed to make clear that it's a historical category. Robofish (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The suggestion of categorizing historically segregated schools is appropriate, but does not account for the current trend of defacto segregation in the US today, which is a heavily research phenomenon. I would suggest that labeling a category in the way that's suggested would warrant the creation of another category to the effect of "currently segregated..." Also, when I created the original category I left it ambiguous with intention that I populate it with articles on other schools segregated by ethnic or racial compositions, including historically segregated Native American schools, schools for specific European ethnic groups and for Asians in the U.S. Each of these may be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, and allowance should be made for their categorization.
 * I would suggest that the category tree be:
 * Category:Segregated schools in the United States
 * Category:African American segregated schools in the United States; and
 * Category:Historically segregated African American schools in the United States.

That gives allowance for all the issues I have raised, and most others mentioned by other editors above. • Freechild talk 05:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is definitely true that de facto segregation exists, but I don't believe that's a valid basis for categorization. Identification of a de facto segregated school requires some judgment and is subject to change over time -- it's not a defining characteristic that can be used unambiguously for categorization. In contrast, there is no doubt that the schools now listed in this category were solely for African Americans. --Orlady (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, a quick perusal of a few of the categories contents: most of these are "formerly segregated schools", which by most reckoning would be most schools in the south prior to Brown vs. Board of Education, and hence not really defining for the institutions; unless we want to start adding Category:Locations with legalized slavery to every place in the South that pre-existed 1865 and other such non-defining cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that Wikipedia must not have a category for schools that were established and operated for African Americans during times when African Americans were not allowed to be educated in "regular" schools, and that the reason for this is that an entity's original purpose and function is not defining? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why wouldn't the original purpose and function of these schools be a defining characteristic for them? --Orlady (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Time to regroup after the discussion of the renaming proposal got diverted into an interesting discussion of history and politics. Please focus on the original proposal, as amended by Roscelese:
 * Rename the current category Category:Segregated schools in the United States to Category:African American segregated schools in the United States because that is, in fact, the scope of that category as it is currently populated.
 * Recreate the category Category:Segregated schools in the United States as a shell category to contain Category:African American segregated schools in the United States and possibly other categories to be created in the future.
 * These changes could possibly be accomplished by creating Category:African American segregated schools in the United States and manually moving all of the contents of the existing category (3 categories and 26 pages) into that category, but it would be "cleaner" (not to mention being less work) to rename the existing category. --Orlady (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Albums produced by John Lennon

 * 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: Withdrawn by nominator per WP:SNOW. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * albums produced by john lennon


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. The reason for this nomination is that this category only contains self-produced albums, therefore is not a defining characteristic. An analogy would be I cooked my dinner last night, but that doesn’t make me a chef! Unless producing for other artists there would be no entries in the cat which are not in Category: John Lennon albums, thereby making this a duplication category anyway. Richhoncho (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * keep part of an existing category structure of Category:Albums by producer. It does not matter that they are self produced; also does not matter that they exist in a different, related but not duplicative category in a different category tree. WP categories allow for this, sometimes demand this. Hmains (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep That some -- but not all -- of the category contents are self-produced -- often with Phil Spector, who has his own category -- doesn't seem to me to be a valid argument for deletion. And in fact, there is one record Come and Get It: The Best of Apple Records which doesn't belong in Category: John Lennon albums," so this isn't a duplicate, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. But... Come and Get It: The Best of Apple Records is not an album produced by John Lennon, it's a compilation album with a song or two produced by John Lennon.--Richhoncho (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right but none of those songs were performed by John Lennon, from what I can see, and so his role is just like the other producers listed for that album: a non-self-producing producer, as it were. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside reference issues, still doesn't warrant "album produced by Lennon." If he is credited as producer of any of the songs, I suspect its "executive." Certainly no one is suggesting that Lennon was a professional producer, merely a person who had the position to be able to claim the title - but that's another issue, way beyond the reason for my nomination. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As part of a larger scheme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Hmains, on this. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 20:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:SNOW and the nomination should be withdrawn. However, this does not mean I have changed my mind. It's fancruft, no more, no less, how can we big up our favorite artist? Who is going to look up John Lennon albums by the one's he produced? Absolutely nobody. Let's hope the following sub-cats don't appear now; Category:Self-produced albums by foo, Category:Albums with vocals by Foo, Category:Albums with piano-accompaniment by Foo. I am being ironic and annoyed. Probably annoying, too! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.

British Aviation

 * 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 to Category:Aviation history of the United Kingdom. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:British Aviation
 * Nominator's rationale: Only one article, which can be included in Category:Aviation history of the United Kingdom or Category:Aviation in the United Kingdom Hugo999 (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Aviation history of the United Kingdom. The only article relates to a now defunct aircraft company. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.

Years in Malaya

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:1922 in Malaysia to Category:1922 in Malaya


 * Propose renaming Category:1941 in Malaysia to Category:1941 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1942 in Malaysia to Category:1942 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1945 in Malaysia to Category:1945 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1946 in Malaysia to Category:1946 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1948 in Malaysia to Category:1948 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1949 in Malaysia to Category:1949 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1950 in Malaysia to Category:1950 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1951 in Malaysia to Category:1951 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1952 in Malaysia to Category:1952 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1954 in Malaysia to Category:1954 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1955 in Malaysia to Category:1955 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1956 in Malaysia to Category:1956 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1957 in Malaysia to Category:1957 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1958 in Malaysia to Category:1958 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1959 in Malaysia to Category:1959 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1960 in Malaysia to Category:1960 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1961 in Malaysia to Category:1961 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1962 in Malaysia to Category:1962 in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1920s in Malaysia to Category:1920s in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1940s in Malaysia to Category:1940s in Malaya
 * Propose renaming Category:1950s in Malaysia to Category:1950s in Malaya


 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of the state between 1948 and 1963 is Federation of Malaya, becoming Malaysia in 1963. The head articles already employ this naming, see 1962 in Malaya etc. Tim! (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * rename per nom analysis of situation is correct. Hmains (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * rename per before 1963, this state was formally known as Malaya before the unification with Sabah and Sarawak. WPSamson (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:The Hollywood Reporter people

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the hollywood reporter people


 * Nominator's rationale: not likely to further populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - It is far more likely to be populated than Category:English popes, but that cat has survived 3 CFDs. Can the nominator give a more valid reason? --Mais oui! (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I just found -- and added to the category -- four articles about people of The Hollywood Reporter, thus increasing the category size 3-fold. Many individual journalists and publishers are strongly associated with a particular publication, and these "publication people" categories help Wikipedians sort out those linkages. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since it can be legitimately populated, it's probably OK as one in the series of . Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:The Hollywood Reporter

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the hollywood reporter


 * Nominator's rationale: not likely to further populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not only does it contain the article about the publication, but it is needed as a category shell for Category:The Hollywood Reporter people, which now contains 6 articles. --Orlady (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Currently unnecessary because all it contains is the people subcategory and the article of the same name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Placename etymologies

 * 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 merge; rename to Category:Etymologies of geographic names. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Placename etymologies to Category:Toponymy
 * Nominator's rationale: Same thing surely. Mais oui! (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose this category collectivizes etymologies of particular places, rather than generally; a rename to Category:Etymologies of geographic names would be perhaps better. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 name history

 * 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 merge; rename to Category:Etymologies of geographic names. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Place name history to Category:Toponymy
 * Nominator's rationale: Same thing surely. Mais oui! (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with the above nominated category, perhaps renamed as Category:Etymologies of geographic names. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.