Category:Gated communities 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:keep. There are two separate issues here: whether the gated cats should exist at all, and whether the Texas cats should be upmerged into the US parent since they're small. I do not see consensus for deleting the three. Unfortunately I don't see enough discussion here to feel comfortable upmerging and deleting the two Texas cats even though I get the feeling that participants may have been fine with that if the discussion were just addressing the size of the cats. I think another discussion based on the size of the categories would be fine. delldot∇. 06:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. In looking through these, everyone I looked at was just a mention in the article and no indication that it was defining in any way. As a matter of fact, gated communities are rather common in many areas of the US. I have elected to not request deletion of the parent, Category:Gated communities, since in some parts of the world this fact could be defining. I'll let this discussion play out and then we can decide how to proceed on the others. If this is kept, then the Texas one should be up merged to the US category under OC#small since it only has 3 entries. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
dubious I'm leaning towards separating the two hierarchies because I don't see that one is necessarily a subspecies of the other. Mangoe (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the first MERGE 2nd and third to the first. In everyday usage gated is a distinct subsections of planned.146.90.110.75 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gated is not always planned. It is not uncommon to see gated communities of as few as 3 or 4 houses. But as I said above for all of the ones I looked at, this point was only noted in passing in articles, so it is clearly not defining and can easily be dropped. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is The category tree based on Gated community as a subcat of the tree based on Planned community is properly separated based on normal usage. Hmains (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However all gated communities are not planned. Are the gated communities in Afghanistan planned communities? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:29, 19 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: I believe the "City" part is unnecesary, as there is no other "Queens" in New York State. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 21:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name is to emphasize that Queens is a subdivision of New York City, not of the state of New York.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just add that there is no other article for a borough named Queens, and no other NYC borough category is followed by the city name. Category:Queens is reserved for female sovereigns, quite naturally, and so I'd offered Category:Queens (borough) as an alternate way of disambiguating while more closely respecting, so I felt, the category naming structure at use in Category:Boroughs of New York City. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Queens (borough), as mentioned by User:Shawn in Montreal. Puts this naming more in line with those for other boroughs. Mayumashu (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed: There is no need for the "City", it's four extra letters (and a space) that is not needed. There is no city in New York named "Queens", so there is no worry about disambiguation pbp 23:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Queens is an entity of NYC, and divisions of cities in other places are named with the city. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Queens(borough) pere Mayaumashu. Resolves the ambiguity. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:00, 17 December 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.
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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The one content of this category was an Armenian place. Calling the area "Turkey" over 500 years before the Battle of Manzikert is an extreme example of ahistorical speech. Beyond this it is the only by country category for the year 314. I think we would be better off to agree not to split establishment by country cats before a certain year, but using the term "Turkey" for the area before any Turks arrived in it is just plain not workable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, 314 establishments does not really need splitting, it is very small. Tim! (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge, by merging you only keep half the information in the cat, the year part, not the location part. These categories are being made and populated, WP:DEMOLISH is a factor here. As for the "Turkey did not erxist back then", establishment categories are not indicative of something fixed, but of a starting point for things that have had a lasting impact. Things that have been established in 314 in what is currently Turkey, may well have had a history that runs well into Turkish history, like with the entry here, Bagavan. There is a clear link with Turkey here. Fram (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this place was depopulated and abandoned during the Turkish Genocide, in 1915, 8 years before the modern nation-state of Turkey was even established, connecting it with Turkey just plain does not work. What next, are we going to classify villages depopulated in the war at the time of Israeli indepdendence as having been established in Israel in 1516 or whenever?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Ahistorical categorization is very unhelpful when looking at the period at the time. Also, this isn't really in Turkey anyways, this is in Armenia. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:02, 17 December 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.
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. delldot∇. 02:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category originally contained four articles. That's now down to three and will soon be two, neither of which is original to The Tigger Movie. This is a small category with no legitimate entries and no chance of expansion. Buck Winston (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete especially since on of the three songs here actually shows up in all the winnie-the-pooh movies, and is not particularly linked to just this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to all parents. - jc37 07:11, 19 December 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.
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:History of Black people in Canada. This is a solution agreed upon as at least acceptable by the nom and two of the other participants. I don't see anything in anyone's arguments suggesting they'd be opposed to this (the IP was objecting to 'Black' as a modifier of 'history'). delldot∇. 06:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a rather subjective rationale, but this category name has always bothered me, with the use of "Blacks" to describe people striking me as distasteful. Black history is a commonly used term, esp. per Black History Month, which is observed here, and I suggest we switch the cat name to use Black in adjectival form. (We can't call it "History of Black Canadians" since the category includes some articles about Black people in Canada who were not citizens). What do you say? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the history is of Black people. The current name more accurately describes its contents. A better name might be Category:History of Black people in Canada, the the current form is clearly preferable to the goal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, my rename proposal makes it sound like Canada's history rather than the history of peoples in. I'd support Johnpacklambert's alternative, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not about the hidden history of Canad, nor the history of atrocities in Canada -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're okay to oppose, of course, but are there any categories or articles that use "Black" to mean hidden or atrocities? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Themightyquill's alternates are better, as well. So I can see the need for Themightyquill or JohnPackLambert's proposals, over mine. Hope that helps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 17 December 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.
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 after recategorization. This is a followup to my earlier close. Many of these articles will need homes in relation to the countries mentioned. Once that is done, these can be deleted, as can the parent category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the completion of a nomination which I closed as a deletion. The main category was nominated and deletion was favored by a majority of participants, but the subcategories were not nominated. The above categories will be deleted after a week of discussion, unless the discussion suggests a different direction. (Because of its series of subcategories, I have exempted Category:People in English history and its sucategories for now, but will approach them after this nomination has passed.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please combine them into one response. I noted that I was combining the nominations, but you acted before I could do so.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. If one looked at members of the category, one would find that merging as such would not be appropriate. Almost none of the subjects in Category:People in the history of Thailand were Thai. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning to. The contents are adequately categorized in the Category:Pakistani people tree, assuming they are Pakistani.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I'm not quite sure I understand the rationale. If Category:People in the history of Thailand was to be deleted, how would you suggest articles like Constantine Phaulkon and Anna Leonowens be categorised to reflect their important roles in the country's history? I know they're also in Category:Expatriates in Thailand, but this gives no indication of their historical significance and doesn't distinguish from today's contemporary figures. There're also subjects like Simon de la Loubère, who doesn't fit under the expatriate label, but is nontheless notable for his association with historical Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think such cases are indeed rare enough not to warrant a subcategory. Dozens of foreigners are notable for their roles in Thai history. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
for the rare case where?? with respect, is it possible for anyone to be an expert in all of these subjects? This is exactly where it would be appropriate to have the good grace to notify the WP projects in order to get this level of expertise. Ephebi (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that people before the creation of Pakistan identified with the vision of a Muslim state being carved out of some of India, we have Category:Pakistan Movement to put such people in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging is definitely not the correct action as this includes people not of a country or region but who are intimately asociated with its history. Even if we say "People in the history of X" is a subset of "History of X", it would still appear to be a useful category. Lord Mountbatten for "People in the history of India" would be an obvious example. Additionally, the comment above that "in the history of" does not apply to earlier history of a region before today's country X completely misses the purpose of the category. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominators. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most to appropriate national categories as Presidentman. Non-nationals need to be purged, being moved into an appropriate expatriate categories. Oppose as the two Hungarians categories. These are about ethnicity, not nationality. Ethnic groups in Eastern Europe were historically very mixed before WWI. The creation of a series of ethnically based republic under the post WWI breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and then the movement of refugees after WWII lead to ethnically much less divers nations. Today there is still a large Hungarian minority in Roumania. Before WWI there was a Roumanian minority in Transylvania, which only became part of Roumania after WWI. Similarly the Slovaks were an ethnic minority in what was then part of Hungary. These two are thus legitimate catgories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 16 December 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:1769 establishments 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:delete, as all contents are in the New Spain category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the three articles directly in here are things established in California, which would not be part of the United States for over 70 more years. What next are we going to put things established in California in 1840 in Category:1840 establishments in the United States and retroactively remove California from Mexico earlier than it was? Establishment by year categories should reflect the reality of things in the year involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the U.S. did not exist in 1769. Tim! (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The category is for things in USA, not of. Ephebi (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are by year categories. Things can not be done in countries that do not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But obviously things have happened there, in spite of the change of government Ephebi (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname -- In view of the contents, Category:1769 establishments in California or (better) Category:1760s establishments in California. The fact that California was then part of Mexico does not mean that this cannot be a legitimate category: California was a recognised area long beofre it was a state. Of course the 13 colonies cateogy will need to be removed. At present the earliest annual or decade categories for California are from the 1840s, but I do not see why an earlier one should be objectionable.
Rename, but to 1760's establishments in Spanish California. California was no more Mexican at that period in time as it was American. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on its actually contents the category is now incorrectly places in a 1760s in the Thirteen Colonies category, which means we probably should just delete this category and let people deal with placement of the contents elsewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The category was created for the inclusive history of places/events of establishment by date, that occurred within the present day geographic United States. A geographic precedent example is Category:1499 establishments in Spain (and for other years/decades), that covers establishments in pre-16th century/pre-unified Spain. There are no politically accurate [Category:1499 establishments in the Kingdom of Castille] or [Category:1499 establishments in the Kingdom of Leon], although Spain "did not actually exist" yet. The same is true for other establishments by year cats in former monarchies/countries/colonies/territories, now within contemporary nations. A large portion of the present United States was neither within the 13 colonies nor New Spain, yet establishments occurred. A significant portion of the former Viceroyalty of New Spain is within the present day Southeastern and Southwestern United States. However, since Category:1769 establishments in New Spain can also cover those in present day Mexico, the Caribbean, and the Philippines, there can be no cat-tree linking Category:18th century in the United States (or Mexico). Parent Category:1769 establishments by country is confusing as New Spain and The 13 were only colonies — they "did not actually exist" as countries. Will an average reader, not versed in precise 17th-18th century political nomenclature, under a misleading parent cat, find the information without a geographically inclusive category? —Look2See1t a l k → 22:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to keep this category would be to retroactively impose the results of the Mexican-American War on the past. To call 1769 California "the United States" is just 100% wrong. We should not do this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2013 (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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationel the country at the time was the Ottoman Empire. What Syria was at the time is a complexed and potential controversial issue. It is much better to go with the clear country of the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- though was not Syria a province of the Ottoman Empire? Nevertheless, I regard these annual categories as a form of overcategorised menace: categories are intended to be a navigation aid, not bullet points. Bakdash (ice cream parlor) the only member hardly seems notable to me, I will therefore go along with the nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other WP editors have considered this 125 year-old ice cream parlour to be notable. So you should get the page deleted before removing the category. Ephebi (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was giving my opinion on its notability; if I had really thought the article should not have existed I would have nominated it. The point is that this is the only article in a category that seems unlikely to be expanded much, so that I am supporting the category being renamed to make it rather broader. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is not considering the semantics and the actual use of these categories. This category is for things in a place, not of a place. Thus ice cream parlour appears an oddity in isolation, but needs to be looked at in the broader context. For example, there were many other establishments founded in what is now Syria over the past millennia, such as the C11th Citadel of Damascus, various madrasas, etc. They were all founded before Syria existed, but plainly are in Syria now. The current proposal risks undermining the whole structure of [intitutions by year] by the back door. Ephebi (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are by year categories. Things can not be done in countries that do not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, establishments are starting points, they often have an influence on current countries and are of interest to people looking for the history of what is now e.g. Syria. There is a good reason that the article in that cat, Bakdash (ice cream parlor), doesn't even mention the Ottoman Empire, but does mention Syria. I have no objection though to adding the Ottoman Empire cat as a parent cat of course, that way we cover both the actual and historical reality, and we actually add value instead of removing value, which the original proposal does. Fram (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per nom. Syria, again, didn't exist in it's present form back then. If it were kept it would be the "Syrian province of the Ottoman Empire" at the time. Renaming it to Ottoman Empire changes the scope, but that's fine as it's a small category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Rename per nom; there was no Syria in 1885 and its borders weren't fixed until well later. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:58, 18 December 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.
