Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 18 December 20 >

December 19[edit]

Category:Old Main university buildings 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: Upmerge to one its parents. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Old Main university buildings in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Basically category based on a shared name or nickname. Being the old main building is not defining for most if not all of these. I considered an upmerge, but that would get messy figuring out what parents should be listed in the nomination. These are already in multiple categories, so just deleting should not be a problem. If there is a concern that something would be lost with a delete, there is a list article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge to one or both of the parents, as appropriate, for each building: Category:University and college administration buildings in the United States and Category:University and college academic buildings in the United States Hmains (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- According to the main article, these are "the original building present on college or university campuses in the United States". Some are called "Old Main"; others have other names. However the correct capitalisation would be Category:Old main university buildings in the United States. They share the singificant characteristic that they were the original main building, not merely the name "Old Main". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must mean the unreferenced list article? From my limited experience, these buildings are not called old main but are given nicknames based on something unique to the building. That could be from the appearance of the building, or its usage. Also the list article does use the term 'often' which clearly leaves open how common this form of name is really used. This is the first time I have heard of that usage. That does not mean it is not used, but is it defining and not inclusion by shared nickname or name? If this is defining the category needs renaming to something like Category:Historical first main university buildings in the United States or some such. But do we need a list article and a category? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at Wayne State University they do call the building "Old Main". At Brigham Young University the building that would qualify is either now the Provo Library or is the Maeser Building. At Eastern Michigan Univeristy I do not know what building would qualify, and I am a student there.
  • Delete this is not really a defining characteristic unifying the buildings. Some campuses have multiple buildings that would qualify, others are entirely new constructions. Anyway the age of the building and its specific origins also verry. For example Old Main at Wayne State Univeristy was built as Detroit Central High School.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At least at Wayne State Old Main is an academic not an administrative building. At BYU the Maeser Building is currently an academic building, although for a time in the past it was the main administrative building so by the rule of inclusion in a category that ever fit it it would qualify as such. The fact that some are administrative and some are academic indicates that this category is grouping unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not defining; trivia along the lines of Category:High schools named Central High School. A better category, such as Category:Oldest buildings on college and university campuses or Category:College and university administration buildings, would be acceptable. Neutralitytalk 04:00, 26 December 2011 (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:Fictional yeti[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. These aren't yeti, they're robots called "Yeti." Keeping this would make as much sense as putting Cyclops (comics) in Category:Greek legendary creatures.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional yeti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-item category unlikely to experience any growth. 76.201.153.119 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Tintin yeti" is not categorized in Cryptids in fiction. The book in which the Yeti appears is. No other individual creature articles are in the suggested target. 76.201.159.78 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2011 (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.

World Championship Tennis[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:WCT circuit seasons to Category:World Championship Tennis circuit seasons
Nominator's rationale: I propose that these categories with "WCT" in their names be renamed to "World Championship Tennis" in order to avoid abbreviations (the parent category is already named Category:World Championship Tennis). Alternatively, if "WCT" turns out to be the preferred name, then some categories should probably be renamed to the abbreviation, such as Category:World Championship Tennis Finals. Also, either I didn't follow the instructions correctly, or they left out an explanation about what header level(s) to use for "umbrella nominations". Please reformat this if it isn't working. Ardric47 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following additional categories are included in this proposal:
  • Expand abbreviations -- as usual in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand abbreviations more that 'WCT' is an old acronym likely not to be known to many today. I don't suggest though that Category:2011 ATP World Tour etc. be expanded, as 'ATP' is more commonly known than 'Association of Tennis Professionals'. I personally think the parent category should be spelled out while sub-categories should keep the abbreviation, but that is not WP policy Mayumashu (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2011 (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:Haiku[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: Speedy renamed (C2B). The Bushranger One ping only 01:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Haiku to Category:Haiku (operating system)
Nominator's rationale: Per main article, Haiku (operating system). jonkerz♠ 16:57, 19 December 2011 (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:Place names of Spanish origin 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. There are strong arguments on multiple sides of the issue. Noting JohnPackLambert's objections, some cleanup seems wise. I am going to flip the order of clauses on some of the Native American ones so that they conform to the naming pattern of the rest.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Also including
Category:Place names of Czech origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Dutch origin in the United States
Category:Place names of English origin in the United States
Category:Place names of French origin in the United States
Category:Place names of German origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Irish origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Norwegian origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Scottish origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Swedish origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Welsh origin in the United States
Category:Place names in Nebraska of French origin
Category:Place names of Ulster origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cuban origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Bedfordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Berkshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Buckinghamshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cambridgeshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cheshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cornwall origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Cumberland origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Derbyshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Dorset origin in the United States
Category:Place names of County Durham origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Essex origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Gloucestershire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Hampshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Herefordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Hertfordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Huntingdonshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Kent origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Lancashire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Leicestershire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Lincolnshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Middlesex origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Norfolk origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Northamptonshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Northumberland origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Nottinghamshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Oxfordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Rutland origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Shropshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Somerset origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Staffordshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Suffolk origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Surrey origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Sussex origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Warwickshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Westmorland origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Wiltshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Worcestershire origin in the United States
Category:Place names of Yorkshire origin in the United States
Category:Place names in Nebraska of Native American origin
Category:Place names in the United States of Native American origin
Category:Place names in Alabama of Native American origin
Category:Place names in New York of Native American origin
Category:Place names in New Jersey of Native American origin
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't see how this is defining for these places. Likewise if kept, I fail to see how having a Spanish name make this part of Category:Hispanic and Latino American history. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To me, this just seems like WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Not every case of a place being given a Spanish-origin name means that the place is somehow connected to Hispanic and Latino American history. Sometimes names are just chosen because someone likes a name! I see that there are a ton of "place names of FOOian origin" categories in Category:Names of places in the United States. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per multiple precedents and common sense; although someone could reformulate these as Category:Places in the United States founded by Spain, etc. which is shared history, not shared names. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how this is different from Welsh or Swedish place names. Either delete this one or all of them. I can well imagine that someone would want to do research on this subject. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how this is different from French or Irish place names.--Alfredalva (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep. If this gets consensus to delete, then the other ones can also be nominated. Or, if you want them all considered at this time, feel free to include them in this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really don't see any difference between Spanish and others. I want to keep all. I think people often don't know the origin of place names and it is important. This category adds knowledge to wikipedia.--Alfredalva (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The ones that were added by User:Seb az86556 were not tagged with Template:Cfd, and there is still an extensive number of these within Category:Place names of English origin in the United States‎. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You may be confusing encyclopedic facts in the article with a category. Clearly the reasons for choosing the name of a place should be covered in the article. But is the fact that it is based on a name in a specific language defining? Isn't the name choice more one of chance based on the language the person who passed through spoke rather then some defining tie to the country or the language? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If it were chance, we wouldn't see such a strong pattern in which Spanish place names are very common in California and the Southwest and much rarer elsewhere. Those places used to be part of the Spanish empire and that history has a lot to do with their names. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now that all have been added I would support deletion of them all. They all are examples of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES overcategorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, per above comments on potential research topic. I don't agree that WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES applies - placenames can be georeferenced and their etymology can be a defining characteristic of the individual name and the wider region. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think it's a defining characteristic of the places themselves, but it is defining of the place name, and many of our articles about places also say something about their names (like why they have that name, historical variants of the name, etc). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that the point of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES? The information can placed in the encyclopedia, just not in category format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OC#SHAREDNAMES says "a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related" and in this case I believe that the subjects are directly related by having some Spanish heritage that caused them to have the same types of names. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine—if a category limits itself to instances where the items are directly related. This is worded in such a way that is sweeps up any place that is given a Spanish name, whether or not there is some Spanish heritage to the place itself. If someone chose a Spanish name for a town simply because they liked the sound of it, it could be categorized in this category. It's too broad, if nothing else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is merely a variation on WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. This is not a defining characteristic of the places themselves, and the articles are on the places themselves, not on the names of the places. Occuli (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or most --The origin of a name is likely to indicate the ethnic origin of the founders. Dedications of churches and surnames, the cases cited for WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, are largely random and at best should exist as a list article (usually a dab article), but the origin of a name is different. Nevertheless, the category should only be applied where the article says something about the source of the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be hard pressed to find any Spanish influences in the Las Vegas area from it's founding. So the inclusion criteria here is rather arbitrary. The same goes for Nevada which is named after the Sierra Nevada mountain range. So it's a stretch to say that the name of the state is of Spanish origin. So how does this justify inclusion in the category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 04:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What an uninformed statement. Go read History of Las Vegas., especially the first two paragraphs of the 1829–1905 section (the parts within which the place was named, and was subject to the Mexican government). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Likewise, read the history of the name in the article Nevada to see that the name is not "arbitrary"; it is very much related to the Spanish heritage of the area. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Heritage is a rather strong word there. The history of Nevada and Las Vegas is more dependent on the Mormons then it is on the Spanish. Maybe you can offer some wording for the introduction and a name that would make this defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful uncontroversial categories and selective nomination. - Darwinek (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since origin is somewhat subjective I fail to see how this can be considered uncontroversial. And I have no idea what selective nomination means. Maybe part of the problem, is that the actual words belong in Category:Spanish loanwords? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES does not apply, because the category being listed is not a "non-defining characteristic of the subject", or a "characteristic of the name rather than the subject itself". On the contrary. The origin of a place name is not a random thing but almost always relates directly to the history and/or geography of the area. Personally, I found the "Spanish" category here to be such a useful one that I have been busily adding it to appropriate articles; I have probably added 50 names to the category in the past week. I was astonished to find it nominated for deletion, and even more astonished to see all the categories in Category:Names of places in the United States subsequently nominated. If you want to remove this category from Category:Hispanic and Latino American history, fine, but it should continue to exist as a category. --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is much akin to the various Category:Eponymous cities and subcats that were deleted. Yes it's interesting, yes it's useful. Yes, it makes good articles, but no it makes bad cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete put move cases where the names reflect settlement or large latter populations connected with a specific ethnic group to the relevant Fooian American history categories, such as Category:Dutch American history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these categories are grouping two unlike things. On one hand they put together place names where the city was named after a city in some other place. That is clearly what is going on with Category:Place names of English origin in the United States. On the other hand categories like Category:Place names of French origin in the United States has Sault Ste. Marie (among others), which is French in that the name comes to us through French. If we applied the same rules to English than we would have way more places in that category. It might be good to propose the English category sub-cats for deletion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment others of these places are actually named after the last names of specific people. Do we really want to get into classifying the origin of last names of given individuals and then figuring out what that means for the place names. For examples Fremont, Nebraska is in the category Place names in Nebraska of French origin, but actually it is named after John C. Fremont, it was named by English speakers after a person who was born in the United States, there is nothing French about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to make things more fun Batavia, New York is actually using the Latin form of the name of a place in the Netherlands. These categories are not used consistently for the same things. They seem to not be based on a significant factor about the place itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these are not even consistent about whether it is an issue of the language origin, or the geographic origin of the name. The Irish ones are clearly based on the location origin of those names, and then we have Category:Places names of Ulster origin in the United States. Yet with the Spanish and French we also have language origin. This category is combining all sorts of unrelated things. On the issue of founding, Toledo, Ohio was neither founded by Spain nor by people of Spanish origin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to the claims abouve, not only Toledo, Ohio, but Las Vegas, Nevada and Mesa, Arizona were also not founded by people who were in any way Hispanic. Why exactly are Buena Vista, Virginia, Rio Grande, Ohio and a lot of other places not in here. This is not an issue of Spanish heritage in founding, because many of these places lack it. That also applies to many of the French and German places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment then there is Salamanca (town), New York which is in the category while Salamanca, New York is not. They are both named after a Spanish banker with the last name of Salamanca who was a large stockholder in the main railroad in town. The city of Salamanca was originally named Bucktooth, and the city is located on the Seneca Indian Reservation. It has no connection with Category:Hispanic and Latino American history. The places that belong in that category should be put there, not put in some amorphous category that puts many places in it that really do not belong there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition I added the Nebraska category. I would encorage people to go look at the headings of the category. Compare the English and Czech category headings. Then look at the Nebasak category heading. What exactly does Fremont, Nebraska have to do with French people in Nebraska?John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition I added the Ulster category. It should cause people to rethink their arguments about this category, as should Toledo, Ohio. To make things more interesting if we applied the English and Irish cats headings consistently to all categories than Las Vegas does not belong here at all because there is no place in Spain called Las Vegas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to Alfredalva's claim that this category adds knowledge to wikipedia, in the case of Salamanca, New York and Fremont, Nebraska it adds misinformation, since it implies these places named after people were named based on a language or after a place in another country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition I added the category Category:Place names of Cuban origin in the United States. This is because Miramar, Florida was named after a place in Cuba, not a place in Spain. On the other hand there is not a consistent rule for these categories. If we are going to keep them we need to figure out a consistent rule for inclusion. On another matter, many of the places included here have no mention in the article where the place name came from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nevada, Utah and Colorado were never "part of the Spanish Empire" in any real sense of the term. The same can be said for Arizona north of the Gila River. Even in a case like Palo Pinto County, Texas, the name was applied in 1856 by the Anglo government of Texas and the area was a reservation for the Caddos, Tonkawa, Choctaw and Delaware Indians before Euro-American settlers such as Oliver Loving and Charles Goodnight moved in. There is nothing connecting this place to Hispanic or Latino history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see "File:Iberian Union Empires.png" or "File:Spanish Empire Anachronous 0.PNG".--Alfredalva (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I know that Spain claimed to control Utah, Nevada and Colorado. However they never did, and the same is true for a very large part of Texas and Arizona.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Almanor, California belong in the Spanish category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huachuca City, Arizona is also a questionable case. The name goes back to the name of a Pima Vilalge, that the Spanish applied to the mountains near the village, but it is not in origin a Spanish word, and it is clearly not based on the name of a place in Spain. In fact I see no justification for this application at all, especially since the city was not so named until 1958.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the category that some people are suggesting the Spanish category represents is actually Category:Colonial United States (Spanish). Some other places might properly go Category:Hispano history or the like, refering to the Hispano people of New Mexico and southern Colorado. Others might belong in Category:Mexican American history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From Category:Place names of Scottish origin in the United States I have removed cases like Dunbarton, South Carolina where the article says it was named after the Dunbar family, clearly meaning it does not fit the given description for the category. Many other places the article does not say how the name came about. If we are to keep these categories we should at least insist they be used only when the articles support their use. Since I have added a lot more categories to this discussion, which if people had seen them initially they might have interacted with the whole debate differently, I think we should relist this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Reading, Kansas article very clearly states that place was named after Reading, Pennsylvania. It seems incorrect to claim it was named after a place in Berkshire, as its current categorization does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Truro, Iowa was named at the suggestion of someone whose hometown was Truro, Massachusetts according to the article, which makes its claim that the place is named after the place in Cornwall odd at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Camarillo, California is another example of the odd use of categories since it was named after the Camarillo brothers. This might be a last name that has origins in Spanish, but this seems just too different from others uses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Casa Grande, Arizona is another really odd inclusion. It was so named after the Casa Grande Ruins by Anglo railroad executives. For some reason the ruins are not considered a place that has a Spanish origin name (the fact that they were abandoned about AD 1450 might be part of it).John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition I have now put all 39 sub-cats of the English category up for deletion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition I just added the Native American origin place names, which have the added problem of conflating hundreds of languages into just one. Beyon this Logan is put on this list, when in fact there is a town of Logan in Scotland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per MelanieN's statement above. This entire AfD is interrupting WP to prove a point. A misuse of AfD. • Freechildtalk 15:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not Afd and no one is attempting to misuse AfD. This is simply an attempt to remove categories, not articles, that are clearly confusing on inclusion criteria based on their content, and not defining as categories should be. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per points raised above. Altairisfar (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a discussion about specific uses of these categories I was told this ":Category:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States was not (and still is not) as clearly defined as you seem to think it is; please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 7#Category:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States for a great deal of discussion on this point, where a final decision is still pending. I took the term "Spanish" in this category name as the Spanish language, not Spain nor the Spanish Empire. All of the names I added to the category are of Spanish language origin: who gave these places their names is an entirely different matter. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk)". The main point is that people recognize 1-that these categories have not been clearly defined and 2-that contrary to what has been asserted above, the linguistic origin of a name often has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the founders. I can cite many, maybe even hundreds of, examples of this for Spanish names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Most of the comments were made before the nominated categories were expanded fully, and even some made after it was expanded beyond just the Spanish categories focused on just Spanish. We need a discussion of these categories to address the issues more fully.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted[edit]
  • Keep as an appropriate means of grouping such places by their origin. As always, cleanup and appropriate sourcing will only further aid the cause. Alansohn (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are saying it is notable that two different cities are named after the same place in Essex? This is not a grouping of places "by their origin", it is a grouping of places by "the origin of their name". To make things even worse, the Native American categories make no sense, they group not only the multitude of languages, but also group places with names from Native American groups who actually lived in that area with names from Native American groups that never lived in that area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete - this is very similar to categories like "Places named for George Washington" and the like. These various places have no commonality beyond their names happening to come from a particular language. A list would allow for the referencing that each entry on such a list would require. 76.201.153.119 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a certain interest in these categories, and I have spent 5 minutes checking which ones have been missed (or more likely removed by more sensitive editors). However, this is pure overcategorization, it's not defining (how many of the relevant articles actually state where the name came from?) - and, as John Pack Lambert has pointed out above it is all rather random whether an entry belongs in the category in the first place. There are some great ideas for articles amongst some of these categories, but creating categories is rather poor way of showing how American place names have been influenced by immigrants/history. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Not being an American, perhpas I ought not to express a strong view on this. However, the name of a place does point to its origin. Ideally, the Native American category ought to be split by first nation. The case of Fremont, Nebraska ought not to be allowed to given the existence of the category. It should perhaps be in a category "places named after American people". Nevertheless, the origin of a name is likely often to relate to the origin of the first white settlers. I recall reading of an area where all the places are named after Egyptian places, so much so thatthe area is (or was) referred to as Egypt. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We could do the same in the UK, but why would anybody want a list of places that have thorpe, or ford, ham etc at the end of their name? How about french names? Thorpe-le-Soken anybody? I think there may be a reason to have scholarly articles for place name types as I think there might be for some of the categories nominated here. Trouble with having them as categories or lists is the amount of fly-tipping that happens by otherwise reputable and reliable editors. As John Pack Lambert has pointed out, you really couldn't rely on these categories. An article, with references, well that's a completely different York Minster. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about places in Canada, NZ, etc.? 61.18.170.26 (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify all and keep native American origin, since they're something commonly grouped in the US. (usually with some folk etymology attached) 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We actually do have lists related to the Native American names. One big problem with those categories is they group together places that are named as a result of Native American languages spoken in the area, in some cases names that reflect the current Native American inhabitants there, or at least were given when a Native American group dominated there, and names that apply to or derive from Native American groups that never were in the area, like many uses of Wyoming. The Spanish group is putting together 1-places names after places in Spain, 2-places named after people whose names derive from places in Spain, 3-places named by Spanish speakers which retain their Spanish names, 4-places named by people who had knowledge of Spanish but were not primarily speakers of it and 5-places named by people who really had no clue about Spanish. Also, do names of mountains and rivers really fall under the rubric of "place" names? Especially reivers? The underlying problem is it is unclear whether "Spanish", "French", "English" and so on mean the nationality or the language. In the Spanish case it is also getting confused with Hispanic which in some cases is used as a synonym of mestizo culture. There exist categories like Category:French American history, Category:Hispanic and Latino American history and Category:Czech American history, that we can put any of these names that actually reflect the ethnic or linguistic backgrounds of the founders in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The English by shire components make sense if we limit them to places where the founders were immigrants who originated in those places. However Birmingham, Michigan and Birmingham, Alabama where named by people who wanted to invoke the image of Birmingham as an industrial city, and I doubt the founders could have named Birmingham's shire, so it seems an overly particular connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most of these articles do not have anywhere in the text a discussion of the origin of the name, so realistically the category should be removed. I have held back on many removals because of the discussion, but these categories have been applied without in text backing. They seem to invite what approaches "original research", where editors say "well I know Palo is a Spanish word, so I will put Palo Pinto, Texas in the category of place names derived from Spanish". It is not even research where the person checks primary sources, it is where they use their however limited knowledge of languages to assume origins of names. At times this has involved assumptions contradicted by the text of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting, and yes, place name studies are important around the world. And if a place name is missing its etymology then we would do well to complete the article rather than complaining. Ephebi (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you really think we should group in the same category places that are named for Wales with Latinized names and places with Welsh names, that we should group in the same category places named by pulling a name out of a hat and places named by people who emigrated from a place and renamed the place for it. I am not joking about naming places by pulling names out of a hat, there are multiple cities in the United States that were named in that way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer No who favors keeping these categories has dealt with the fact that different categories use different methods of inclusion. These categories would suggest that they all are about the same kind of phenomenon, but the different categories has different rules of inclusion. It is quite frustrating that no one is discussing what to do about this non-conformity if we are going to go ahead and keep the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Establishments by country and millennium[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Establishments by country and millennium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Generally, a category by century should be enough. In many cases, there will only be a single entry, for 1000-1999. Any attempt to make a disticntion between the 2000s and 19xx is essentially a current/past distinction of which we disapprove. This is essentially an test nomination for the whole tree. However, I fear that I do not have the time or energy to carry out the mass tagging that is necessary to implement the demolition of the tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely pointless. By century is enough categorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The benefits in terms of browsing are very limited and are far outweighed by the awkwardness of categories like Category:Establishments in Barbados by millennium, Category:Establishments in the Soviet Union by millennium and Category:Establishments in the Thirteen Colonies by millennium. I support dismantling the whole by millennium subtree. Pichpich (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only place I could see this maybe being useful is Category:Establishment in Iran by millenium. Even there I highly doubt we have many things established in Iran before the year 1, so it probably does not make sense. The seperation of things by century works petty well, there is no reason to distinguish things established in 2008 and those established in 1988 at higher than the century level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment currently only Egypt and England have this category for 3 millenium. The other three countries that have three subcategories have one for a sub-unit by establishment by millenium. In some cases these categories exist for countries where to date there is only even one establishment by year category. This is a needless level of distinction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone wants to help the establishments by country cats, you could work on assigning things to specific such categories. These are often under utilized categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(

  • Delete - no benefit to these awkward categories. --Neutralitytalk 03:56, 26 December 2011 (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:Batman: The Brave and the Bold characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Batman: The Brave and the Bold. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Batman: The Brave and the Bold characters to [[:Category:]]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No characters from this now-canceled series are likely to become notable enough for articles so this category isn't needed just for the list. Merge to the two super-categories. 76.201.152.215 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have never heard of this TV serial, which ran to 3 series (that I would only watch if you paid me to). A look at the article on the serial Batman: The Brave and the Bold has a list of characters - and they have articles on them. These characters also appear in various children's comics. All that is required is to add this category to the articles, and perhaps add to the articles a reference to this serial (if this has not already been done). So the premise on which this deletion request is made is false. Presumably there is value in Wikipedia having articles that are only of interest to children.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close. I suppose Batman, Black Canary, Catwoman etc. aren't notable in the IP OP's opinion. Borderline bad-faith nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a very nice thing to say. None of the characters you mention became notable because they are included in the series and none of the characters created for the show are notable on their own either. DC uses a lot of characters in a lot of shows and having two dozen categories on a character because they made one appearance in each series is a bad use of categories. 76.201.152.215 (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:52, 19 December 2011 (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:Punjabi folk[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge for now and create a new sub-category if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Punjabi folk to Category:Punjabi culture
Nominator's rationale: Merge or rename?. I'm not quite sure what to do with this category. It is defined as including "article about any folk thing/cultural activity of Punjab region like, folk dances, folk music, folk instruments, folk songs, folk singers, festivals related to Punjab region or any tradition or cultural activity etc." I'm not sure that "folk" is commonly used as a broad noun in this sense, except maybe to refer to "folk music". But this includes dances and festivals as well. Is it so broad that it just needs to be upmerged? Or is there a way we could rename this? (Note that folk is about the word meaning "people".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 10:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and repurpose -- We have wider catgories for music (which presumably includes song), but we do not seem to have one for "dance". I do not know if there is a distinction between "music" and "folk music" in this context, but I suspect not. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Universities and colleges in Taiwan[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. The question of the use of the names/terms "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" in Wikipedia is a wider matter that cannot be settled on a category by category basis. Further discussions about the use should take place at WP:NC-TW. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Universities and colleges in Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Either this category should be renamed, or else National Quemoy University shouldn't fall within this category. 61.18.170.215 (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taiwan does appear to be the acceptable name for the country (there is an article on it), and the naming format does seem to follow other university country categories. --Iantresman (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taiwan makes up only 97%-98% of the country, of which Quemoy isn't part of. This is pars pro toto, like England for the UK, Holland for the Netherlands, or before 1990 Russia for the Soviet Union, etc. This should in fact be speedied, IMHO. 61.18.170.166 (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you read the article you will know that your claim is patently false. The article Taiwan is about the island (and history, culture, etc.); the country name that we use is Republic of China. JimSukwutput 17:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- WP has decided to use the term "Taiwan" for the whole republic, including off-islands. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per naming convention --Northernhenge (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I know which line of which convention are you referring to? The Taiwan article, which is a product of the relevant conventions, clearly excludes Quemoy and Matsu. 61.18.170.61 (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support the proposal to change from Taiwan to Republic of China because, as I said above, the WP:NC-TW guideline says to use Taiwan "when identifying a geographic location on the island of Taiwan". It also says to use Republic of China (Taiwan) "when identifying the state and attempting to differentiate it from the PRC (e.g. 'Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China (Taiwan).') In general, this only needs to be done once, subsequent references to the ROC need not include '(Taiwan)'." I've nothing to add to this - I'm just copying and pasting from WP:NC-TW which is the only basis for my opinion. --Northernhenge (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the only people who think that Taiwan is "just an island" are radical PRC-haters. All reliable sources use Taiwan to refer to a country. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is non-sense. Are those people who call the UK as England or Great Britain Irish Republicans? And those who call the Soviet Union as Russia loyalists of the Czar? What about those who call the Netherlands as Holland then? 110.4.1.171 (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are those who insist to say UK rather than Britain or Great Britain Ireland haters? 110.4.1.171 (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move as suggested, or create the latter as the parent category of the former. 110.4.1.171 (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — 110.4.1.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Move. I see at least one university that is not on Taiwan island, but in the Republic of China. Disputes about whether "Taiwan" can be considered a country name is irrelevant; as of now, we use Republic of China for the country and Taiwan for the island. If some users do not agree with this, they should take it to the talkpage on articles related to ROC. As of now, this move is absolutely necessary for consistency purposes. JimSukwutput 17:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Taiwan is a province of Taiwan. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Taiwan refers to the island, the category is meant to cover all institutions in the country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the UK v. Great Britain issue, we use United Kingdom in our category names such as Category:American emigrants to the United Kingdom. The name change here reflects the general ways we use names in wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: Fujian Province, Republic of China is not a chain of subsdiary islands of Taiwan. Kinmen island is not subsdiary to Taiwan island. However, if we use CAT:Universities and colleges in Taiwan Area, it would be relatively ok because Fujian Province, Republic of China is a part of Free Area of the Republic of China (a.k.a. Taiwan Area). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 14:37, 25 December 2011 (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:Ringer episodes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:Ringer (TV series). Timrollpickering (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ringer (TV series) episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an underpopulated category with only two legitimate articles. The category was previously populated with redirects, all created by the same editor. As most redirects should not be categorized, and there seems no good reason to categorise the redirects that previously populated this cat, I've removed them, leaving just List of Ringer episodes and Pilot (Ringer), which doesn't justify retention of this cat. AussieLegend (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Ringer (TV series) (about to be speedy renamed from Category:Ringer) and delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need that category either? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2011 (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:E numbers[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. If someone wants to make a list, check Cydebot's edit summary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:E numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is not categorizing actual E numbers, but seems to be categorizing food additives that have been assigned an E number by the European Food Safety Authority. This is kind of a Euro-centric means of categorizing a substance, and the fact that it is assigned an E number is not really defining for any of the substances included. This reminds me of the deleted categories that categorized drugs by a legislative scheme: Class A and Class B drugs and DEA list of chemicals I and II. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does seem to be a category of all E numbers, as those that are not approved for use in the EU, are also included. For example, E105 Fast Yellow AB is not an approved food additive, it does have an E number, and it is included in the category. The category is the only place that an inclusive, comprehensive, alphabetical list of E numbers can be found.--Iantresman (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then listify it and delete it. Nominator is right, making categories for substances based on how individual political entities number them is untenable. There are hundreds of political units that could potentially adopt a classification system and having categories for all of them would lead to blocks of dozens or hundreds of useless categories. Tthese substances are not defined by having been assigned an E number. 76.201.153.119 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iantresman—who incidentally is the creator of the category—has stated above that this is a category of E numbers—but it's not. It is not a category of E numbers. It is a category of substances that have been assigned E numbers. There's quite a significant difference, and in my opinion it makes all the difference in whether the category should be kept or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected. It is a category of substances that have an E number (but they are not necessarily approved). --Iantresman (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteAs stated above E-numbers only refer to the EU approved additives from the INS-list. It is better also to remove the whole page on E-numbers and to merge it with the INS_list directly, as is shown by the proposed merger on the INS list. You can then classify all substances on that list in a category Food Additives, instead of E-numbers.Knorrepoes (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2011 (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/2011_December_19&oldid=1091637948"