Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 14 November 16 >

November 15[edit]

Category:Glasgow City L.F.C. players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (C2D). The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Name should follow the name of the main article Glasgow City F.C. and the parent category. NSH002 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. Support rename: I created the category when the main article was titled Glasgow City L.F.C.. But I think you are right, they seem to be calling themselves simply F.C. thesedays (although their website is still at glasgowcityladiesfc.co.uk). In a wider sense, the nomenclature of women's football teams on here is a pain in the ass! I think Celtic recently disavowed their L.F.C. status as well, while Sunderland have moved from a W.F.C. (or, pedantically, an F.C.W.) to an L.F.C. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:29, 16 November 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:1010s in the United Kingdom[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge, since straightforward deletion would remove the category from its European parent. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The United Kingdom was established in 1801. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- At this period Scotland (only content) was an independent country. Its category should be directly in the Europe parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 16 November 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:Latino 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to make this differentiation between "Latin American" and "Latino", especially if they are essentially overlapping subsets in the way we're currently using these categories. Per wiktionary, the source of all truth, Latino is "A person, especially and usually a male, from Latin America. (Compare Latina.)" Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. These are covering the same ground. However some adjustment will be needed. "Hispanic theologians" included a Texan; and there is a related stub category that will also need to be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 16 November 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:Martial arts films by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 2. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The sub-categories for American, Chinese and Japanese films have not been populated, but nearly every film in Category:Martial arts films would fall into one of those three. This category is redundant, and should be deleted, or merged into the main category. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 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:Thanksgiving Classic[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: moot. The category had already been speedy-deleted as empty, having been emptied out-of-process into a new Category:NFL on Thanksgiving Day. Feel free to nominate that new category for renaming, without any need for delay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains no pages as the name "Thanksgiving Classic" for the NFL series of Thanksgiving games is no longer in use. A new category "NFL on Thanksgiving Day" has been created to replace this one. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So this was emptied before bring this here? If so please repopulate so that a proper discussion can be held. Also why should those who played in the Thanksgiving Classic], not be categorized by that? An encyclopedia should not rewrite history. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was emptied (of four pages) prior to bringing it here and replaced with a newly created category. I realize in retrospect that the correct approach would have been to pursue a re-naming. The marketing term "Thanksgiving Classic" for the NFL Thanksgiving game series appears to only have been used by a brief period in the early 2000's. The pages Thanksgiving Classic and List of Thanksgiving Classic broadcasters (which both cover the entire history of the series, which dates back to the start of the NFL and before, not just the period when the "Thanksgiving Classic" term was used) have already been renamed to NFL on Thanksgiving Day and List of NFL on Thanksgiving Day broadcasters, respectively. These names better reflect the true scope of these articles and these moves were discussed here. Similar logic can be extended to this category. None of the categorized pages was relevant only to the period when the "Thanksgiving Classic" marketing term was in use, so the same arguments apply. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repopulate and Keep per WP:COMMONNAME. While "Thanksgiving Classic" might be a no longer used term it is the commonly used and recognised term for the game(s). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On what are you basing your assertion that this is "the commonly used and recognised term" for this event? I realize I only represent a single data point, but I have followed the NFL closely for the past 30 years and I have zero association between that term and the Thanksgiving Day games. More to the point ,as was discussed in detail here, a Google search for the term provides a paucity of relevant links pointing to the topic. Research appears to indicate that the term "Thanksgiving Classic" was officially applied to the game by the league between 2001 and 2006, and its use has been discontinued since that time. For a series that dates from 1920, a six year period of use of a marketing term doesn't seem that significant. A exhaustive search of all of the NFL's various media outlets turns up NO current, ongoing usage of this term, despite the fact that the event itself is less than two weeks away. A new category Category:NFL on Thanksgiving Day has been created which better represents the totality of the series and all of the pages which belonged in this category have been added to that one. NONE of these articles applied solely or even in their majority to the period between 2001 and 2006 when the "Thanksgiving Classic" term was in use. I have admitted that the "correct" move would have been to submit a rename request, but since that did not happen, what is the value of retaining both of these categories (Category:Thanksgiving Classic and Category:NFL on Thanksgiving Day)? Thanks. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and repopulate per The Bushranger. I'm opposed to rewriting history which happens when you upmerge category contents like happened in this case. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please explain to me how renaming this category (which, in essence, is what is happening here) constitutes "rewriting history"? We have established (see above for links to research) that the term "Thanksgiving Classic" was used by the league for a 5 year period of a series of games that is close to (or exceeds) 100 years. NONE (ZERO) of the articles that were in this category covers exclusively the short period when the marketing term "Thanksgiving Classic" was used. ALL of the articles that were in this category have since been added to a new category named "NFL on Thanksgiving Day", which name was chosen specifically so that it would encompass the entirety of the series (not just one short, recent period). Unless your argument is that we require TWO categories for this relatively picayune topic, I simply don't understand how or why you would argue against this simple name change. Frankly, I've given this effort way too much of my time and energy at this point, so whichever way you geniuses decide to go, I'm not going to argue any further. — DeeJayK (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What took place was a rename of Category:Thanksgiving Classic to Category:NFL on Thanksgiving Day, not an upmerge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and the main article, NFL on Thanksgiving Day. Arguments about the commonly used and recognized name are better suited to the article's talk page, and not WP:CFD. It is clear to me that the official usage has moved to NFL on Thanksgiving, although Thanksgiving Classic clearly is still in use as recently as 2012 (The Week; The Daily Beast) and 2013. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse and Repopulate. Looking at the relevant article page I see no evidence there was a broad consensus for this rename. People seem to have ignored the rules of commonname there, and there was no actual real discussion of the issue. It needs to be discussed, not just forced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 8 December 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:Fighters who defeated two or more Gracies[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) 21:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete this is trivia and thus not a sound criterion for categorization. Pichpich (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, along with its sibling, "Boxers who defeated at least two people with Russian last names" and "Karate champions who won three championships in cities beginning with the letter C". --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#TRIVIA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- utterly trivial. Probably countsa as a performacne category too. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 16 November 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:Sports festivals by country[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. Assistance with tagging can be obtained by making a bot request, or asking an active editor who uses AutoWikiBrowser (see Category:Wikipedians who use AutoWikiBrowser. I don't mind tagging the categories myself, if a more encompassing nomination is prepared. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sports festival is a redirect to multi-sport event. But this category includes many (international only) single-sport events also. Subcategories are: Category:International handball competitions hosted by Spain, Category:International association football competitions hosted by Spain and so on. That's why I propose to rename this and similar categories for other countries also, creating Category:International sports competitions by country instead of Category:Sports festivals by country. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Sports festivals. NickSt (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also previous discussions: Sports festivals versus sports competitions, Sports festivals by country, Category:Multi-sport events by country. NickSt (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. While I support the idea, given the scope of subcategories of Category:Sports festivals by country, they all need to be tagged for this discussion, not just one "canary in the coal mine", as the "CfD a selected, then speedy the rest" can unpleasantly surprise editors who weren't watching the "canary" when the speedy noms pop up on their watchlist. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea how I can tag 159 subcategories. It will take some days. Maybe bots can help me? NickSt (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My only concern is that the category should not stay as it is. When pages such as World Chess Championship 2013 were added to the sports festivals category tree several WP:CHESS editors objected. There is no sane definition of "sports festival" that includes the chess world championship. Either the single-sport competitions should be removed from the category tree (no chess events were so categorized until recently) or the categories should be renamed so that single-sport events qualify for inclusion. (The only reason that chess editors have not removed these incorrect categories is the desire to avoid an edit war, but if this remains uncorrected I will remove the errant categories myself.) FWIW, I consider "sports festival" and "multi-sport event" to be synonymous, but the multi-sport event page is incorrect when it claims that multi-sport events must or even generally feature international teams. Many sports festivals, and in fact probably most, are local events composed of multiple individual sports. Quale (talk) 07:28, 19 November 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:Packs of actors[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. Some suggestions of renames are given - this can be done manually if wished. -Splash - tk 19:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I just created this category, after coming across some articles about sets of actors: Brat Pack (actors), Brit Pack (actors), Frat Pack, Rat Pack.
The articles all refer to terms devised by critics for a set of rising actors of a particular generation who work together or on similar projects. All the topics appear to me to be clearly notable.
That seems to me to be a viable basis for a category, but I am not so sure about the category's name: "pack" reflects the article titles, but sounds a little slangy. The closest equivalent I can find is Category:Literary circles, but literary society refers to an actual group of people rather than a label applied by critics to a set of contemporaries.
Any suggestions for a better name? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • hmmm Part of me wants to delete, as OC per shared name. The other part is wondering, do actors travel in packs? I always thought they moved in pods or shoals. Convince me why we should keep this cat at all?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply @Obi. The current title does indeed suggest that the common factor is a shared name, which would be grounds for deletion. However, if that was all that united them, I would not have created the category.
    For a moment, just pretend that there is no commonality of name. The substantial common factor is that each of these articles is about a group of rising film actors who have been widely described as a significant force in the cinema of that era. Isn't that a common WP:DEFINING characteristic? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I also found Wack Pack; Splat Pack; Brit_Pack_(artists); Action Pack (comics);Brat Pack (literary) and even Happy Madison Gang (currently redlink, but a few sources use this terminology). Perhaps there is scope for a broader category here, e.g. groups of artists who share performances/ideas/etc together or are working at the same time and that are identified by critics as such.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I had found most of those, but didn't include them because they didn't fit the rising-stars-of-this-era template of the others. I think that collaborative/idea-sharing groups are a rather different thing to these sets identified by journalists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unrelated groups of performers associated only because some journalist or another called them _____ Pack at some point and it stuck. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. It seems to me that JP's comments would be on the nail if this discussion was about categorising individual actors according this terminology. But it isn't.
    See my reply above, to Obi; this a category of artickes about the groups, all of which are notable memes in journalistic coverage of actors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This seems to me like having a category for people with the same surname. The various packs seem to have little in common. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I could see putting something in Rat pack about how all the other "packs" were named after the original, but otherwise this is the quintessential shared name category. Seyasirt (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although the category's contents give the impression that this is an instance of categorization by shared name, I think that the comparison to Category:Literary circles is more apt. The common characteristic is not the word "Pack" but the recognition by film critics that a defined group of actors shares a large body of work (usually in a particular genre). I think that the idea behind the category has merit, but a new title definitely is needed—what is the film equivalent of the word "literary"? -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something like Category:Ambiguous groups of actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a useful small category and is unlikely to ever be extended to other articles. It doesn't help that most of these "packs" are not even well-defined. But mostly, I do not think any reader will ever search for actors by which "Pack" they might have been a member. If they do, for example, want to know who was considered to be in the Rat Pack, they can look at the article, there is nothing linking these Pack actors together by any commonality except for a catchy nickname come up by a random journalist while writing up a profile. It doesn't help either that some of the actors who are identified with these Packs reject that they are a member. Just a historical item of novelty interest. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it is worth, these articles are on the "groups" of actors themselves, this is not a way of grouping articles on individual actors. On the issue of if these are "cinematic circles" like "literary circles", I would think a "Cinematic circle" would have to be a collection of film directors, not of actors. Actors have very little influence on the artistic content of their work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Liz. Largely a collection of similar showbiz journalism nicknames. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2014 (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:Northern 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: DELETE ALL. The weight of the dicussion is to delete, and the arguments for 'objecting' are not particularly convincing, especially ones based on factors other than reasonable encyclopedic operation. I would also note that perhaps these categories have been mostly emptied since this nomination, as they are all very sparsely populated, lending futher weight to their deletion. -Splash - tk 19:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have a robust Category:North America structure, and this subset of same is not needed. As you can see, it is poorly filled out compared to Category:North America, but I also don't think that filling it out similar to Category:North America would be an advantage, as it would just further double up the number of categories various sub-categories need to belong to. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly object - North America consists of three sub-continents: Caribbean, Central America, and Northern America. I do not see any reason why one of these three would be illegitimate. It is important to understand that this not an other stuff exists argument. The existence of the Northern America categories is very important for the organization of Wikipedia in general and specifically the geographic organization. North America is a robust continent because it stands on three pillars. Blowing one of the three away basically because of an I don't like it argument, takes the entire continent out of whack, as now some articles must be categorized under the parent and others under the child categories. As such, the proposal discriminates between North American countries and North Americans. gidonb (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're describing this as if it's really bad, but that's the current status quo. US/mexico/canada/etc are in "North American" categories. I don't see how you think this screws things up, as the "Northern America" scheme has never been developed, so we're not throwing anything away, we're just nipping something in the bud which is just likely to lead to confusion; as you can see the mass of wikipedia editors over the years has not adopted this scheme.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A status quo not because of conventions but because many grew up on One America continent and think that Central America is some kind of seam-zone between between North America and South America. The entire suggestion to lift the directories of just one of North-America's sub-continents is discriminatory, circular and an attempted daylight grab as the relevant projects were not even informed. gidonb (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same objection - Though I initially created the category, this was because of its related homonym main article and because of numerous reference to this three-parts division of North America (also implied for another related category: Latin America, whose Northern border is the South of Northern America, not the South of North America. It's true that not all languages are able to make this distinction. In French for example we only have "Amérique du Nord" for North America, and the translation "Amérique septentrionale" (for Northern America) is a bit fuzzy. But anyway we are in EN.WP here, and should keep the meaning of English (other wikis in other languages will have to adapt, and if they can't they won't have two categories but may use one meaning of the other). "Northern America" is attested in lots of economic data, including from the UN, the WTO, the Unesco, the OECD, the World Bank, the APEC, and even the European Union... verdy_p (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what about keeping just 'countries of northern America' -I really don't think we need to recreate the whole sub-grouping by theme of North America - eg education, health, society, culture, politics, geography, buildings, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We need all of these. Saying that Northern America is basically the same as North America and that only the smaller, less populous, and on average poorer regions need to be defined, sends out a terrible signal, next to plainly being inconsistent. My concern here is both on the efficiency and equity dimensions gidonb (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the objection, even though I can follow the nominator's intention to avoid redundancies. But it's true that we only have three options:
  1. keep all three subtrees of Category:North America, or
  2. dissolve all of the three into Category:North America, or
  3. dissolve Category:North America into the three subcategories
I tend to think that 2 and 3 wouldn't really work well, but what I'm sure of is that the current proposal to delete only one, but keep the others, won't work. --PanchoS (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem - if the whole scheme is kept and extended, it would mean reproducing hundreds more categories, that would then have to be replicated on hundreds of more articles and sub-categories. Look at Category:North_American_fairy_tales - we would have to reproduce this category as Category:Northern American fairy tales but include only the American category. It's basically duplicate work. The fact is, we almost never have a "North American" category that doesn't include at least the US/Canada/Mexico, but frequently these categories have nothing else in them I don't think "Northern America" is discussed as a unit to the same extent the Caribbean and Central America is, at least not to the extent "North America" is. There are over 400 "North American" categories: [1] and I really don't think the reader would be better served by replicating all or most of those categories with "Northern American" just to stick a few fewer things within.
Based on our currently used definition, Mexico is in none of the sub-groups.
Another problem is that Mexico, by our currently used definitions, is neither in Central America nor Northern America, so the scheme is missing a rather major country. I think the vagueness of "North America" - often meant to mean everything from Mexico north, or the more inclusive version which includes Central America, are both sufficient - e.g. the North America categories can do double duty without having to make a new separate continental split for 5 countries (3 of which are relatively minor). The bulk of our articles about "X in North America" are actually focused on Mexico-north definition, so ultimately we are using the dual-meaning of North America already, and a new "Northern America" scheme is not needed. Again, I'd be happy to change this nom to just keep Category:Northern American countries and Category:Northern America but I don't think we need to let a further tree blossom below, it's really duplicative and the existing cats do the job quite well for the reader. If we *don't* duplicate the whole category structure, we're confusing the reader, because they may think "Ah, there's culture in central america, but not in north america"? As such, we should remove it entirely. If you study the current contents of the "North American" categories, they are for the most part purely "Northern American" + Mexico. Again, we need to think of editors, for whom it may be relatively obvious that Belize would go in a central American category, but for whom it may not be obvious that the US should always go in a "Northern American" vs "North American" category - the result will be a constantly wrong category structure. the fact that Mexico is left out of Northern America is the killer for me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A final solution would be to do like they do Category:Books_about_North_America, where Caribbean and Central America are separated out, and put all of the books about US, Canada, Barbados into Category:Books about Northern America, leaving only Mexico in the "North America" category. Again, I frankly don't see the point - it's adding complexity and confusion (due to the dual meaning of north america which we're only interpreting one way), and leaving Mexico out across the board as the only member of "North America" categories would also be really bizarre.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mexico is wonderful, but not a global exception. UN regions in the Americas:
DARK BLUE: Northern America
LIGHT BLUE: Caribbean
GREEN: Central America
YELLOW: South America
1. The returning theme, that the directories for two of the the three North American subcontinents are a blessing, while the directories for the third one are "a problem", is discriminatory in nature. If directories for the Caribbean and Central America are legitimate, why wouldn't the third out of three regions be just as legitimate? In the English language Wikipedia, North America is a continent. Northern America (in the northeast and northwest), the Caribbean (in the southeast), and Central America (in the southwest) are its subcontinents. Now, it is true that North America is sometimes used to represent Northern America. Most articles and templates say North America and South America, while others erroneously say Latin America and North America. In these cases the text should be corrected to Latin America and Northern America, as Latin America and North America counts at least Central America twice. Saying that this doesn't matter and that Northern America and North America are essentially the same discounts the countries and discriminates against the people of Central America and the Caribbean.
2. The other point you raise is Mexican exceptionalism. According the UN geoscheme Mexico is a regular country in Central America. As such, it is a regular country in North America. gidonb (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Northern America" is something that I don't think I've ever seen, well, anywhere else; if not a variation on WP:SYNTH it's certainly WP:NEO. The actually used definitions are "North America" and "Central America", with "Caribbean" as part of the latter, and Mexico usually classified as "North America" but potentially sortable in both. (The real sticking point would be Trinidad and Tobago). - 00:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs)
    • Anon, at en.wiki, Northern America is a regular subcontinent of North America. It is a common and long used division (since 1755 at least) to which WP:SYNTH and WP:NEO clearly do not apply. gidonb (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion as no need to create hundreds (thousands?) of "Northern America" subcategories Hugo999 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order not to create categories, we need to delete them, and undermine the organization of North America? Why is Northern America different from the other two subcontinents for whom the directories seem not to be a problem? gidonb (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Northern America" is largely a geographic term with limited cultural, economic, and political significance. Information on Wikipedia and in the real world generally is not organized along the geographic boundaries of Northern America. For example, we have approximately 1,000 article titles that contain "North America(n)", about 600 that contain "Central America(n)", and about 1,000 that contain "Caribbean". This is in sharp contrast to "Northern America(n)", which appears in only 19 article titles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you know stats can be very misleading. Some of the North America entries deal exclusively with Northern America, sometimes even alongside entries for Latin America that includes other parts of North America. Also many of the Northern-America articles have Canada-United States and derivatives in the name. These are the only independent countries in Northern America. gidonb (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really a real world method of division. I have seen attempts to speak of a dichotomy of Latin America/Anglo America, but how the Caribbean sorts out in that is anyone's guess, let alone Quebec or Texas south of the Nueces, which has always had a Hispanic majority.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All categorization comes with challenges, especially the cultural categorization that you talk about. Luckily, the subcontinents of North America -this proposal wants to throw out the directories for one of merely three- are not purely cultural, but also take into account physical, economic, and historic geographies. gidonb (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No case for deletion was made and the proposer seems to semi-retreat. Comments by those who supported were incorrect, to say the least. Northern America is an important world region and subcontinent of North America. Geographic organization is a serious matter. It is not sufficient to scratch your head and say: "I never heard of something, so let's delete it". This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If you use North America both to complete Latin America and South America to the America's, then something is very inconsistent. Check current geographic definitions or consult the geography project to figure out what. gidonb (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
North America is the subcontinent, not Northern America. Mexico is certainly part of the North American subcontinent. North America completes South America. Latin America is a cultural grouping, not relevant here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the English-language Wikipedia (and at many others) we consider North America to be a continent and we do not consider it to be a subcontinent of itself. This nomination is really bizarre. Maybe time to completely withdraw? gidonb (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bushranger. Too uncommon a division not to cause confusion. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it the dual usage of North America for the continent and its own subcontinent (!) that causes confusion? Northern America is one of the major World Regions[2] and one of three subcontinents of North America. The other two subcontinents -which as are actually lower (!) in the UN hierarchy but at the same level at Wikipedia- were not nominated, potentially taking the geographic organization of North America out of balance if this nomination is accepted and further confusing users. gidonb (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This idea of "Northern America" sounds like a UN invention, which we are in no way bound by. Indeed, it doesn't seem to have much adoption outside of the UN at all. I'm a North American, and I always learned that North America consisted of Canada, the United States, Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. I suspect the majority of our readers think the same way. --BDD (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of questions. If Northern America is one of the regions of North America (i.e. Northern America is entirely contained within North America), can there possibly be a contradiction between being Northern American and North American? Also, if the concept has been around since the 18th century, can it be an invention of the UN? The use of Northern America overcomes the dual usage of North America, also at Wikipedia, of a region within itself. Its use means that Wikipedia does not need to contradict itself, not that you have to redefine yourself. gidonb (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While still maintaining that "Northern America" is a silly concept, no, I'm not saying that there's such a contradiction. If you think I've said so, perhaps I didn't write as clearly as I should have, or perhaps you just misunderstood. Certainly I shouldn't've called "Northern America" a UN invention per se, but my overall point—that this is not a common geographical subdivision, regardless of whether or not the UN uses it—remains. --BDD (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2014 (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/2013_November_15&oldid=1074811689"