Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 4 December 6 >

December 5[edit]

Category:People of the Roman Empire[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. There's not complete unanimity in formatting here, but we seem to be trending toward "(X) people" in all cases.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:People of the Roman Empire to Category:Roman Empire people
  • Nominator's rationale This is the standard way to deal with people by nationality when there is no easy adjectival form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- It currently matches the "saints" category (discussion below). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not currently match the Saints cateogry. The current name of the saints category is Category:Ancient Roman saints. It matches the proposed new name for the saints category, but that is different than a current match.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the Category:People of former countries, there are 104 entries of which 5 are not really poeple type articles. Of the remainder, over 39% use the form "People of Foo". So while "Foo people" might be the majority, one could hardly say that it constitutes "general pracrtice". And what's wrong with countires or empires that don't have a convenient adjectival form? Is that such a big sin? In the cases of empires, it reads very awkwardly. I think that "People of Foo" should be accepted as a legitimate alternative form that may in fact be preferable in some cases. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS I note that the proposed solution does not achieve the Utopian adjectival form. It is just a compound noun. How is a compound noun more virtuous that the current form? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:38, 14 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:Place names of Kent 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: merge to Category:Place names of English origin in the United States. If that gets deleted, a bot can empty the category. I'm not going to listify this, but in case anyone feels strongly that it should happen, feel free to make it so. To make that task easier, here's the list of articles currently in the category: Dover, Delaware, Kent County, Delaware. Yep, all two of them. delldot ∇. 05:38, 2 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.

Category:Byzantine saints[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 Bushranger One ping only 19:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To harmonise with the proposal below and with Category:Saints of the Middle Ages. As below, the saints may have had many different nationalities but all were in the Empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does John Pack Lambert have a doppleganger or a shadow? Or have we wandered into tag wrestling? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless there are articles improperly included in "Byzantine people", the distinction is nonsensical. "Byzantine" is not a nationality, it is an umbrella term for all residents and subjects of the Empire. Dimadick (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Saints can be of the Byzantine rite, which is the Greek Catholic rite, or of the Eastern Orthodox church, all of which are not 'Byzantine', in the sense of nationality. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am still trying to figure out how this is an argument to keep the category. It sounds like an argument to rename per the nomination. At least that is what I would think the point of bringing up "Byzantine Rite" would be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Current name matches our standard form. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:38, 11 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:Ancient Roman saints[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 Bushranger One ping only 19:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To harmonise with the parent category of Category:Christians in the Roman Empire. Some of the people may have been full Roman citizens, others colonials, others client states, others non citizen slaves. They may have come from many nationalities, but all were in the Empire. Also, "Ancient Roman" usually cognates from the foundation of Rome through to the fall of the western Empire. This category however is limited to the 1st to 4th centuries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query What nation is "Ancient Rome"? Is it just Rome and Latium? What about the Armenians, Egyptians and British? Are they also Roman nationals? Or are they just members of the Empire? If the cat is to do as it says on the tin, there all Greeks, Spanish, Armenians, Egyptians and British must be removed from the cat leaving only the "pure" Romans. On the oter hand, if the proposal is accepted, no such drastic cleanout is required as all are members of the Empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, you should have asked that question before you created Category:People of the Roman Empire, since we also have Category:Ancient Romans. The latter should be the parent, not a subcategory, which is opposite to how you set it up. In brief, the Roman Empire only represents part of the history of Ancient Rome. For a time it was a Kingdom, and for a time it was a Republic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Roman Empire saints. We should also create Category:Roman Empire people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What the hell is a pure Roman? The parent category "Category:Ancient Romans" attempts to cover all people of the ancient Roman state, with specific subcategories for "Ancient Roman provincials". Any distinctions seem arbitrary. Dimadick (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Choster. The Category is clearly defined, and sorts people by something that is rather easy to understand. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Current name matches our standard form. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:38, 11 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:Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group[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:Walt Disney Studios. The Bushranger One ping only 19:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Renaming the category would connect it more cohesively with its respective article page: Walt Disney Studios (production). ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to drop the "the". ~ Jedi94 (talk) 03:53, 6 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:Rychnov nad Kněžnou[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The corresponding article Rychnov nad Kněžnou is about a small town with 12,000 inhabitants so there's no real hope for expansion to a reasonable size category. Pichpich (talk) 20:55, 5 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:2 Broke Girls[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: Deleted by Floquenbeam as pure vandalism (with no prejudice against recreation on valid grounds). Pichpich (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Created by a vandal to categorize the hoax Fake Blood (song). There are currently two articles about the show: the main article and a list of episodes so there's no need for a category, at least not yet. Pichpich (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea how to close a CFD, but I've deleted this as vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess the category could be speedy deleted in a few days because it's now empty. But it is a notable show so there's a small chance that someone will make convincing argument for keeping the category. Pichpich (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have used a more accurate phrase: created by a vandalism-only account. You're right, I have no opinion on the actual validity of the category, but it was one of several pages created by a VOA, and so I just deleted them all. No problem if people decide this is a useful category and recreate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 5 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:Major League Baseball players by national origin[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. This does not preclude removal of specific articles from categories if users feel they are not appropriate, as in the case of someone who was born in Germany but does not seem to be really German. It also does not preclude creation of subcategories to deal with these cases if editors feel that's necessary. delldot ∇. 06:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete/Upmerge/Rename. The category tree lists players merely by the country of birth regardless of their nationality or country of citizenship. Many players are/were U.S. citizens who happened to be born in a foreign country but did not grow up there, info deemed too trivial for WP categorizing. To ensure that players who are not American are listed by nationality (Category:Baseball players by nationality), a few mergers are also suggested. Mayumashu (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If two brothers were ML Baseball players, and one was born a year before the family emigrated to the US and the other a year after they emigrated, one would be in this category and the other would not be. Also will categorize people born to US citizens parents who were abroad due to military/diplomatic service for example, which would also seem to be a trivial categorization. If a player was born in Germany or Japan because his father was stationed there with the US military, this would seem a trivial fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Place of birth is a strong defining characteristic for all people, and one of the key bits of information in any baseball player's biography or baseball card is their place of birth, making it an even stronger, more-defining characteristic for baseball players. I was at several games at Wrigley Field this summer, and every player at bat had their place of birth listed on the big screen in right field. The argument that two brothers born a year apart might have different places of birth affects about one out of every million people or so, and the argument that one potential categorization quirk justifies deleting an entire category isn't even worth considering. Has anyone asked the folks at WP:BASEBALL what they think or would participation from those most knowledgeable about the issue risk providing useful input? Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: A request for participation was made at WT:BASEBALL. Alansohn (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • However this turns out, we need to find a way so that American children of servicemen couples who happen to have been born in Germany are not put in the German category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the least, there needs to be a rename to Category:Major League Baseball players born in Foo, which is what is being described here. But I'm not supporting such a rename, given general WP categorizing with respect to place of birth Mayumashu (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- ethnic origin of expatriates is always significant. "People from foo" categories exist widely in WP, and it is possible for people to have two or more of them, which may include on relating to place of birth. The alternative to some miniscule intersections is to upmerge, in this case to a sport category (possibly a general expatriate one) and to a more general one by origin. The answer to the service people serving overseas is to put them in a special category for that (not one realted specifically to the sport. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ethnic origins and "expatriateness" are not being described here. Most categories here, for countries where baseball is not played to any real extent, list Americans who were born abroad but grew up in the States; who, with respect to ethnicity or nationality, are American. And I suggest mergers for players who grew up in (are actually 'from') foreign countries, into subcategories of Category:Expatriates in the United States and Category:Baseball players by nationality. Mayumashu (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually ethnic origin, what this is, and expatriates are three different things. Expatriates are citizens of one country living in another. However there are two distinct groups on non-expatriate baseball players involved here. First, there is the group of baseball players who are US nationals born abroad. With the huge US military presence in Germany, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and also significant presence in Spain and Italy and lots of other places since the end of WWII, and the size of the US diplomatic force, plus lots of Americans abroad for other reason in other places, there are lots of people who fall in this category. Then there is also a large number of people born in other countries to parents who are not US citizens, who immigrate to the US and become US citizens before they ever become MLB players. Ethnicity/ethnic origin is a totally different issue entirly and not at all under discussion here. I see no reason to seperate out the baseball players by nationality into specific leagues as this is being done. Do we have Category:Major league baseball players from the United States?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That too - it is clear WP:OC to do it by league (or single league organization, as MLB maintains two leagues). Mayumashu (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my above concern about the inclusion of US citizens born abroad is probably well founded. Jeff Benedict the first person in the German category may have been the son of a US serviceman father/mother/both parents. The article does not say, but he was born in a city in Germany with a US military base, and the article clearly does not indicate he was in Germany at any point after his birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Glenn Hubbard (baseball) is a person who makes this categorization seem trivial at best. He was born on a US airbase in Germany, and the article does not really discuss where he grew up, but it does not seem he is actually in any meaningful way German.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meaningful distinction. There are many Dominicians or Japanese people who play baseball in their home country, and there are a fair number of expats from those countries who aren't baseball players. Cat is needed. pbp 15:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have at least some x nationality expatriate baseball players, and we could create Category:Japanese expatriate baseball players in the United States. However we should not mix in with actually expatriate baseball players American citizens born abroad, or people who became American citizens before they began to play baseball. This category mixes all three. It is not an expatriate category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd support this suggestion too, to have the tree Category:Expatriate baseball players in the United States instead of this tangled mess, as User:John Pack Lambert explains. Mayumashu (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)Yeah, but deleting it just creates more problems. The "American citizens born abroad" designation is too small to worry about, and if a person was citizens of two different countries of one point, he should be placed in categories of both his citizenships. Also, the category title you proposed is too cumbersome when the current category is much more elegant. Oh, I gotta ask, where do the players on the Toronto Blue Jays and Vancouver Canadians (NWL minor league) fit into your schema? pbp 00:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are lots of people in the German category who are American citizens born abroad. It is not "too small to worry about", it is a significant part of that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not worth depriving a much larger contingent a worthy category. And it's not "lots", it's maybe a couple dozen, tops. So create a subcategory that's both German and American and deals with German base babies who played in the MLB, and leave the rest of the categories where they are. Eliminating the categories makes hundreds of foreign MLB players entries imprecise, mixing them in with non-MLB players, while creating an overly-long category title and not giving a hoot about the Jays. I'm seeing more of Mayusashu's "tangled" mess if this is deleted than if it's kept pbp 05:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
99% of players who have played for the Jays or Vancouver Canadians played minor league or major leage ball in the states too, so they are still expatriate baseball players in the U.S. Moreover, on a different point, there are definitely more than a few dozen Americans listed in these. All the ones I've suggested for deletion list Americans who happened to be born abroad. They are not 'from' the country in question in any meaningful way - they grew up playing baseball in the states, allowing them to become pro ball players later in life. Mayumashu (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be correct about it, there are 50 categories in question but only about 17 that list non-American ball players - those for Aruba, Australia, the Bahamas, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Curacao, Dominican Republic, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Venezuela. Again, there should be an expat baseball players in the U.S. category tree, as there is for basketball and soccer (whereas there isn't a cat tree like this one for any other sport). Players listed in most cases here are not "from" the country in question other than that they were born there, mostly either to U.S. citizens (military personnel mostly) or future immigrants to / naturalized citizens of the U.S. Mayumashu (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per the reasons offered by Peterkingiron. Dimadick (talk) 11:10, 8 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:Edna Staebler Award honorees[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. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes by assuming that the first two participants are will be ok with deleting given that List_of_Edna_Staebler_Award_recipients exists and Awards categories are discouraged. delldot ∇. 06:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The title introduces an unnecessary engvar issue that could be overcome by having a similar title to other awards, e.g. Category:James Tait Black Memorial Prize recipients. 86.40.100.39 (talk) 19:30, 5 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:Documentary films by music genre[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. delldot ∇. 06:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination User:Stefanomione, who should know better by now, seems to have emptied this category and placed a speedy deletion tag on it in favour of his preferred naming structure. I've removed the speedy tag and am taking this to Cfd instead. I hope there has not been more of this from this editor who, again, should really know better after having been the subject of an ANI for category edits. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, User_talk:Stefanomione#Category_deletions suggests that he has taken more of these actions to delete categories out of process. I do not want to re-engage with this editor, and so I do not intend to look further into this, beyond this Xfd (unless he does this to more categories that I happen to be watching). And for the record I am neutral on the name change merge. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the proposed rename already exists, merge. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. While I don't really agree with emptying categories while a vote is pending, the new name seems more precise. Dimadick (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, there was no pending Cfd when Stefanomione did this; he saw it as a way of circumventing Cfd entirely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be more precise, I thought it was one of my categories ... If it was, a speedy deletion should have been acceptable, I think. (For the history of this nomination: I created Category:Works by genre and a lot of its subcategories). Stefanomione (talk) 08:32, 9 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:Explorers of the colonial Southwest of North America[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 to Category:Explorers of North America. No objections to this suggestion, it seems to me from the arguments of people who did not explicitly support this that at least they would not hate it. delldot ∇. 06:13, 2 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.

Category:California colonial people[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 to Category:People of pre-statehood California. delldot ∇. 05:47, 2 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.

Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia[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. Although a lot of these discussions about whether to use the modern place name or the name of the place at the time in question are going the other way, I cannot see a consensus here to do away with this category. People are bringing up issues here that are unique to this discussion, like having consistency with a cat like this for each state. The opposes outnumber the merges, and their reasoning is logical. delldot ∇. 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia to Category:People from Virginia
  • Merge Category:People from West Virginia in the War of 1812 to Category:People from Virginia in the War of 1812
  • Merge Category:West Virginia colonial people to Category:Virginia colonial people
  • Nominator's rationale West Virginia was an integral part of Virginia before its formation. Its boundaries at formation did not even coincide with areas not fighting agaisnt the federal government, but were larger than that to give added power to those in north-western Virginia who favored the continuance of the power of the constitution. The War of 1812 category is so odd that one of those people in disambiguated as (Virginia politician). We have already merged Category:People of West Virginia in the American Revolution into its Virginia counterpart. Also, western Virginia was clearly part of one of the thirteen colonies, but by current set up we do not have that correspondence shown.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all as per nom. Agree that those from what is now West Virginia at the times in question were from, in fact, Virginia (of those times). Mayumashu (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia. The inclusion criteria states: "This category includes people who, prior to the American Revolution, lived in the area that would become the U.S. state of West Virginia.". And this is the contents. The political history of this area does not matter. This is part of history of West Virginia regardless of what else. Hmains (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the current area of West Virginia should also have a way to categorize things that pre-existed it, as these are commonly found as part of the history of the area. -- 76.65.130.165 (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You do not even have to go back too much before the split to find county lines that run across the current state line. The area was Virginia. It is false and ahisotrical to try to seperate it out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what next will we put Rudyard Kipling in Category:People from pre-independence Pakistan because he was raised in Lahore where his father was the museum head? You cannot retroactively create place categories. This is a totally bad idea. West Virginia was not a seperate place, it was an integral part of Virginia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose At present there is one of these categories for every state, as for the corresponding history category eg Category:Pre-statehood history of West Virginia so that it is not cluttered up with people. How many other of the 50 “People of pre-statehood …. “ would be left if those where the present state territory was previously part of another entity of some sort were merged. American state categories should apply to all of the 50 states (and DC) as far as possible. Hugo999 (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hugo999 has convinced me to flip due to his rationale. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment West Virgnia is the only state that was careved out of another state where it did not have some level of seperate existence before hand. Maine was carved out of Massachusetts and Kentucky was carved out of Virginia, but both of these places had at least some level of conceptual existnce before the split. West Virginia was an integral part of Virginia before being formed into a new state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment what about Vermont? and various trans-Appalachia lands? Or... if you go back in time, Delaware, etc ... -- 70.24.245.172 (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Vermont was its own country before becoming a state. The trans-Appalachia lands were mostly uninhabited so there was no one to seek autonomy, and Delaware was an autonomous part of Pennsylvania. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delaware was clearly recognized as seperate, since that is the only way you get 13 colonies. Kentucky was a distinct part of Kentucky from early on, and Tennessee was faily distrinct from North Carolina. The boundatries that West Virginia took could not have been even guessed at by someone in 1857, let alone someone alive in the war of 1812. I actually think all the pre-statehood people categories are a bad idea, but the West Virginia cat is just plain wrong. Those people are without dispute people from Virginia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Both the Missouri Territory and the Iowa Territory were far larger than the present boundaries of the states of Missouri and Iowa. The Dakota Territory eventually became North Dakota and South Dakota in 1889. But we still have categories like Category:1871 in South Dakota. Should that be Category:1871 in the Dakota Territory? Hugo999 (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it should, refering to South Dakota before it was formed is total gibberish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For consistency reasons. If all 50 states have the same category scheme, why should West Virginia be singled out? Should we also merge the Vermont-related categories to New York and New Hampshire just to be pendatic? Dimadick (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as to "pre-statehood": we need a category covering the area before its "independence" from Virginia. The 1812 and colonial categories probably need a double merge to the "pre-statehood" category and the equivalent Virginia one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. West Virginia did not exist at the time. Everyone in here was a resident of the colony of Virginia and wikipedia should reflect this, not some anachronistic nonsense about a 'pre statehood' WVA. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 1812 category is actually people from the state of Virginia, and since Virginia was a state for 70+ years before West Virginia split off, there are lots of other people who were in the state of Virginia, not the colony. Other than that your comment is spot on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. You can't be from somewhere that does not exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:33, 22 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:Place names of Berkshire 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: delete and merge the 3 articles into Category:Place names of English origin in the United States as I did with the Kent discussion above. If that category gets deleted, a bot can empty it. delldot ∇. 05:43, 2 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.

Category:Ports and harbours by sea or ocean and Category:Port cities and towns by sea or ocean[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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two categories may essentially repeat each other, unless there are ports that aren't cities. Brandmeistertalk 17:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure. Port cities are defining for the cities. They are not the same thing as being a port or a harbor which may or may not be in a city. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not merge Category:Port cities and towns by sea or ocean are a proper subset Category:Ports and harbours by sea or ocean at every level in the category tree and in the real world. That they are not the same is shown by the careful distiction made by article editors who place the articles in the correct branches of this tree. Yes, there are harbors and ports that are not cities or towns. Read the articles. Hmains (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a port is a facility, a port city is a city that contains such a facility. We have many port articles, and not every port city article contains information on their ports. -- 76.65.130.165 (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hmains; take, e.g., Port of Oakland properly in the latter category and properly NOT in the former. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 12 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:United Kingdom political leader templates[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 rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is what they all seem to be. 86.40.100.39 (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:United Kingdom ministerial office templates > Category:United Kingdom ministerial office navigational boxes
Category:Yugoslavia political leader templates > Category:Yugoslavia political leader navigational boxes
Category:Turkey political leader templates > Category:Turkey political leader navigational boxes
Category:Slovenia political leader templates > Category:Slovenia political leader navigational boxes
Category:Serbia political leader templates > Category:Serbia political leader navigational boxes
Category:Russia and Soviet Union political leader templates > Category:Russia and Soviet Union political leader navigational boxes
Category:Poland political leader templates > Category:Poland political leader navigational boxes
Category:Norway political leader templates > Category:Norway political leader navigational boxes
Category:Netherlands political leader templates > Category:Netherlands political leader navigational boxes
Category:Lithuania political leader templates > Category:Lithuania political leader navigational boxes
Category:Italy political leader templates > Category:Italy political leader navigational boxes
Category:Germany political leader templates > Category:Germany political leader navigational boxes
Category:France political leader templates > Category:France political leader navigational boxes
Category:Estonia political leader templates > Category:Estonia political leader navigational boxes
Category:Czech Republic political leader templates > Category:Czech Republic political leader navigational boxes
Category:Croatia political leader templates > Category:Croatia political leader navigational boxes
Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina political leader templates > Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina political leader navigational boxes
Category:Estonia cabinet templates > Category:Estonia cabinet navigational boxes
Category:France subdivision political leader templates > Category:France subdivision political leader navigational boxes
Category:Italy subdivision political leader templates > Category:Italy subdivision political leader navigational boxes
  • (Extra S)
Category:Sweden political leaders navigational boxes > Category:Sweden political leader navigational boxes
Category:Spain political leaders navigational boxes > Category:Spain political leader navigational boxes
Category:Catalonia political leaders navigational boxes > Category:Catalonia political leader navigational boxes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.100.39 (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Europe political leader templates > Category:Europe political leader navigational boxes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.100.39 (talk) 09:13, 5 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:Interstate conflict[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: Closed. After this was nominated again on the 11th, I did some digging and found that this was discussion was apparently not listed on the category. So no action could really be taken. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is not the sort of topic that lends itself to a category and the name is too broad to be used solely for US-related topics. I have not tagged the article. I cannot do so because I am subjected to a pathetic indefinite topic ban. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Too broad. --86.40.100.39 (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the inclusion of the American Civil War here is a clear POV-pushing action, considering how many people of Louisiana, Virignia, South Carolina and other "southern" states fought in the Union Army in the conflict.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subcats are sufficient. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rename to Category:Interstate conflict between U.S. states which reflects the category content. This has been in the past and continues to be a part of U.S. history and politics. Hmains (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename Clearly not about interstate conflicts (such as WWII, or WWI, or anything that isn't a civil war, since states go to war) -- 76.65.130.165 (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was wonder if this was something about road rage on the Golden State Freeway, but alas, it's not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have an article about Militarized Interstate Disputes, covering "conflicts between states that do not involve a full scale war". Should the category be repurposed to include these type of conflicts? Dimadick (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Interstate conflict between U.S. states or Category:Conflict between U.S. states. The subject matter is diverse, including wars, litigation, and the Civil War. These are worth bringing together. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inclusion of the US Civil War in this category is a clear case of POV-pushing. There are multiple views of what the US Civil War was, and describing it as a "war between the state" is one view, a view that tends to neglect and ignore the presence of large number of enslaved people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Rename (to a title to be named later) I had assumed that the category was about road range incidents on I-95, so a rename is appropriate, but none of the proffered choices captures the essence of the topic. The category organizes articles by a strong defining characteristic. I had never learned much about the American Civil War when I was back in school, but apparently it was some sort of conflict that involved one group of U.S. states that were at odds with another group of states, and as such it would seem to be the cardinal example of interstate conflict in this country and a clear case of POV-pushing to exclude it. Alansohn (talk) 02:01, 11 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:Nobel Peace Prize templates[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Nobel Prize in Literature navigational boxes. 86.40.105.236 (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nobel Prize in Chemistry templates > Category:Nobel Prize in Chemistry navigational boxes
Category:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics templates > Category:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics navigational boxes
Category:Nobel Prize in Physics templates > Category:Nobel Prize in Physics navigational boxes
Category:Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine templates > Category:Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine navigational boxes
  • The footers have their very own category so can easily be removed from the navbox categories without doing much harm or losing them. --86.40.103.209 (talk) 00:54, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_5&oldid=1146664276"