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.
Delete – somehow one can spot a Stefanomione creation, and, as often, this is a bad idea. (Most journals don't have an ideology. One might as well subcat footballers by ideology.) Category:Works by ideology is another bad idea. (I had hoped Stefanomione might give category creation a break, after these almost unanimous views at ANI.) Oculi (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to suggest renaming it per nom, but the fact that it only has one subcategory shows that it's not likely to be used much, and thus it doesn't improve navigation from article to article. We can put the feminist journals into Category:Academic journals, and if we end up creating categories for Marxist journals, poststructuralist journals, anticolonial journals, etc., we can perhaps recreate this category at the name that Randy suggests. In such a situation, the ideology of these journals would be a defining feature, and putting all of the heavily ideological journals together would help people to find them more easily. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All these were created by Stefanomione and suffer from the same drawback. A subcat scheme 'xxx by yyy' suggests to me that every xxx should belong to a potential subcat. Most journals/newspapers/books do not have an ideology. Oculi (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is incorrect. Many do, many more don't. Only a small percentage of journals in these fields will fit into one of your "ideology categories". --Randykitty (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ideology" is a defining feature for some 100-150 ideologically biased journals. An encyclopedia should mention this bias. Stefanomione (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Oculi and Nyttend, I'm not a fan of categorizing journals by ideology either. However, now that the categories "Feminist journals" and "Marxist journals" have been created (and it is my gut feeling that an XfD would not be successful for these cats), I think we should keep it as a home for those cats. Putting "Feminist journals" (and "Marxist journals") in the top cat "Academic journals" seems awkward, as that cat only contains other top cats. --Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think the classification of publications by ideology is a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Question to the "delete" voters: as explained above, I agree with this in principle. However, if we delete "journals by ideology", then what are we going to do with "feminist journals", "Marxist journals", and meanwhile also "anarchist journals"? --Randykitty (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My vote would be to delete all of those are well. We categorize journals by subject, not ideology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been my preference, too, absolutely. I just don't think that we'll ever get "Feminist journals" or "Marxist journals" deleted here and if they're kept, we need a category to place them into. --Randykitty (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Journal X totally agrees with me. No it doesn't. Rinse repeat. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:42, 18 November 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:Delete. Writers of a specific nationality are not normally also categorized by descent. Overcategorization. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Each category of people by descent by occupation must stand or fall on its own merits. The clear directive for such categories is they should only exist where there is coverage of the specific topic. There is no coverage of this specific topic, thus it is a trivial intersect, and the category should be upmerged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Non-notable triple intersection. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure yet where I fall in regard to the proposed deletion. However, if a decision is ultimately made to delete the category, many of the individuals currently so categorized should be moved to a List of American writers of Indian descent, or List of Indian-American writers, as such a grouping would be of use for readers. Jhumpa Lahiri and Amitov Ghosh, who included in the current category, have written works explicitly referencing topics involving Indianness. I'm not sure that is the case with all of the others currently in the list (eg, Kamala Harris). Dezastru (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not enough for people to write about their ancestry to justify the topic. Can you create an article American writers of Indian descent that is more than just a list? That is the key question here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 26 November 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:No consensus to rename - I might suggest an RfC on this overall idea. - jc37 12:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale the article Yugoslavs suggests that Yugoslav was used as an ethnic identifier in Yugoslavia in a way that it never came close to encompassing most of the population. Anyway the goal of the category is to group people connected with a country during its existence, and we have generally used the of form to do this, such as Category:People of the Mongol Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current name is consistent with every other name in the Category:European people hierarchy. --Orlady (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Yugoslav" and "Yugoslavian" have both been used, but by consensus we selected "Yugoslav" since it is more commonly used for people. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- a much better form of the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - get rid of adjectival form when referencing territorial entities. ChemTerm (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is the accepted "FOOian people" form. I strongly oppose the attempts to gradually change the "FOOian people" form to "People of FOO" or "People from FOO" in this piecemeal fashion, bit-by-bit. Follow the naming conventions, which says we use "FOOian people". Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale the current form is just plain bad English. If you are not going to use an adjectival form in a name like this, you should use the "of" to connect the people to the place they are connected with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:New Caledonian people, which is more appropriate as an adjectival form. I oppose John Pack Lambert's proposed rename; the current name (also my proposed spelling correction) is consistent with the nomenclature conventions in Category:People by nationality, but his proposal would not be. --Orlady (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- a much better form of the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - get rid of adjectival form when referencing territorial entities. ChemTerm (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Support rename to Category:New Caledonian people, if any change needs to be made. I strongly oppose the attempts to change "FOOian people" to "people of FOO" in a piecemeal fashion, bit-by-bit. "People of New Caledonia" are New Caledonians, and the naming conventions state that the correct format is "FOOian people". Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename This will simply make a mismatch to all the other parent categories involved that the nominator fails to mention and thus fails to justify why such a mismatch is warranted. See Category:Women by nationality for example. Hmains (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unless we intend to rename every one of the categories in the form of Category:American women, all of the components of Category:Writers by nationality, etc., to the form that Mr. Pack Lambert apparently favors. I don't want to do that! (I agree with Hmains, who was editing at the same time I was.) --Orlady (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if people actually paid attention to the nomination at hand. The most immediate parent to the categories in question is Category:People from Puerto Rico. The rename is to put this category in line with it. Puerto Rico is not an independent country and so the issues about how to form the name in this case are different than in the case of Category:American women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To reiterate one more time, Puerto Rico is a possession of the United States. Better sisters to look for are categories like Category:Women writers from Kentucky. This is a clear result of having renamed Category:Puerto Rican people to Category:People from Puerto Rico. No one has explained at all why we should not follow the precedent of that top level change on lower down categories. There is also Category:Women in Kentucky, but I reallyu do not see why the top category is from and lower categories should be anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - get rid of adjectival form when referencing territorial entities. ChemTerm (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and rename Category:People from Puerto Rico back to Category:Puerto Rican people. All the of the subcategories use the adjective "Puerto Rican". I oppose the attempt to change "FOOian" to "People from FOO" in a piecemeal fashion, bit-by-bit. Puerto Rico has not always been a U.S. territory. Puerto Ricans have had a long history as a nationality that is distinct from American. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nor has Hawaii always been a US territory. The fact of the matter is we base names on how things are, not how things "were for long periods in the past" especially since Puerto Rico has never been an independent country. The current Puerto Rican form tends too often to get people placed in it who never set foot in Puerto Rico and only have Puerto Rican ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British colonial people of the French and Indian War[edit]
Oppose. This is a category for British colonial people who were involved with that war. It should remain distinct from categories for French and French Canadian people during that war, as well as for Indians (Native Americans) involved with that war. This is not category by geography, but rather is a category by allegiance. --Orlady (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The opposition totally misunderstands the proposal. This is a category for people of the British Colonies. Whether they are "British" is debatable. The point is that they were connected to the British colonies and owed their allegiance there to. This will remain the way the category is defined after renaming, but the name will be more clearly in line with its daughter categories. The category would not start including French people, unless they had beome resident in the British colonies. The proposal does not do at all what Orlady claims it would do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not category by geography, but rather is a category by allegiance. This is a category for French Canadian people who were involved with that war. Keep it that way. --Orlady (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is making changes to the content of this category in order to make the results fit into what he wants to achieve by this nomination. This activity is disruptive, trying to preempt this discussion, and should be stopped and all reverted by the nominator. Hmains (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is a bold face lie. I have not changed any entries in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification request Where are these change? ChemTerm (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The target remains an allegiance category, and does a much better job than the current one. The current one is named in a way that a "French Canadian" person who fought on the British side in theory would fit its definition. The target makes it clear these people are "of New France" and thus fighting for New France. In fact Orlady's argument would suggest we should rename this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename The current name reflects the fact that every one of the articles indicates the person was born in Canada. Nominated name is therefore not a helpful navagation tool. Hmains (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale There was not a Tennessee colony. It was part of the colony of North Carolina to the extent that British power existed there. Until I corrected it about half of the people in this category were Cherokee's who did not recognize British overlordship. It might be possible to create a specific category for Cherokee who were part of what amounted to a seperate Cherokee country, but they clearly should not be placed into categories that portray them as nationals of countries they never recognized themselves as subjects of. If there were Cherokee in modern Tennessee who functioned as subjects of North Carolina colony they could be categorized as such, but none of the articles involved met that criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is making changes to the content of this category in order to make the results fit into what he wants to achieve by this nomination. This activity is disruptive, trying to preempt this discussion, and should be stopped and all reverted by the nominator. Hmains (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The disruptive editing is removing 15-20 articles from this category that do not fit into the new repurposed definition that the nominator wants to achieve. Hmains (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Political geography is not the only way to characterize places. This is an entirely meaningful and appropriate category for people associated with a particular area during the colonial era. I shudder to think how the nominator would propose to reorganize the sister category Category:Native American history of Tennessee by political jurisdiction. --Orlady (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is This category has an inclusion statement reading: "This category includes people who, prior to the American Revolution, lived in the area that would become the U.S. state of Tennessee." So the contents are very clearly described. Destroying this category structure would preclude these people from being associated with the pre-US statehood of Tennessee, which is a recognized part of the history of each of these states. Nomination serves no valid article navigation purpose. Hmains (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To count people who had allegiance to the Cherokee Nation as somehow "Tennessee colonial people" is just historically wrong. The whole concept behind this category is historically wrong. People have allegiances to nations and to place people who recognized no authority beyond the Cherokee government in this category is to place them in a set of categories and under implications of allegian that just do not work. Tennessee was not a seperate colony, it was part of North Carolina, the people there who recognized British authority were under North Carolina and that is how categorization should be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the colonial period in Tennessee is uniquely Tennessee's history, not the history of some other state. Contrary to JPL's sure knowledge, Tennessee was not part of North Carolina during the pre-Revolutionary War period covered by this category. Before circa 1772, all of Tennessee was Indian land, and before the American Revolution (i.e., during what is called the "colonial period" of the U.S.) the state was not actually part of any British colony. Beginning with the middle of the 18th century, longhunters (mostly from Virginia) were regularly present in Tennessee. The Cherokees lived in settled towns, had extensive interaction with longhunters, and were affected by the French and Indian War. The British garrison of Fort Loudoun, which was established at the request of the Cherokees for defense against tribes allied with the French, was established by the South Carolina colony, not North Carolina. The first permanent white settlement in the state, circa 1770, was on Indian land and (according to the article Watauga Association) its government was decried by British authorities as a "dangerous example" of a government "distinct from and independent of his majesty's authority.". Treaties/purchases of Indian land were negotiated in the 1770s, but the British didn't recognize them as legal. According to the article Watauga Association, Tennessee's first white settlements did not become part of North Carolina until 1776, which is in the Revolutionary War era. Tennessee considers people like Nancy Ward and Dragging Canoe to have been important figures in the state's pre-statehood history, and I find it offensive that people are suggesting that because they were Indians they cannot be included in Tennessee history categories. --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Nominator is continuing his purposeful disruptive editing by removing content from this category. The purpose of the category is clearly stated: "This category includes people who, prior to the American Revolution, lived in the area that would become the U.S. state of Tennessee." It does not matter what kind of people they were; they are part of the history here. Nominator has again removed all native Americans from this category to match his target of what he wants the category to be, not the stated and long accepted purpose of this and all similar categories. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert's repeated removal of categories for people like Nancy Ward (diffs) have had the effect of removing the articles from all geographically referenced categories. That's disruption, pure and simple. --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those people were not part of any colony and it is just plain wrong to put them under this category. In fact it is probably a lot worse to put them in the category under its present name than it would be if the nomination was approved. They in no way, shape, means or form in any way belong to a colony.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "those people" in your comment, you apparently are referring to notable Native Americans (including people of mixed blood due to intermarriage with people of European descent) who variously engaged in political negotiations with British agents, fought against European-derived settlers, and/or in some cases traveled to Europe. Moreover, in most cases their birthplaces, homes, and graves are at known locations in Tennessee and are marked. It is ridiculous to insist that "those people" are not associated with Tennessee (which is, by the way, a Cherokee name) or colonial history. --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They were functioning outside the power of British control. Just because they fought with Briths forces or traded with British agents does not make them colonial. Nor does their having British ancestors make them colonial when they fully functioned outside British control.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is in fact a place Tennessee Colony. The problem is it is a colony made by people from Tennessee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility of anyone confusing "Category:Tennessee colonial people" with the topic of "People from Tennessee Colony, Texas" is vanishingly small. It is a red herring that can be ignored. --Orlady (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This area was under the control of Tennessee. Orlady's bizarre bringing up of a category that is not even for people is just a red herring trying to malign those of us who seek to apply the actual reality of the historical situation to categorization. The government of North Carolina exerted power over what is today Tennessee to the extent that actual organization of British government existed in the area. This category presents a false view of history, applies retrocatively place names that make no sense at the time, and is just plain wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is disruptive is to try to force Native American people into some geographical scheme that was imposed on the land later on by Euro-Americans. Cherokee people are part of the Cherokee Nation. I see no reason why we should demand any other placing for them, when they themselves recognized no other placing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couple reasons for this. One, this cat was being used for Cherokees who should have been in their own category, as the Cherokee were under separate administration under the Queen at the time. Two - those remaining are more appropriatedly in other categories. HMain's reaction demonstrates that the category serves no purpose now that the coatrack has been removed.Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is -- the formation and development of Tennessee resulted from movements and events that took place within the state's future boundaries during the Colonial period; it's important to allow users to find these events, separate from a North Carolina category; I'm also open to Peterkingiron's suggestion. Bms4880 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment reading the inclusion criteria of the category would help: "This category includes people who, prior to the American Revolution, lived in the area that would become the U.S. state of Tennessee." Hmains (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
The inclusion cretiria is a bunch of malarky with no basis in historical fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Category:People of Tennessee in the colonial period would work for me. But I continue to contend that the Indians need to be part of the category. One reason is that the place was actually Indian territory in those years, not part of a European colony (but it's "colonial" because it was part of the western frontier of the colonies that eventually became the United States). --Orlady (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment The place was actually "Indian territory" (although these are Cherokees, Indian meaning people from India), suggests it was not a colony, and thus the name is flawed. Those who recognized North Carolina should be so categorized, and those who did not recognize foriegn overlordship should not be classed as somehow colonial. Orlady admits that the whole idea behind this category is flawed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for commenting using the terminology (i.e., "Indian") that was in use during the historical period in question, rather than the modern terminology. (I actually thought you would want to use historical terminology, given your apparent interest in categorizing places by their historical names rather than the names now in use.) Regarding the tribe, note that although the individual Native Americans included in this category were Cherokees, more westerly parts of Tennessee were the homes of other Native groups.
For what seems like the umpteenth time,let me repeat that the scope of this category is people who were in what is now Tennessee during the colonial period of what became the United States. In the case of Tennessee, the time span in question is very brief (roughly 1750 to 1775), but I assume this category was created and defined to conform with categories for other U.S. states during the same time period. The use of the word "colonial" does not necessarily mean that the area was legally recognized as a colony. In fact, as I explained in a comment above, Tennessee wasn't treated as part of North Carolina until the Revolutionary War period, a time period that is covered in a different set of categories. --Orlady (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this nomination focuses the debate: so we categorize on current borders regardless of prior ones or not? If we do, then lots of famous classical folks find themselves "from Turkey", "from Algeria", and "from Austria" when those concepts are clearly ahistorical. If we don't, the there was no Tennessee colony, as per nom., just land claimed by the government of colonial North Carolina, and the folks living there may or may not have been under its jurisdiction (either de jure or de facto), but they certainly didn't fall under the jurisdiction of any Tennessee government. Deciding the larger question will solve this one. 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Saying that this area was part of North Carolina would be ahistorical. During the time period covered by this category, the area wasn't yet considered part of North Carolina. That didn't happen until 1776.[1] It turns out that all nine white people with articles in the category were from Virginia (they ventured into the area that is now Tennessee as explorers, longhunters, and pioneer settlers). Also, the article contains articles about eleven Native Americans; if there was any governance over the area, the governing authority was their tribe. --Orlady (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename, keep as is. Per Orlady's rationale. —Theopolisme 22:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is a people by place name, and the target designates the actual place these people we of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Political jurisdictions and other forms of political geography are not the only way to characterize places. This is an entirely meaningful and appropriate category for people associated with a particular area during the colonial era. --Orlady (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is This category has an inclusion statement reading: "This category includes people who, prior to the American Revolution, lived in the area that would become the U.S. state of Maine." So the contents are very clearly described. Destroying this category structure would preclude these people from being associated with the pre-US statehood of Maine, which is a recognized part of the history of each of the state. Nomination serves no valid article navigation purpose. Hmains (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the name used at the time, Wikipedia should strive to be as historically accurate as possible. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- While technically correct the target is too much of a mouthful. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment alternativly to my keep, rename to People of colonial Maine to match our defacto standard for naming people categories associated with historical periods or events. Hmains (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale these categories are for people who were residents in these various places. Colonial modifies the place, not the people. The Barbadian category is particular bad, since based on the form we would assume it is for people in colonies of Barbados, while it is meant to be for people in Barbados when it was a colony.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose these names There has never been a political entity named Colonial New Jersey, for example, so it is not a proper noun mandating capitalization. There is a US state named New Jersey which used to be a colony. So 'colonial' is correct as an adjective. Hmains (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are entirely meaningful and appropriate categories for people associated with particular geographic locations during the colonial era. --Orlady (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Barbadian and Belgian colonial people cats show that this name form is ambiguous and should be given up. The Barbaidian cat is for people in Colonial Barbados, while the Belgian cat is for people in Colonies of Belgian, not people in Belgium while it was controlled by the Austrians, French or Dutch. Colonial has unclear meaning, which can also be seen by the article Tennessee Colony.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Vote I will support the lower casing of colonial. I really do not care overly much whether it is capitalized or not. No one has yet responded to the Belgian nomination. Maybe I should stop listening to people who suggest mass nominations, since they seem to lead to people ignoring some things I nominate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like the mass, but Belgian and Barbados could have been separated. ChemTerm (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support all US categories and the Belgina one. The rest need to be discussed individually. The independence of Barbadoes is probably too recent for us to need a separate category. The Belgian one needs to be looked at alone, but this is probbaly the best solution: it applies to Congo (now DRC) and Ruanda-Urundi (now Rwanda and Burundi). The question of pre-1830s colonies of Belgian predecessors does not arise because there were none. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, my point is that in theory what is today Belgium in the 18th century was a colony of Austria. Thus, Belgian colonial people would be people who lived in Belgium while it was a colony, on the model of Barbadian colonial people and American colonial people. Alternatively Category:American colonial people should be people of colonies run by the United States, such as the Philippines, Guam, Micronesia, the Panama Canal Zone and such. What we have here is the same term being used for different things. Actually though, there was an East India Company based out of the Austrian Netherlands, so I believe there was a very small set of places held as colonial possesions of the Austrian Netherlands.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I did not agree with the Colonial upper case. If the nomination is changed to reflect lower case, then these names would match the default standard used for people associated with historical time periods and events. I would then support these changes. Hmains (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale people should be grouped in ways that makes sense to the time they lived. These people were part of the Thirteen colonies, and should not be arbitarily grouped with Spanish subjects in California and New Mexico (but not Senora and Chihuahua) because of events that happened 25 years after Spain gave up its rule on the North American mainland. The new name will clealry limit this to a logical and historically defensible set of people. The people also should be grouped by colony, not by state, even if in most cases the results will be the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is making changes to the content of this category in order to make the results fit into what he wants to achieve by this nomination. This activity is disruptive, trying to preempt this discussion, and should be stopped and all reverted by the nominator. Hmains (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category as it existed was an ahistorical hodge podge that ignored the reality of things as they were. It was not a logical or acceptable category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is This category is, and always has been, more than just the 13 colonies. This is clear from the content. It is part of the history of United States, that part when states were colonies of another country. I did some clean up to ensure that it does not include non-colonial time periods, such as when Califoria was a territory of Mexico, even though various WP articles still refer to that period as 'colonial California'. Hmains (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment reading the inclusion criteria for the category would help "The notable colonists, colonizers, and colonized people in regions of North America, that later became the United States Further information: Colonial history of the United States" Hmains (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the inclusion cretiria is a bunch of malarky based on ahistorical recreations of the past. We should not bow down to such flawed organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale These are categories for people who lived in a colony. Colony modifies the place, it does not modify the people. There was one colony, it was Virginia. Kentucky was not a seperate place, and West Virginia was most definitely not a seperate place. All these people were under the colony of Virginia and should be categorized accordingly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is Each of these categories has inclusion statements reading like this: "This category includes people who, prior to the American Revolution, lived in the area that would become the U.S. state of Kentucky." So the contents are very clearly described. Destroying this category structure would preclude these people from being associated with the pre-US statehood of each of these states which is a recognized part of the history of each of these states. Nomination serves no valid article navigation purpose. Hmains (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moves. Political jurisdictions and other forms of political geography are not the only way to characterize places. These are entirely meaningful and appropriate categories for people associated with a particular area during the colonial era. --Orlady (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is making changes to the content of these categories in order to make the results fit into what he wants to achieve by this nomination. This activity is disruptive, trying to preempt this discussion, and should be stopped and all reverted by the nominator. Hmains (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To my knowledge I have only added one person to the Virginia cat, who is clearly said in the article to have lived in Virginia. I have not changed at all the contents of the Kentucky or the West Virginia cats. Since we will not accept a West Virginia cat for the American Revolution, I see even less reason to accept a West Virginia cat earlier. This makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Again, we should use the correct names for the correct places at the correct times. Ambiguity is bad as is being demonstrated quite thoroughly. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title "People of Kentucky in the colonial period" seems sensible, but it should be noted that it's not clear that Kentucky was truly under the jurisdiction of Virginia at that time. The article Transylvania (colony) tells about the history; Virginia claimed it, but the people in Kentucky didn't necessarily pay attention to that claim. --Orlady (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would work, since many of the people of pre-statehood Kentucky are currently categorized in Category:People of Kentucky in the American Revolution. The colonial period category is limited to people active in Kentucky before the Revolution, and the two categories exist (AFAICT) to facilitate coordination with other state-specific categories for those same periods. --Orlady (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I did not agree with the Colonial upper case in Category:People of Colonial Virginia. If the nomination is changed to reflect lower case, then these names would match the default standard used for people associated with historical time periods and events. I would then support this particular change. Hmains (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Proposal rename to Category:People of colonial Virginia and merge in the West Virginia category. Since we merged the West Virginia category for the American Revolution, it seems we should also do this for the colonial period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the West Virginia category is not merged into the Virginia category those people will not be under Category:People of the Thirteen Colonies which is a bizarre occurance since the area of West Virginia was clearly part of Virginia and thus the thirteen colonies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale a different times Florida was under Spanish and British control. These are two idstinct entities and their subjects, governors and such should not be grouped together in some sort of ahuistorical hodgepodge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is making changes to the content of this category in order to make the results fit into what he wants to achieve by this nomination. This activity is disruptive, trying to preempt this discussion, and should be stopped and all reverted by the nominator. Hmains (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename of "Florida colonial people". I can't speak to the disruptive edits that Hmains cites. However, Category:Florida colonial people is an entirely meaningful and appropriate category for people associated with that particular geographic area during the colonial era; there is no useful purpose in dividing it according to which colonial power each person had allegiance to. --Orlady (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is because I have not made any exits to the content of this category. However categories should be based on the geography of the time and should not arbitrarily place later geography on earlier things. This is especially true of the governors cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Historical accuracy is something we should be working towards. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REanme both to the format Category:People of Colonial Florida. It should not be necessary to distinguish the two colonial masters, as (I think) there were no rival colonies. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If Peterkingiron's proposed rename is adopted, "colonial" should begin with a lowercase c, as it is not a proper name of a particular entity. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benkenobi18. ChemTerm (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Reading the current content will find that I put the Spanish Empire people into an appropriate subcategory. The remainder are from a mixture of European powers. The full rename/split does not match the remaining contents. Various governor categories exist to match the political entity involved, not more general names. Hmains (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the people now in the category are either French or British except for a 16th century Native American leader. One of the people is from Turkey, but she was clearly in Florida as part of the British regime. With the Spanish Florida group moved out, leaving this category as is makes even less sense. I think the Briths category should still be moved to Category:People of British Florida. The current desciption (added by Hmains) that says these people lived in Spanish Florida does not work. The old description "This category includes immigrant people who, prior to the American Revolution, lived in the area that would become the U.S. state of Florida." should cause everyone to cringe. I still hold we cannot mix multiple national regimes in the same category. The colonists are colonists becuase they are connected in some way with the home country, and so they should be seperated by the specific home country they are connected with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale people should be grouped in ways that reflect the reality of their lives. To group Spanish, French and British colonies within the current United States in a way that presents some level of connectedness between them and disconnectedness with other territories is ahisotrical and inaccurate. New Mexico, California and Texas were integral parts of the Vice-royalty of New Spain, and had absolutely no connection with Colonial Virginia or Massachusetts. We need to end the presism in our categories and use them in ways that work with what happened at times in the past. Also, it is the places that are colonies, not the people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename and repurpose this category. Currently, this category, as it should, covers all the states of the United States during their various colonial periods (when they were owned by a country other than the United States). There is no justification whatsoever to change this to include only the 13 British colonies and thereby destroy the navigation structure currently in place. As with all history (including people) in WP, current geographical boundaries determine where the history articles are placed. Hmains (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is making changes to the content of this category in order to make the results fit into what he wants to achieve by this nomination. This activity is disruptive, trying to preempt this discussion, and should be stopped and all reverted by the nominator. Hmains (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't this be like Category:Belgian colonial people and consist of people who lived in colonies of the United States (like the Philippines) like that category is for people who lived in colonies of Belgium?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to complete my thought in the last statement, the fact that two very different things can be meant by this category means we should rename it for greater precision. We should also rename it so it reflects an actual reality. The pure geographical usage of such categories leads to people attempting to define as "colonial" time frames when places were integral parts of Republics, and if anything less colonized than they would be after US acquistion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This should probably be the first nomination. This is, by far the most important one of your batch. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment As noted above, this includes not only people of the 13 colonies, but of any part of the United States that was once a colony of another country. This is part of this history of the United States, as noted in the category purpose. Changing this would require creation of yet another category tree to cover the non-13 colonies people. Hmains (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are all other colonial people except those in this category and its subcats grouped by the nation that possesed the colonies? Why are people in colonial Canada in Category:People of former British colonies but people in colonial South Carolina are not? This makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment reading the inclusion criteria of the category would help "This category includes people who were notable colonists in the regions of North America which would become the United States, that were in British, Dutch, French, Russian, Spanish, and/or Swedish Colonies."Hmains (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The inclusion cretiria is a bunch of malarchy and we should not accept them. The including of Mexico as one of the "colonial" powers shows an extreme pro-US bias that we should remove. Describing Mexico's control of its northern states as "colonial" is a false and insulting attack on Mexico and its right to extend North of the Rio Grande, and an underhand assertion that the boundary settled after the Mexican-American War is in someway the "correct" boundary. We should avoid such biased assertions in wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the attempt to merge these contents together in one category is creating an ahistorical grouping of people who do not connect in actual fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This category should be clearly limited to the Spanish period of California. The category should not be used in a trans-national way, and the attempt to fit the Mexican period in the old category just does not make sense. The people are of Spanish California. Describing people as being "colonial" just does not make sesne.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename and repurpose this category. Currently, this category, as it should, covers all the people of California during its colonial period. This includes Mexican, Spanish, Russian, British, etc. This is simply another destructive change that will impede navigation to these articles in California history, making it more difficult for readers to find information and just for the sake of making things ok for a particular editor who does not understand our history. Additionally, before making this nomination, the nominator altered the contents and purpose of the category so it it would fit into this change he wants approved. This is not acceptable WP behavior. Hmains (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Political geography is not the only valid form of geography, and should not be the only basis for defining geographic categories. The place called California is and was a real place in the physical world, and this is an entirely meaningful and appropriate category for people associated with that particular place during its colonial era. --Orlady (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To refer to the time when California was part of Merxico as "colonial" is to show an extreme pro-United States bias of the type that should never be accetable in wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clear definition of territorial entity. ChemTerm (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Greater historical accuracy, less ambiguity. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmains has acted in very odd ways. First he accuses me of being "disruptive" for the edits I do. Now he goes ahead and creats the target category and moves some of the current contents to that category. His opposition to the proposed move is contradicted by his movement of most of the category contents to the proposed destination, to the point where the category only has one article in it now. When this was proposed it was a rename because the target did not exist. The target now exists, so I am forced to make a new proposal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Vote: Delete The one thing is this category is not even a biographical article. The name just cannot stand. To call the Mexican period of California history "colonial" is an unaccetable POV-pushing action. I do not see calling the short territorial portion of its history "colonial" working either. The target exists and is working just fine, what is left in this category does not go there, but there is no purpose in keeping the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment You pointed out a problem (which you could have done in a much nicer fashion) and I studied the situation and worked on a solution to the 'Mexican colonial' problem. I can change to meet the needs of the contents of the category. I recommend such study and work to anyone involved here. It is not about one upping others and being 'right'. Hmains (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In looking at the category, it appears to cover three different, but somewhat overlapping areas. Given that the one article is not about a person, I wonder why we don't just delete this for now and allow recreation when there are a number of articles and a more specific definition for inclusion. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 08:22, 23 November 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:People in 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:No consensus - jc37 12:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This category is highly problematic on multiple levels. To begin with it is being used wrong geographically. By its name it should include modern Mexico, but it is being used for the southwest of the present United States. Secondly, what is and what is not colonial is a disputed and unclear thing in the southwestern United States. There are very good arguments that would run the colonial era in Utah until 1896 and New Mexico until 1912. This is not what the category is meant to do. On the other hand, it is clearly only one POV that would consider the colonial era in the Southwest reaching past 1821, yet this category seems to want to push it until 1848. Lastly, to seperate the area based on lines that were not drawn until the 1840s makes no sense at all. Tucson was an integral part of Senora, while Texas never stretched south of the Nueces until Polk ordered US forces to so extend its border. This is an ahisotical grouping category and we should merge it to where these articles properly belong, in people of New Spain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename or repurpose As New Spain intro paragraph states, New Spain "included much of North America south of Canada: all of present-day Mexico and Central America (except Panama), most of the United States west of the Mississippi River, and the Floridas". By extention, it also included the Phillipines and other Pacific. Category:People in the colonial Southwest of North America is already a subcat of Category:People of New Spain as it should be and no more. Destroying Category:People in the colonial Southwest of North America would mean no further navigation from its parent categories as these categories would not be correct for Category:People of New Spain. Categories are for navigation by readers, not to help make things look neat in the eyes of certain editors. Hmains (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is making changes to the content of this category in order to make the results fit into what he wants to achieve by this nomination. This activity is disruptive, trying to preempt this discussion, and should be stopped and all reverted by the nominator. Hmains (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I have said this category engages in an ahistorical grouping of Spance. There is no justification for it. It is impossing a later reality on an earlier period. We should not do this. This category ignores the reality of the time and groups together and seperately things in a way that makes no sense to the time it covers. Beyond that, its name is extremely problematic and is not neutral. I wish people would actually pay attention to my nominations and stop engaging in baseless accusations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per JCL. Suggest HMains sit all these noms out as he is clearly WP:Involved. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a destructive nomination. The later boundary of the Rio Grande provides a useful measn of splitting the category. The latrnative might be to make them Mexicans, but that would be misleading. The present name is unsatisfactory, but should be kept until some one can think of a better one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Peter, care to elaborate? Could we not subdivide into 'People of Coahuila y Tejas', under 'People of New Spain? That was the name of the subdivision of the Provincias Internas in the period prior to Mexican Independence.
Comment Mexico did not recognize the Rio Grande as much of a boundary at all. Coahuila y Tejas crossed it. Laredo was founded as part of Nuevo Santander not as part of Texas. Then there was the attempt to form the Republic of the Rio Grande in 1840 that failed. This involved areas on both sides of the river, and shows that Mexico maintained control of much of what is today South Texas after Texas decalred its independence. The Provincias Internas might be a more logical way to group this, but they included Nuevo Santender, Sonora, Baja California, Chichuahua and Coahuila, which are all now in Mexico and not within the scope of this category as it is currently projected. It seems the best for now is to move to New Spain and then rebuild using the actual historic division of the area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it seems people have now decided that this category should end with the end of Spanish rule, so I guess events in 1840 are not relevant. However Nuevo Santander covered Laredo and everything down river along both sides of the Rio Grande. This grouping makes no sense in light of how the Spanish actually organized New Spain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 19 November 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneccessary duplication of a category that is currently subdivided by nationality and more specific beliefs and time and other useful things in a way that makes merging unwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I expected this to contain articles about books of christian biography, but see that this is at Category:Books of Christian biography, making this category redundant. I also observe that it has no subcategories or supercategories, so is sitting isolated from any category tree. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Biographies of Christians belong in the overall articles about those people, and they should be categorised according to our standard category tree, not completely separately. We might want to consider renaming the books category down the road (it's rather awkward), as well. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OCat, unnecessary. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after checking that all have some appropirate "Christian" category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 18 November 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:do not rename as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale These categories are meant to group people who were subject to colonies. They are not "colonial people" but people of the colonies. It is a people by place type category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's nothing whatever wrong with the term "Colonial people". Would the nominator propose to change Category:Colonialism, too? --Orlady (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose "Colonial people" is the accepted English language desciption of this group of people and has been for decades/centuries/whatever. There is no valid reason for any changes here. Hmains (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "this group" - what group? ChemTerm (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This group of people having articles which are directly or indirectly in this category under discussion. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no requirement that every category name must also be the name of an article. --Orlady (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this category seems extremely lacking in anything other than post-Roman European colonialism, where's the people of the Colonies of Rome? Or that of East Asia? -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 00:51, 18 November 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale this will follow the model that exists at Category:People of British India. Of is a much better way to indicate the level of connectedness we are going for here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- but this should primarily be a container category. Queen Victoria's father is in the category because he served as an ofifcer in Canada; he was certainly not "from" North America. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to match the default standard for naming of people cateogires assocated with historical periods or events. Hmains (talk) 03:52, 20 November 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:Already deleted. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary category, since we already have Category:Living people. It would take a massive job populating it, for no foreseeable reward. StAnselm (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. We shouldn't categorise by temporary status (e.g. living) except when necessary for purposes such as applying WP:BLP. 20:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Use exact title of parent article, Readington Township, New Jersey, which should be standard practice whenever an article for a place is being referenced. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 16 November 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The term "Village (New Jersey)" used for places refers to a specific type of incorporated municipality in the state, but what is intended here are communities within the township that are not independent municipalities, so "Unincorporated communities" better captures what is being included here and matches the parent Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey. The parent article of the place is Readington Township, New Jersey, and wherever a place is being referenced in the title of a category, the article title should be used. Alansohn (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. By law, it's not possible for villages to exist within this township, so it's impossible for any articles to belong in a category of this name. However, a category for these unincorporated communities would be useful, and Alansohn's proposed name follows our category naming guidelines precisely. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 17 November 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Merry Gentry is about the character, but this category is about the larger franchise. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 16 November 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 (not all the articles were in the target category at the time of the close). Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Clearly redundant, is essentially the same category with a different name. –anemoneprojectors– 16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge and turn the geordie one into a category redirect.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- They should be the same thing - or should it be "from Tyneside", a regional category covering qa regional accent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we already have "from Tyne and Wear" - is that the same thing? If they're not from Newcastle, they go in that one, if they are, they go in the Newcastle one. –anemoneprojectors– 11:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all 4 articles (3 musicians and 1 group) are already in suitable categories for Newcastle/Tyne & Wear musicians/music. – FayenaticLondon 20:24, 22 November 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Seems like a small and unneeded subdivision of categorization. Similar result at a CfD for Gay-related music. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - few if any songs are so specific to gay males to the exclusion of bisexual males, gay and bisexual females and transpeople of any sexual orientation that sub-categorizing on this basis is not needed. Buck Winston (talk) 05:39, 20 November 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.
