Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 23



Category:Associated Colleges of the Midwest

 * 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) 01:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting associated colleges of the midwest


 * Nominator's rationale: That a college is a member of this organization is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the college. E.g. many of the articles makes no mention of the organization in the article text (e.g. Carleton College or Lawrence University). For info: there is a list at Associated Colleges of the Midwest. For info: This is one of a series of CFDs for similar categories (e.g. see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_12). DexDor (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per per many precedents as non-defining. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 24 February 2015 (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:Droughts by year

 * 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 as proposed in amended nomination and manually to other parent categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming merging Category:Droughts by year to Category:Droughts by decade Category:Droughts by century
 * Propose renaming merging Category:Droughts of 2010 to Category:2010s droughts Category:21st-century droughts
 * Propose merging Category:Droughts of 2011 to Category:2010s droughts Category:21st-century droughts
 * Propose merging Category:Droughts of 2012 to Category:2010s droughts Category:21st-century droughts
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename & manual merge. Many articles about droughts are about events that straddled multiple years, e.g. 2010–13 Southern United States drought, 2012–14 North American drought and older examples in Category:Droughts in Australia. I acknowledge that the time-related categories in Category:Natural disasters are currently structured only by year and century, but droughts are unlike other disasters in duration. Manual merge is required to other parent categories e.g. meteorology & natural disasters by year, in the case of single-year droughts; for the others, meteorology also has decade categories e.g. Category:2010s meteorology.


 * Alternative 1: We could simply create a decade layer as well as a year layer. However, each category for droughts by year will only have a small number of articles. If the year categories are not merged, they should be renamed e.g. to Category:2012 droughts like Category:2012 floods.
 * Alternative 2: merge to century category only, Category:21st-century droughts. These would be well populated, and have siblings with the other natural disasters categories. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support either nomination or alternative 2 because I can't envisage the year categories will ever become well-populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Having populated the century categories (Category:Droughts by century), I think these are all that is needed for the current number of articles. They mostly appear in date order anyway, because most articles are named starting with the year. So, I now propose simply manual merging to centuries per Alt-2. I hope this is clear enough. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:03, 24 February 2015 (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:Droughts by location

 * 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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Droughts by location to Category:Droughts by continent
 * Propose merging Category:Droughts in America to Category:Droughts by continent
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge. The parent is Category:Water by continent. The Russia/USSR article can be moved into the subcats for Europe & Asia. The America category was for the Americas but is no longer needed as I have just split it into new categories for North and South. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, this is looking like a very uncontroversial nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; this shouldn't have been opposed at speedy. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It didn't qualify for speedy, since it was a rescope; and this proposal is different from the one at Speedy. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Hugo999 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2015 (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:Member states by organization

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Member states by organization to Category:Countries by international organization
 * Nominator's rationale: They are the same thing by different names. -- Beland (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * On the short term: support merge per nom. In the long run, with a new nomination, I would expect that the whole tree might be cut per WP:NONDEF. See also this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merge per Beland .Editor2020, Talk 04:11, 26 February 2015 (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:Foreign-language media 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:Non-English-language media in the United States. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting foreign-language media in the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. What is a 'foreign' language in the US is highly debatable. English is not the official national language, and it is not a native language. If we divide language cats in native/domestic and foreign for every single country, we have POV land mine fields ahead. --Soman (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a useful classification, given the dominance of English in the U.S., though it could be re-named "Non-English" instead of "Foreign" as many related categories are. -- Beland (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That would also include the indigenous languages ("Indian" languages) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. That's actually an improvement. -- Beland (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Non-English-language media in the United States per this precedent: Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as the subcategories require a parent; possibly rename to "Non-English" although as stated above it would then include various indigineous languages ("Indian" and also others in Alaska, Hawaii and territories etc) which are now listed directly in Category:Languages of the United States. Although America has no official language, it is more like Common law countries without a single written constititional document (eg Britain; the American Constitution was written in English but did not specify an official language. Hugo999 (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support rename to Category:Non-English-language media in the United States. Editor2020, Talk 04:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename per above, noting the especial problems the "foreign-language" name would have in places like Puerto Rico or Hawaii, where languages that are "foreign" elsewhere may be "native" or even "official". – Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that "foreign-language" is problematic wording — Hawai'ian and the American Indian languages utterly put the lie to the term "foreign", and even Spanish is no more inherently "foreign" to the United States than English is (Spanish actually predates English in some parts of the country, as does French) — but I also agree that some way of parenting non-English-language media is necessary within our category structure. Since English is the dominant language of American media, being in a language other than English is very much a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a media outlet — so what this needs is to be renamed with a more neutral and less WP:POV term, not just deleted outright. I'd prefer, if possible, a term which defines them in an affirmative way (i.e. a "this" term rather than a "non-that" one), but Hugo999's suggestion is still an improvement over the existing name. Rename, either to Hugo's suggestion or to something else if somebody's got a more "thisian" name to propose. Bearcat (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2015 (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 established in the 2870s BC

 * 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 as nominated - while arguments for upmerging into  are strong, and such a discussion would probably succeed, it's beyond the scope of this discussion; as well as  exists, the contents of the noiminated category might as well be there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:States and territories established in the 2870s BC to Category:States and territories established in the 29th century BC
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Do decade categories have any value this far back? 24.180.26.170 (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support merge to Category:States and territories established in the 3rd millennium BC. Editor2020, Talk 04:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merge. Actually I would rather go a step further and create a new Category:States and territories established before 2000 BC to replace the 21st, 22nd, 23rd etc BC century categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Marcocapelle. Our knowledge of precise years of establishment is slim this far back, and anyway there are few enough states-and-territories articles for pre-2000 BC that we can throw them all into a category together.  Nyttend (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:States and territories established in the 3rd millennium BC and Category:nnth century BC. If my check is correct this covers 3 articles.  It also appears that some of the affected categories are generated by a template.  If anyone sees a way to add a 'do not categories option' before this closes, it would be great. I think I emptied one category in this area when I cleaned up one article to only be in founded in one century and not two. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, do you support keeping the 29th century BC per nom? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Against keeping Category:States and territories established in the 29th century BC since it appears that there may only be 3 articles for the millennium. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When you go that far back in history, for the most part we can only estimate, rather than verifiably knowing exactly, a year of establishment — and with such a small group of articles to begin with, there's not much value in catting them overspecifically. Upmerge to Category:States and territories established in the 3rd millennium BC per Vegaswikian. Bearcat (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alternative of Vegaswikian. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merge to Category:States and territories established in the 3rd millennium BC.GreyShark (dibra) 06:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 3rd millenium option. At least until there are lots more articles on ancient states, which seems unlikely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2015 (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.