Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 7 April 9 >

April 8[edit]

Category:Black autobiographies[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 Category:Black autobiographies to Category:African American autobiographies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Black autobiographies to Category:Autobiographies by Black people
Nominator's rationale: These aren't "black autobiographies" — whatever that means. They're autobiographies written by Black people. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with that is that none of the autobiographers or the titles of the books refer to African American. Black Like Me for example. Only the word black was used in the ones I put into that category. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not a sound rationale for a category. Also, I just spotted a couple of titles which would not belong under Category:African American autobiographies since the authors are/were not, in fact, African American. I'm not sure if a broader category would pass muster. Cgingold (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS - Black Like Me doesn't really belong here, regardless, since it's author was, in fact, a white man. :) It's a classic piece of US Lit -- very well known to a couple of generations of American readers -- about what a white man experiences while "passing" as black. Cgingold (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Comment - I agree with your rationale. Should some of the other categories be renamed to follow suit. Category:Music autobiographies, Category:Holocaust personal accounts, Category:Literary autobiographies , for example? Plus some more categories are needed that I do not know how to word. How would you word a category for autobiographies that are not by famous people and do not fit into a special category? Originally I had Personal autobiographies but that got deleted. The idea, as I understand it, is to have as few as possible uncategorized. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those should be dealt with individually; I think some are fine as-is, others may need renaming. Cgingold (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved Black Like Me out of the category, because it's by a white man about his brief sociological experiment "being Black" in the segregated American South. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, we were both noting the same, shall we say, anomaly, at the same time. (see above) Cgingold (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we both know the book well probably says something about how old we are, too. :-) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly true. :) Cgingold (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about you guys taking it over then? You could at least look through the list and pick the ones out for the category you are discussing. In general, it is not very rewarding work. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • Comment I've been working on the Autobiography category solidly for two days now. Would someone else like to take it over. It is listed as a Bad Category because it is too big. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which category? Black autobiographies? I just added about a dozen more articles to it, and I'll add more as I find them. Thanks for starting the category. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I must admit that sorting through all those autobiographies and trying to come up with category names and the put the right autobiographies in them has been not fun. So, it's all yours! –Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I'm not sure we've accepted... :) Though we're both doing our part, at any rate. Cgingold (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please specify which of the alternate proposals you're supporting? Cgingold (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something better, if to African-American, then creating a parent for all black (or whatever term is used) autobios. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary race category, are we going to have categories along all the other vast number of race, ethnic, religious, disability, sex, sexual orientation lines too for their autobiographies? God, I hope not, so this ought to be nipped in the bud. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly, though only if there are enough articles in a given area to warrant a category. These are precisely the sort of categories that are especially useful to readers. Cgingold (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No different than African American murderers: see Google Books: [1]. You no doubt advocate the creation of that category as well, or just WP:DONTLIKEIT? This one is the same - there is no such genre: is the autobiography of someone part white and part African American somewhere part way in between the genre of autobiography and this one? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the exception of a single doctoral thesis, Google didn't find any significant books about African-American murderers. On the other hand, it did find:
  • Autobiography and Black Identity Politics: Racialization in Twentieth-Century America
  • Black Americans in Autobiography: An Annotated Bibliography
  • Black Autobiography in America
  • African American Autobiography and the Quest for Freedom
  • Act Like You Know: African-American Autobiography and White Identity
  • Bearing Witness: Selections from African-American Autobiography in the Twentieth Century
  • My Father's Shadow: Intergenerational Conflict in African American Men's Autobiography
  • Living Our Stories, Telling Our Truths: Autobiography and the Making of the African-American Intellectual Tradition
  • African American Autobiography: A Collection of Critical Essays
and so on. As I wrote, this "combination is ... recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:13, 11 April 2008 (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:Canadian expatriate sportspeople 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: no consensus. A little bird (or more accurately, a big English bloke) said that category intersects are being tested now, and it seems that they could be here really quite soon. No need for stuff like this then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Canadian expatriate baseball people in the United States, Category:Canadian expatriate soccer people in the United States, and Category:Canadian expatriate ice hockey people in the United States (all tagged) to Category:Canadian expatriate sportspeople in the United States
Nominator's rationale: overcategorization that intersects three points (nationality, expatriate status, type of sport) (and same rationale as nomination below to merge African American baseball players) Mayumashu (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't the target category also a triple intersection of nationality, expatriate status, and occupation? If so, what's the rationale for keeping it and the other similar category subs of Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States? When we get into triple intersections this seems like information that is better dealt with in lists, even if it results in the parent category being large. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While it's true that "triple intersections" are as a general rule discouraged, they're by no means disallowed, and there are some areas where they make perfectly good sense. Expatriates is certainly one of those areas, where categories like these serve functionally like the more standard double intersections, and as such are quite useful for navigational purposes. If you spend a few minutes exploring the many sub-cats of Category:Expatriates, you'll see that we have a great many combinations and permutations of categories that specify expatriate status and occupation, some of which are very large indeed. With just a fairly cursory look, I've even found a few that are exactly analagous to these categories -- I'm sure there are others among the hundreds of category branches that I didn't have time to look through. Cgingold (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I left off in the middle of responding to your comments, as I was planning on giving my explanation for why I support keeping these categories, but got sidetracked by real world stuff. Cgingold (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three - To begin with, nearly all of the hundreds of categories for expatriate sportspeople specify the particular sport the people are involved in. There are currently only 2 categories on all of Wikipedia that actually use the broader term "expatriate sportspeople" in the name of the category: Category:Canadian expatriate sportspeople in the United States, and its counterpart, Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Canada, which is also broken into 3 sub-cats by sport. The point being that they both serve as grouping categories for the individual sport sub-categories.

It's important to understand that the internal structuring of Category:Expatriates still needs a lot of work. For instance, I happened to notice that Category:Canadian expatriate soccer people in the United States had not been placed in an obvious parent cat, Category:Expatriate soccer players in the United States (it's there now). When Category:Expatriates is fully fleshed out the way a lot of other super-categories are, we will have a goodly number of additional "expatriate sportspeople" categories -- everywhere that there are several individual sport categories that should be grouped together. And ultimately, of course, an umbrella cat, Category:Expatriate sportspeople, for all of the lower level "expatriate sportspeople" categories.

Now, there's a whole lot more that could be said about all of this, but the point here is that it's this very complex web of multi-directional linkings that gives the category system its unique functionality. The real question is, do these particular categories make a real contribution to navigation? I think the answer is "yes".

The basic issue is that, thanks to the unique relationship between the US and Canada, there are very large numbers of expatriates from each country living in the other. In my judgement, once a category reaches and passes a certain size (say 30 to 50 articles), it becomes increasingly less useful for navigation unless it's divided into useful sub-cats. I would put that number at around 30 articles for people categories, because there is usually nothing to distinguish one article from another when there is just a list of names. So in terms of categories for expatriates, I find that they are vastly more interesting and useful when they're broken into occupational sub-cats -- so long as there are enough articles to warrant each of those individual sub-cats (which is the case here, imo).

On the other hand, merging these 3 sub-cats into Category:Canadian expatriate sportspeople in the United States would dump an additional 101 articles on top of the 52 already there, and saddle us with a category of 153 articles that are identified only as "sportspeople". I think that is far less useful to readers than the more specific descriptions that would be lost if they were merged.

I've probably forgotten something important, but I guess that will do for the moment. Cgingold (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I just posted the following explanation in my response to your similar concern re so-called "current categories" in the CFD for Category:British people in China:
  • Actually, these expat cats are nowhere near being "current" categories -- there are innumerable cases where they're used for people who spent an earlier period of their life as an expat, regardless of where they are now or where they may have been living when they died. Cgingold (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I responded there - as we have no definition of expat that is objective and defensible, these categories are purely arbitary and likely to encompass - explicitly, like the British in China category, or implicitly - transient visitors - and these is no indication that any of these Canadian sportspeople would refuse assignment to a Canadian team in their league (e.g., Toronto Blue Jays for baseball or Edmonton Oilers for hockey) so these sportspeople are in the US solely because the team that they are with is based there - no statement of intent to immigrate permanently from Canada or such. Not overly useful and are we expecting that - as suggested by Cgingold - that the guys who play 1 year or so for some US team remains in this category for life? If so, a retitled Category:Canadian sportspeople who have played their sport in the United States for some period of time so we know what we're talking about, and see it's limited utility. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cgingold's extended explanation. Although it's a triple intersection, it's one of the rare ones which may be a great help in navigating the large categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2008 (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.

merging Category:African American baseball players[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. the wub "?!" 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American baseball players to Category:African American sportspeople
Nominator's rationale: overcategorization according to convention as established with previous nominations here that have eliminated Category:African American basketball players, Category:African American tennis players and other pages Mayumashu (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep: I'm afraid that what you wrote here seriously mischaracterizes the situation. Please take a minute and familiarize yourself with the history of this category, which you neglected to mention. The original, wrongly-decided deletion of Category:African American baseball players -- which then served, tragically, as the supposed "precedent" for the misguided deletion of all of the other sub-cats of Category:African American sportspeople -- was eventually overturned at Deletion Review. That was followed by a new CFD which restored the category. The real unresolved issue here is that those other sub-cats also need to be restored. I had unfortunately lost track of that whole problem, which clearly needs to be dealt with. In light of this new information, I would ask Mayumashu to please reconsider and withdraw this nomination so it can be Speedy Closed. Cgingold (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and agree with and support what Cgingold has set out clearly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both un-needed racial categories - African Americans don't play baseball any different than non-African Americans which if any racist thinks otherwise, is more than evidenced by the fact that WP cares not one whit how much African American one must be - the one-drop rule apparently good enough for both the KKK and WP... tragic, really. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cgingold & previous discussions. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2008 (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:MR layout vehicles[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: relisted on apr 16. Kbdank71 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:MR layout vehicles to Category:RMR layout vehicles
Nominator's rationale: MR layout redirects to the article RMR layout. We don't need two categories for the same thing. I do want to point out, however, that not all the vehicles in Category:MR layout vehicles belong in Category:RMR layout vehicles. For instance, the Toyota Previa is a FMR layout (with AWD option). This could be moved to Category:Mid-engined vehicles or a new category could be created for the FMR layout. swaq 21:39, 8 April 2008 (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:Children's museums in New York City[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/repopulate. Kbdank71 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Children's museums in New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. I was the creator and have now moved its contents to Category: Children's museums in New York TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I won't show as creator, I was the creator of Children's Museums in New York City, which was renamed. So technically bot is the creator of this one but the same comment applies. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at each of the articles it's apparent that the scope of the new category is New York State, given that the museums in Rochester and Utica are well outside the NY Metro area. This would have been pretty clear if Category:Museums in New York had been specified as the other parent cat (which I've now taken care of). Cgingold (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. NYC and its museums have a level of notability that merits the extra category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/repopulate per Vegaswikian. -Sean Curtin (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom/Creator Comment I'm more than happy to re-populate but can we please get something in the way of consistency as to what is large enough to warrant a category? I'm hearing from someone else that Children's Museums in NY State and Category Children's museums in New England should be upmerged, which I strongly disagree with because "East" to me makes no sense. I think we need better categorization, not necessarily less when more appears to be more logical. This is also the 2nd time NYC has come up as a 'too specific category' -- if it satys, can I please get a one month window before I'm defending it again? ;) TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:09, 9 April 2008 (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:Legal defence 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: no consensus on keep/delete, or even what to rename it to if kept. Rename per nom only to clear up british/american english inconsistency. Kbdank71 14:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Legal defence organizations to Category:Legal defense organizations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category uses both British (defence) and American (organizations). It really should be one or the other. My preference is that it be renamed as above because most of the articles in the category which include the word spell it "defense." Otto4711 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, really quite strange how nobody spotted this before now. Agree with American rename (even if I'm British) for ease and common usage. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure POV. There is no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion - what is legal defense organizations any way? If you litigate to the left it seems you are in this cat; if your legal defense is to the right you are not. There are plenty of issue-based litigation shops, largely in the US, that engage in high visibility cases on one side or another on usually touchy legal-political cases: gay marriage, abortion, gun control, immigration, criminal/victims rights, parental/minors rights, and the never ending US cases about where lawful protest and speech end and where defamation, infringement, or criminal conduct begin. For whatever reason, "legal defense" for these organizations makes no sense: they are often not representing a defendant (often, they represent plaintiffs), nor are these organization defending the law, they often seek to overturn the law, so what singles these groups from those who litigate the other side of these same issues? Certainly not "legal defense" regardless of which side of the pond's spelling one chooses. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you litigate to the left it seems you are in this cat; if your legal defense is to the right you are not. Might want to familiarize yourself with the contents of the category before making such sweeping statements. Just based on the ones I recognize by name, Alliance Defense Fund, American Center for Law & Justice, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and Eagle Forum can in no way be characterized as litigating to the left, and the ACLU takes on cases across the political spectrum. As for the "they aren't defending the law" song-and-dance, I certainly do admire your wordplay but in this instance it's nonsense. "Legal defense" doesn't mean the group is defending a particular law; it means the group is defending a position in a legal setting. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every group that has ever lobbied or litigated has "defend[ed] a position in a legal setting", making the category utterly meaningless. As for which side these guys litigate on, one's opinion is certainly issue-specific: litigating against government power used to be to the right, now it's left generally; rights of gun owners vs. gun control advocates a notable remnant of the former scheme - but these same rightists seem to have no problems litigating in support of government sanctioned discrimination. It's all in the eye of the beholder, but the cat is POV. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2008 (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 permission confirmed[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 for consistency, per consensus. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Articles with permission confirmed to Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed
Nominator's rationale: Category contains not just articles, but other types of works (images/media). Renaming makes this consistent with the Commons category and with the associated Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission. Kelly hi! 14:26, 8 April 2008 (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:Blogs critical of Judaism[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. Kbdank71 14:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Blogs critical of Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Creator, Comradesandalio (talk · contribs) is using category to tag various antisemitic Holocaust denial websites (e.g. Radio Islam, Bible Believers, Stormfront (website)) as "Blogs critical of Judaism". These are not blogs, they're not "critical of Judaism", and it's unlikely that there exist a significant number of notable "blogs critical of Judaism". This is just an attempt to whitewash these sites. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stormfront for example is not a "blog that criticizes Judaism", it is an online fourm where the users spew neo-Nazi hate speech. Khoikhoi 07:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I won't presume to know what the creator's motivation was, but this sure seems misguided. In general I don't think it makes sense to categorize blogs/websites in terms of what things they happen to be "critical of". No doubt they're critical of many things -- do we want to have categories for all of them? I don't think so. Cgingold (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant to ask what happened to the contents of this category? It appears to have been emptied, which makes it impossible for editors to evaluate how it was being used. Cgingold (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see... the way it was worded, it sounded like those 3 were just examples of what was there. I had the impression there were a lot more -- but apparently that was the entire contents? If that's the case, no problem -- but we've had a fair number of CFDs where an editor has emptied out a larger category beforehand, which basically preempts the CFD process, so I wasn't sure what to make of it. Cgingold (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For once, I agree with Jayjg . There is no merit in this category, it seems merely a backdoor way to sneak antisemitic material into Wikipedia, and the category should certainly be removed. (There seems to be a bug on this page; clicking on the edit link brings up the previous paragraph, not this one; I had to clock on the link below the para) RolandR (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: That's what happens when somebody comes along and starts a new section between the time when you loaded the page and the time when you click on the "edit" tab. A common occurrence. Cgingold (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV empty cat that holds no value. Yahel Guhan 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a POV category any way you look at it KleenupKrew (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blog by opinion is not a good basis on which to categorize. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category is non-notable. There also is potential for it to be used to play down antisemitic literature.Bless sins (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2008 (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:Environment of the United States by state[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 to Category:Environment of the United States by state or territory. Kbdank71 14:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Environment of the United States by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rationale: In looking over the parent cat, Category:Environment of the United States, I saw that there are 4 geographical sub-categories that really should be included in this grouping for navigational purposes, and to reduce category clutter. These are the categories for Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianas, and the US Virgin Islands -- all of which are designated as "insular areas" of the US. Hence the proposed name. I think this makes more sense than creating a separate sub-cat for Environment of the US by insular area. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I think this should be considered at the other parent level:

Category:Categories by state of the United States. If it is agreed so, then this parent and all its subcats should be renamed so as to include not only the US 50 states, but also 'insular areas' and Washington DC. Hmains (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC1)

  • Yes, I've already given that some thought. In fact, I looked through a sampling and discovered that some of those sub-cats are already being used, de facto, as parent cats for other insular area sub-cats. So I suppose this could be viewed as a sort of "test case". However, I don't think all of the other sub-cats need to be renamed, since some of them have nothing to do with the insular areas. Alternatively, I suppose we could (as I implicitly suggested above) create a whole set of sub-categories for the insular areas.
For now, I think we should proceed with this CFD and rename this category if we choose to do so, since it can still be a sub-category of Category:Categories by state of the United States even if it has a slightly broader scope. We can then deal with renaming other categories as we see fit. Cgingold (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and found that Category:Environment of Washington, D.C. is already parented under Category:Environment of the United States by state, as though it were one of the states. I believe that is typical of how many (if not all) D.C.-related categories have been handled. Cgingold (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I support this nomination and would then support evaluation of others on a case-by-case basis per nom; I don't think a wholesale nomination at this stage would be necessarily more helpful as there are doubtless some "by state" categories that do not contain any info on insular areas. I support the revised language using "territory". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - insular area is an awkward and non-intuitive phrase. If there is some burning need not to use "state" as the de facto parent for categories regarding US territories, then make it Category:Environment of the United States by state or territory. Otto4711 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually share your concern on that score, Otto, but I was more concerned that "territory" would be rejected as not strictly accurate. However, I would be more than happy to use that formulation if there are no objections. I will add it above to offer a choice of rename proposals. Cgingold (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose keep 'by state' in the name; do not add Insular Areas or Territories. US States are quite different enough from Insular Areas to not be included together with them. Hmains (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So would you then support creating an entire, separate category tree dedicated to sub-cats for the Insular Areas or Territories? That is the only viable alternate option as far as I can see. We could do that if there was support for that option (though it looks like most people prefer the combined categories). Cgingold (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2008 (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/2008_April_8&oldid=1138389623"