Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 17



Category:Upcoming television series

 * 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 - jc37 12:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Upcoming television series to Category:UNKNOWN
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Upcoming is a bit ambiguous. Are these planned series which may or may not get produced?  Or are they in production series?  Based on the discussion a reasonable result would be to split out this category in some way.  Consideration should also be given to creating a list to explain the actual status for these.  Also how far in the future is upcoming?  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete -- we have deleted it before as WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This category has been here since 2006. Maybe it was something similar that you had in mind; can you provide a link? – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - this category serves the function of grouping articles for TV series that have garnered enough attention before their debut to warrant articles. It's a holding category for articles for later re-categorizing into other appropriate categories. A centralized depository for such articles is helpful to the project. Buck Winston (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not rename as consistent with other subcats of Category:Upcoming products. Tim! (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. Previously kept rather than renamed at CFD 2008 August 27, where was merged into it; and kept rather than deleted at 2009 April 1, although the latter was so broad that it carries no weight as a precedent. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Corn cheese (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2012 (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:American 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: No consensus - jc37 12:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:American people to Category:United States people Changed per JPL and IP. NEW: Category:People of the United States.
 * Make Category:American people a disambiguation category, pointing to Category:People of the Americas, Category:Unites Stated people, paralleling Category:America
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:America is a disambiguation category. America is a disambiguation page, listing first the broader meaning, then the United States. Related articles are Citizenship in the United States, United States nationality law. Also looks strange to have Category:North American people, Category:South American people - and these are not subcategories of Category:American people. Precedents: Category:United States awards winners‎, Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States, Category:Republic of the Congo people, Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people ChemTerm (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:People of the United States. I think the people of x is just a much better form than linking the two nouns directly together.  If it works for Category:People of the Ottoman Empire, I do not see why it can't work for the United States.  I think it also should be applied to other countries with no easy adjectival form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:People of the United States per the Constitution of the United States. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm usually one for the other argument - in favour of standardization over common use. But American people is well understood to refer to citizens of the United States. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:People of the United States. Hurrah for the nominator!! A long overdue rename. This is a case where Wikimedia Commons has always had the correct system in place. Making it explicit which state the category applies to avoids mis-categorisation. Eg. I don't know how many times I have discovered Bermuda-, Gibraltar-, Falkland Island- etc. related cats in the "British" biography trees, which Wikipedia afficionados know are only for UK-related biographies, but which a well-meaning non-Wikipedian will often assume relates to British passport holders (many of whom are not UK citizens). Clearly stating the state in the category name allows for crisp, verifiable categorisation.--Mais oui! (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * keep as is To match common usage, worldwide.  To match agreed upon usage in WP.  To match its main article Americans.  To match its hundreds/thousands of subcategories in the category tree of which this is the top.  To match the form found in nearly every one of its sibling categories in Category:People by nationality except for the 2 or 3 exceptions noted by nominator.  'United States' is used to refer to the country, not the citizens of the country. Hmains (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per comments already made by Benkenobi and Hmains. Tim! (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming, but if a rename happens then it ought to be "from" rather than "of"; we use "from" for existing countries and "of" for former countries. (If that was intentional, then oppose as WP:CRYSTAL because the US has not broken up yet.) The usage of "American" is very clear and predominant, see WP:COMMONNAME, and there is no need to rename this and all its sub-cats such as those in . The precedents given by the nominator required disambiguation; this does not. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The distinction between former and current countries in usage of "from" and "of" seems arbitrary. ChemTerm (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: As there is a current RfC at Category talk:People by nationality, it should be allowed to run its course before any more similar nominations are made. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment A study shows we use "of" for countries and "from" for lower level political units. There is no reason why past countries should be the limit to of, there is no reason not to use it with present countries.  Fayentic london is making up historical differentiation where none is intended and then trying to make an issue where none exists.  Of is just as acceptable for present countries as past ones, and there is no good reason for the attempt to limit of to the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This was a bad idea 5 years ago, and it remains a bad idea. "American people" is overwhelmingly understood to mean "United States people", and the latter phrase is not typically used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2012 (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 Soldiers

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting the soldiers


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Typically, eponymous categories are created when there are an array of articles to populate it. With just two subcats of articles, a "see also cat" hatnote should suffice here. Album covers are not articles and are on the album articles, so the subcat is not an aid to readers. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 20:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Depopulation of the parent category:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:East_17&diff=523571661&oldid=523560790
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Robson_%26_Jerome&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Brother_Beyond&diff=prev&oldid=523571472
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:The_Wanted&diff=prev&oldid=523543442
 * ChemTerm (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The only appropriate parent category is Category:Wikipedia categories named after musical groups. Categorization has nothing to do with this nomination. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an "administration category" - nothing to do with the encyclopedia. ChemTerm (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, and that's how eponymous categories such as this and the other ones you noted are categorized, not within other content categories. See Category:U2, Category:'N Sync, Category:Wolfmother, Category:Katy Perry. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete too small to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2012 (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 Wanted members

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting the wanted members


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per the parent category, Category:Musicians by band, categories shouldn't be created if only one member of the band has an article, and in this case, none of them do, as they all redirect to the main article, The Wanted, making this rather unnecessary. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 20:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, I was unsure of this category from the moment I saw it created since everything in it redirects to one article. – anemone projectors – 20:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And even though one member now has an article, the category still isn't required unless there's a second. – anemone projectors – 13:10, 19 November 2012 (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:German West Africa

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting german west africa


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OC. Three little subcategories, one from Southern Africa, so doesn't match with Category:West Africa. Category:German colonisation in Africa is sufficient. ChemTerm (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn, the category description was misleading, I did further research. See German West Africa, de:Deutsch-Westafrika. ChemTerm (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete the category header opens "German West Africa, in and of itself, is and was not an actual geopolitical entity". This makes no sense.  Togo and Kamerron were distinct German possesions in Africa, and there is no reason to group these three possesions together in a way to exclude German East Africa.  There is no reason to have this level of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposal withdrawn, the category description was misleading, I did further research. See German West Africa, de:Deutsch-Westafrika. ChemTerm (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2012 (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:Former Spanish colonies

 * 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 - jc37 12:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Former Spanish colonies to Category:Former colonies of the Spanish Empire
 * Proposal changed per Orlady and JPL. Thanks. NEW: Category:Former colonies of Spain - ChemTerm (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity reflect the name of the corresponding entity. The main article is Spanish Empire. The category belongs to Category:Spanish Empire. Avoid using adjectival forms when referring to territorial entities. ChemTerm (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose . I agree that these were components of the Spanish Empire, but they were colonies of Spain, not colonies of the Spanish Empire empire. The lead sentence of Spanish Empire makes this point rather clearly: "The Spanish Empire comprised territories and colonies administered by the Spanish Crown..." Accordingly, the current category name is valid, but the proposed rename would be inaccurate. --Orlady (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 *  Support  revised rename proposal. --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Former colonies of Spain. The colonies are possessed by Spain.  This is a much clearer and more direct form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support changed nomination to Former Colonies of Spain. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Spanish colonies. I see no reason to make a distinction between colonies and territories.  Since there are now no Spanish Colonies, except a couple of enclaves in Morrocco, there is no reason to include "former".  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support revised with the Former included. The former is useful clarification, especially as categories often come without context. CMD (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the current name is ambiguous because we have American colonies which can mean the opposite of what this means.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * do not rename until all subcats of Category:Former colonies are considered. It would really be helpful here if the (all the) parent categories were considered before nominating/commenting.  Hmains (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As usual, Hmains makes an excellent point. This is one of many categories with the "Former Fooish colonies" naming pattern. Thank goodness someone is paying attention to context! --Orlady (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop the procrastiantionism' There is no reason that this nomination should not be considered on its merits. Procrastinationism makes no sense.  There are good arguments in existence here, and people have participated and argued the merits at hand.  There is no reason to put off a decision other than the known fact that a mass nomination will take more effort and so is unlikely to happen.  Moves for a mass nomination amount to an attempt by a mionority to force their will on others by procedural sleight of hand.  When people bring up issues, they should be considered on their merits, and not procrastinated by procedural slieghts of hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This category already has as a sister cat Category:Former colonies of Courland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support change to Category:Former colonies of Spain, avoiding the adjectival use. Dezastru (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (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:Wikipedia requested photographs in Detroit

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I want to merge Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Detroit into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Detroit, Michigan since the latter corresponds to Category:Wikipedians in Detroit, Michigan WhisperToMe (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2012 (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.

Apollo gifts categories

 * 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 Caegory:Apollo lunar sample displays.'--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Apollo goodwill wooden displays, Category:Apollo goodwill display plaques, Category:Apollo goodwill lunar sample display gifts and Category:Apollo goodwill lunar sample displays into Category:Apollo lunar sample displays or into Category:Apollo goodwill lunar sample displays itself.
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, all seem to be overlapping. Brandmeistertalk  14:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge as Category:Apollo lunar sample displays. The articles themselves don't have the word "goodwill" in the titles. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge' to Caegory:Apollo lunar sample displays as this best captures what these are, the "goodwill" is not supported by the entry names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2012 (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:States and territories by year of establishment

 * 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. This nomination potentially has an effect on at least 100 subcategories, so a greater consensus would need to be reached for change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:States and territories by year of establishment to Category:Territorial entities by year of establishment (Shortest, avoiding problems of what a country / subdivision / country subdivision is, England anyone?)
 * or to Category:Countries and country subdivisions by year of establishment (best fitting with Category:Countries, Category:Country subdivisions) does not work for Category:Euroregions
 * or to Category:Countries and subdivisions of countries by year of establishment does not work for Category:Euroregions
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category contains mostly items that are either in the tree Category:Countries or in Category:Country subdivisions, this means, not only states and territories. The name is inconsistent with current terminology in WP, more below. ChemTerm (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Inconsistency explained in more detail: The term state, even when referring to a territorial entity in human geography, is ambiguous. It may refer to a sovereign states (= country in WP) and non-sovereign (=state in WP, Category:States). The term territory in human geography mostly refers to territory (country subdivision) in WP (Category:Territories), excluding districts, provinces, counties etc. Examples for categories containing the terms using a different scope of the terms are Category:States and territories of Australia, Category:States and territories of India, Category:States of the United States, Category:Territories of the United States. ChemTerm (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. The propsed name makes it clear that this is for things greater than populated places, but allows a large amount of latitude in what is actually put here, which makes sense for by year established categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I doubt that we can have an English subcategory for this, because it is uncertain when most English counties were created. The exception is the metropolitan counties created in 1974, none of which have a council countil any longer.  I am not sure that this is a useful category at all - Listify and Delete?.  I have to say that I regard these annual categories as a menace: most need merging by decade or century to be useful.  Even then, in the Old World, there is almost always something that came before.  The "establishment" may thus depend on its ruler having been granted a particular title, or such like.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It is very clear when most countries were created. Can you dispute when the Soviet Union was created, or when Michigan became a state?  There is a usefullness in the by year of creation categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * rename per nom of what is left of the nomination as of this date/time. This will then match the parent category Category:Territorial entities and several of its siblings.  There is no reason to come up with a differnt name and none different has been suggested.Hmains (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2012 (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:Community of interest

 * 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. I've upmerged the ones Fayenatic suggested.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting community of interest


 * Nominator's rationale: Seems wholly bizarre. Oculi (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Question, leaning toward keep: why does it seem bizarre? The present contents might not belong there (and it needs to be renamed to "Communities of interest"), but articles such as Furry fandom or Esperantist would be appropriate members of this category.  Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely. The creator seemed to be looking for a parent for Category:Works by interest (created 23:47, 3 November 2012) and made this (created 23:47, 3 November 2012) - he works quickly. Now there is no connection between Community of interest and a work, IMO. I would have no objection to "Communities of interest" with some appropriate contents added and the present subcats removed altogether. Oculi (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete the categories do not really work, and there is not enough on this to justify having a category for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably delete -- Possibly renme to Category:Communities of interest, but I suspect that the contents would be better categorised elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Communities of interest, as a subcategory of Category:Types of communities and Category:Types of subcultures. Stefanomione (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Selective upmerge of, Community of interest and Intelligence community into Category:Types of communities. For the rest, delete; furries and Esperantists already have suitable head categories, and while we could add "communities of interest" as a parent over interest groups such as say , linguists, activists and religious people, I don't see how it would be helpful. I understand from Category talk:Works and media by interest that Stefanomione is dismantling that tree anyway in favour of . – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To whomever closes this - First, my support is: "what User:Fayenatic london said". Second, after closing, if you drop FL a note, they are usually happy to implement : ) - jc37 12:32, 5 December 2012 (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.