Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 15

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

February 15[edit]

Category:Children reared abroad by missionary parents[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) 02:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Nothing here identifies that this is defining for the individuals. If you look at the creation comment on the subcategory which contains the vast majority of the content, it was This is an interesting and distinctive group of accomplished individuals. Not a ringing endorsement of being defining. If kept it should be renamed to Category:Missionary kids to match the main article. Category:Americans reared abroad by missionary parents will be added once it is renamed for a different reason. Also how long does a child need to be reared abroad to be defining? That also makes inclusion here subjective. Is one day sufficient or 1 year or 2 years or... Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added Category:Americans reared abroad by missionary parents to the nomination, as it's speedy renaming was opposed. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard to say For some of these people, it does seem defining - see Pearl S. Buck, where it mentions her missionary upbringing in the lede. But for most I would suppose it isn't that defining. I'm on the fence. If kept, I would however delete rename the children category - none of the contents were really notable *as* children. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You could probably rename the "Children" to "People" to make it more like the other category. I don't think it's meant to be notable children as much as it's supposed to be notable people with a source-(defined as important somehow) childhood in the same way as Category:Military brats (who weren't famous as kids but were part of a source-recognized experience as kids).__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, sorry I didn't look at my comment carefully enough; I thought there was a children and "people" category - you're right if kept this should be "people". We should look carefully at Military brats too, fwiw. Still on the fence.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Category:Americans reared abroad by missionary parents is kept, than it should be renamed to Category:American people reared abroad by missionary parents, as Category:Americans redirects to Category:American people. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both in general this is not defining for people. We do not need to categorize by every possible characteristic of a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Category:Missionary kids deals with a recognised phenomenon. I suspect that this may have been an older name for the category. These people will be notable for what they have done as adults. However their background as missionary kids is likely to be a notable characteristic - they will have eben reared in an alien environment, where their parents had a particular role within the host community. Alternatively, they may have spent long periods away from theri parents in order to be educated. Both are likely to affect theri character as adults. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How long away do they have to be for this to be defining? Is a missionary from the US in Canada in an alien environment? I think that any inclusion criteria would be extremely subjective and hence not appropriate for a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both and all/most other "what people did before they became notable" categories (apart from the special case of year-of-birth). There are thousands of facts that different articles may state about people's childhood/parents (had an older sister, was bullied at school, was orphaned, grew up on a farm, walked to school, witnessed violence between parents, was a Cub Scout ...). See essay WP:DNWAUC.
This fact about a person may be mentioned in an article and may even be in the lead of a few articles (e.g. if it has direct relevance to what the person later became notable for), but it's not suitable for categorization. If anyone thinks that readers are likely to want to find articles about people who had missionary parents then they can create a list article (which can provide more info, have references etc). Every branch of the category tree has costs (maintenance effort, watchlist noise etc) and, IMO, the cost of childhood/parentage categories outweighs any benefit they might provide. DexDor (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC) (spelling) DexDor (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are very good points and really should be considered by all commenters. Relisting might well be in order with such good comments being made.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both ; DexDor sets out my position more eloquently than I would. Cats like this have a way of finding their way into articles without reliable sources to back them up, since they seem innocuous and often fly under the radar of editors looking at watchlists. There is an existing Missionary kids article. To the extent that this status is actually a cognizable characteristic, it is better handles as a list -- with references -- in that article. If it becomes unwieldily long, it can always be split out to its own article and pointed to via {{main}}. TJRC (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re "under the radar of editors looking at watchlists" - In some cases a totally inappropriate category tag added to an article (e.g. an African tribe being categorized as a Māori plant name or redlink cats) is not removed until many months/edits later; article editors are often (not unreasonably) more interested in the content of an article than its categories. Back when changes to interwiki links clogged up my watchlist I generally accepted iw edits without checking; many editors probably have a similar attitude to categories. DexDor (talk) 06:33, 8 March 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:Bible conspiracy theories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. If the Da Vinchi code is an actual biblical conspiracy theory than so is Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade. The line between conspiracy theory and religion is blurry. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:05, 15 February 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:Films featuring Nazi occultism[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: listify. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Occultism in fiction is not a category; I previously removed The Boys from Brazil from this list so I can tell there is nothing that actually makes these works similar to one another other than they have magic nazis. People who use magic is a category; perhaps we should call them magic Nazis? None of these examples specifically deals with the occultism the Nazi's actually uniquely believed in, stuff like Vrill or white Jesus. Really the category makes as much sense as having nazi super scientist films. The examples only list nazi's dealing with other mythologies or just generic magic like vampires and were wolves. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then be bold remove the ones that aren't. Don't blame the category for incorrect articles contained within it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the films were incorrectly categorized. They do indeed feature Nazi occultism. The problem is that simply featuring Nazi occultism is not sufficiently defining unless the film is primarily about Nazi occultism. Powers T 13:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. It's a topic of interest, but the categorization is not defining for all of the films in the category. I suppose one could argue for a category of films that are primarily about Nazi occultism, but I can't seem to find an appropriate supercategory for such a page. Powers T 15:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify I agree that listifying would be a great substitute to having this questionable category. Liz Read! Talk! 15:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Occultism is a wide enough subject to include more than references to vril. Dimadick (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or listify. This is clearly an interesting phenomenon, unless it is wholly unhistoric; yes I know it is fiction, not history. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 26 February 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:People from Mount Morris, Illinois[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 4 entries. ...William 17:53, 15 February 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:People from Jenkins Township, Pennsylvania[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 16:52, 15 February 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.

WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles[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. These can always be changed back if the names of the article and/or Wikiproject changes, but as of now, everything Beyoncé Knowles-related uses the name "Beyoncé", and there doesn't appear to be any movement on the Wikiproject page to challenge that, so for the time being the categories can follow. While it's true that the renaming of the Wikiproject was not pursuant to a discussion (and it would have been ideal if it had been), there was an extensive discussion on the article talk page and a consensus was identified and implemented; therefore these category renames could be viewed as part of a unified C2D category tree renaming "immediately following a page move discussion which had explicit consensus to rename." Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
31 sub-categories
Nominator's rationale. This is a procedural nomination after a contested speedy. For now I am neutral about whether this is appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at speedy
      • Oppose This is a rename that was contested and defeated 8 times on the article. This attempt to ramrod, which was done with too few days even though there was opposition is totally unacceptable. There needs to be a consideration of the whole history of how a person is referred to, not just knee-jerk attempts to impose a rename from temporary shifts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Object the project was moved without discussion. The project needs to have been informed and assent to renaming itself. There is no provision requiring that the WikiProject be named exactly the same as the main article. There is no discussion at the wikiproject indicating it wished to rename itself. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, that's an argument I accept. I didn't know that there was no discussion at the project page before it was moved, I just noticed that it was, so per CD2 these categories should be moved too. As for John Pack Lambert's arguments, there was a consensus to move the main article (Beyoncé). It wasn't a temporary shift, but a well-argumented proposal that was finally supported by the majority, so I don't know why does he have a problem with that. Mayast (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Support There is no policy that says as a main article is renamed then categories must follow, but to keep the categories named in a way the consensus on the main article identified as not common usage would be redundant. John Pack Lambert—your argument isn't making sense, we should oppose the renaming of the categories because of past consensuses, despite this being overturned by a newer consensus? Can we stick to the pertinent policies WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MONONYM, etc. please? —JennKR | ☎ 14:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @JennKR: this is not a place for debate. A speedy renaming may be rejected if admins do not believe that it meets the speedy criteria, or if any editor objects.
        The only relevant policy here is the speedy renaming policy, and talk of other policies belongs at a full WP:CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @BrownHairedGirl: That makes sense, we'll take it there. Thank you for clarifying the difference between speedy/normal propositions. —JennKR | ☎ 01:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Oppose. This isn't complicated. C2D applies only if the related article's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial—either due to longstanding stability at that particular name or immediately following a page move discussion which had explicit consensus to rename.
        That isn't the case, and now that this speedy renaming has been opposed by at least 1 editor, it will not proceed. This needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        So Talk:Beyoncé#Requested move 9 doesn't constitute "explicit consensus to rename"? The closing administrator would probably beg to differ. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Beyoncé has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have Beyoncé, Category:Beyoncé and Wikipedia:WikiProject Beyoncé so, for consistency, Category:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles should be renamed. DexDor (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D. Adabow (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose the WikiProject was moved without discussion. I would like to see that an actual discussion occur at the wikiproject showing that it supports its new name. If there is insufficient support, the WikiProject bold move should be reverted. At any rate, projects should never be renamed without support, and categories should not be renamed as "speedy" on the basis of bold moves of things that should require support for renaming. WikiProjects are not articles, they are collaborative discussion groups, non-collaborative changes to them should not be propagated just because they happened. They should instead gain acceptance from the members of the wikiproject. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You "would like to see that an actual discussion occur at the wikiproject", but you've come bleating here about it rather than starting a discussion there - how's that for following procedure? Do you have any substantive reason why this category should not be renamed? DexDor (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I did not propose the CFRspeedy (2) I did not proose the CFD (3) I did not boldly move the project; the nonconsultative issue was noted at the CFRspeedy, and the nominator agreed it was a problem. Therefore the Speedy proposer or the CFD proposer should have 'asked the wikiproject' prior to filing this. How is it I am a "bleater" when I note the nonconsultative nature that his move is based upon for something that is used for a collaborative process (a wikiproject)? Why does it fall upon ME to ask the wikiproject? It obviously should be something the CFD nominator or the CFRspeedy nominator or the bold mover should have done, to establish that the project actually likes their new name. They are the ones proposing a name to a previously established collaborative name. WPCOUNCIL says names of wikiprojects are at the discretion of their members, and the members of this project were not consulted on their rename. Therefore the project and hence category renaming is procedural poor. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That comment does not give either (1) any evidence of a procedural flaw in this CFD or (2) any reason why the existing name is better than the proposed name. DexDor (talk) 19:11, 16 February 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.

Categories People from town x in Kosovo[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. I think everyone would probably all agree that category redirects on the nominated categories will be appropriate here, so I will create those. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These articles have recently been moved and the categories should follow suit for consistency. Regards IJA (talk) 14:54, 15 February 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:Worldwide Olympic sponsors[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: listify and delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Worldwide Olympic sponsors to article TBD (Note: There is already a list for 2012 here)
Nominator's rationale: We shouldn't categorize companies by what events they have sponsored - it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic (e.g. Olympic sponsorship is not even mentioned in the General Electric article). There are much better ways to categorize companies - e.g. by industry and by country. DexDor (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given our current category schema, I think you're right. Powers T 14:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC) (category creator)[reply]
  • delete not defining of these companies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify not defining for the company. The list can indicate the time period when the company was a worldwide sponsor. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:55, 19 February 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:Important Intangible Cultural Properties of South Korea[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The eponymous article should also be upmerged to Category:Heritage registers in South Korea
Nominator's rationale: That a particular form of dance, poetry etc has been recognized as "important" by an organization (even a government) is not a good way to categorize topics (mainly because it's a form of categorization that could put some articles in many categories and others in none). Other problems include that it may not be WP:DEFINING in all cases and there may not be a 1-to-1 correspondence between what received the designation and the scope of the Wikipedia article. Like other awards recipients (which is, in effect, what this is) it's very suitable for a list, but not suitable for a category. For information: there is a list at Important Intangible Cultural Properties of Korea.
For info: The rest of Category:Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity has similar issues (e.g. being designated as "Intangible..." is not defining for things like Falconry), but I intend to CFD those categories separately after this CFD completes (it's a bit too complex for a single CFD discussion because the list articles etc mean that it's not a straight deletion). DexDor (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep We have a whole, complex tree at Category:Heritage_registers_by_country. At the extreme end, we have Category:World Heritage Sites, which I think is an example of a tree we'd like to keep - these are sites with recognized global importance by a global authority. OTOH, a house called "historic" by the Springfield Village local historical association may not merit a category. Somewhere in between, we draw the line. I would generally draw the line at nation-states, and the highest-echelons of objects so-designated by such nation states. The heritage registers by country shows the diversity there, and while some of them could be deleted perhaps, this Korean one seems to be at the national level and is the highest level of "award" given to such intangibles, and would thus pass my bar for worthy-of-categorization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Heritage_registers_by_country contains lots of lists and articles about the heritage registers themselves; that's fine. The intent of this CFD is to avoid categorizing things like drinks (e.g. Beopju), types of furniture, forms of art etc by an award/designation they have received. DexDor (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at it, I see things like this: Category:Cultural_Heritage_of_Andorra, which contain objects. The only difference here is, we're talking about intangibles, but if the national govt has decided to make a national list of intangibles in need of protection, and we have a head article that is sourced on same, I think it's not fair to say "No, you can't classify an art form, but you can classify a building" - if that's how the governments classify them, then why not follow sources? Again, this isn't a random award, this is a national-level designation that this thing is part of the core cultural heritage; it is in my mind equivalent to Category:Natural_Monuments_of_South_Korea more or less.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This category has a main article and many other articles. These are what have been designated 'Important Intangible Cultural Properties of South Korea' by South Korea; it is not up to WP to denigrate their national selection because other countries choose to honor different things. Hmains (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hmains - David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 21 February 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:Indigenous peoples of North America topics[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/rename as proposed. If a user wants to create some "society" subcategories, as discussed, that seems to be supported by the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-standard naming (e.g. the article about Paris can be found in the France category, not in the France topics category). For general info on category naming see WP:CATNAME. DexDor (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. These stem from the longstanding (since 2008) Category:Native American topics. "Indigenous peoples of North America" are not a nation-state like France, so wouldn't have a parallel category tree. "Indigenous peoples" are neither a government or a geographical region, although governmental and geographical articles fall under the "Indigenous peoples" aegis. These categories follow WP:CATNAME protocols; i.e. it's neutral, plural, etc. Many "Native American" categories were set up to include all Indigenous peoples of North America; however, a Wikipedia-wide consensus has developed over the years that defines "Native Americans" as Native Americans in the United States. The Category:Indigenous peoples of North America is populated by subcats based on nation-state and cultural region (since many tribes span multiple countries). The bulk of the articles that are in subcats are for specific tribes/ethnic groups, then there are culturally-related articles (which include languages), and "topics" cover articles not-specifically culturally-related, which includes legal and institutional articles.
There definitely needs to be some massive cleaning up of these articles (i.e. "Native American" articles in IPNA categories), which I can work on after this discussion closes. Hopefully more people that edit Indigenous articles and use these categories can comment. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Category:Native American topics doesn't help to clarify what a "topics" category is - for one thing, that category is both a parent and a child of Category:Native American people which is wrong (see WP:SUBCAT). I'm not sure I understand the rest of your comment, but "... cover articles not-specifically culturally-related, which includes ..." suggests that these are miscellaneous categories. DexDor (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, as I stated above, there definitely needs to be house-cleaning. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Most common means of resolving problem: "Category:Foo" or "Category:Foo peoples" = ethnic group/tribe/nation articles; "Category:Foo people" = individual biographies. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Category:FOO was the consensus long ago, also with main articles for each group....then someone decided that they all must have "people" appended; I agree about "peoples" in most cases but if we don't add an English term to the endonym in the first place there's no need for that; in Canada the "authentic" endonyms are now standard fare, though not in all cases (Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish, Syilx/Okanagan and others) though on the US side anglicized names are more common (Nisqually vs. "sqwaliabs" or whatever it is in Lushootseed). This is why I was trying to build that table of ethno articles/category names to try and come up with a guideline that would prevent people upsetting applecarts with the +people confusion issue and others.Skookum1 (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the categories in question and stay focused. This discussion is about merging Category:Indigenous peoples of North America topics to Category:Indigenous peoples of North America. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
you got me distracted by mentioning Mucogee people......so if the issue here from your end is keeping the "topics" categories separate, what would fall under those as opposed to being under the "indigenous peoples of North America" category - I can see the latter including subcats for governments, reserves/reservations/communities, individuals, institutions etc and that e.g. art, mythology (hate that term in this context), law/legal, archaeology etc would then be in the 'topics' category? Or would the "peoples" hierarchy be only for individuals, ethno articles, governments/institutions and everything else in the topics category? Is there a need for a "topics" hierarchy? Or would tribe/people-specific topics still be in subcats of the people categories as they are now e.g. Category:Kwakwaka'wakw art and the indigenous topics categories be only for things spanning many tribes/peoples? Re the Great Plains one, I don't see why a rename is necessary when Category:Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains can just be created; note there btw that "Great Plains" is a USian formation and in the context of the cultural division in Canada we generally use "Plains Indians".
Is there a vote for WTF?? I'm feeling like I wandered into a discussion about "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" Not to be too snarky, I hate seeing over-categorization. Seems like Foo topics is just silly and redundant and should be renamed simply Foo. Only when there are more than 10 or 15 articles in Foo" do we really need a subcat. From there, Foo people categories could be split into Foo individuals and Foo people - for the articles on tribal nations, culture groups, etc., with appropriate instructions for proper category diffusion. We could also have artiles lick Foo culture, Foo religion Foo history and legal articles etc... Maybe before we get all charged up on "topics," we should look at how to SIMPLIFY this situation. Montanabw(talk)
DexDor (talk · contribs)'s point that miscellaneous categories are discouraged is valid (something I was not previously aware of). The "Native American categories" (such as Category:Native American topics which I didn't create) are usually more heavily populated than the the "Indigenous peoples" cats, being older. My concern is separating the categories for the ethnic groups/tribes from the legal/social/etc. cats (just so they aren't overwhelming and are actually useful to the reader wanting to find related topics). You are probably correct that all the "topics" articles could be eliminated and the articles therein be reclassified into "history" or other subcats. The South American Indigenous topics cats (e.g. Category:Indigenous topics of the Amazon) could probably all be collectively renamed possibly to law/politics/society. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
The categorization structure used for most/all countries is a "Fooish society" category with subcats for "Fooish people", "Law in Fooland" etc. Is there any reason why such a structure (with appropriate modification if necessary) can't be used for these categories ? DexDor (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to "Society". Right, it's just a matter of determining what those subcats should be. But if "society" can used; that'll work, since some of the article under topics are political and not really legal. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[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.

user asm[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 2014 MAR 12 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:User asm-1 to Category:User ASM-1 for {{User Assembly Language-1}} + redirected {{User asm-1}}
  2. Category:User asm-2 to Category:User ASM-2 for {{User Assembly Language-2}} + redirected {{User asm-2}}
  3. Category:User asm-3 to Category:User ASM-3 for {{User Assembly Language-3}} + redirected {{User asm-3}}
  4. Category:User asm-4 to Category:User ASM-4 for {{User Assembly Language-4}} + redirected {{User asm-4}}
  5. Category:User asm-5 to Category:User ASM-5 for {{User Assembly Language-5}} + redirected {{User asm-5}}
  6. Category:User asm    to Category:User ASM    for {{User Assembly Language}}     + redirected {{User asm}}
  7. Category:User Assembly language should be empty soon (cache issue for CyberXRef/Footer)

Background, {{#babel:…|asm-X|…}} doesn't work as expected, asm is the ISO code for the Assamese language. Somebody started to tackle this mess with User Assembly Language templates and a new Category:User Assembly language (lower case L here), but it wasn't ready. The old templates still existed (now redirected), e.g., {{User asm-4}} and {{User Assembly Language-4}} disagreed about an expert vs. a expert. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:18, 15 February 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:Panama City Pirates 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Appears to be the same franchise, which counts as WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per precedent. Franchise changed names. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays became the Tampa Bay Rays and both have categories....William 12:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That strikes me as odd. It's the same franchise, with complete continuity between the two. And it means that, absurdly, some players will be in both categories. I can't think of any reason why we'd want that. Powers T 14:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WilliamJE, precedent doesn't apply with association football/soccer clubs. Now if there was something regarding a short business layoff and coming back with a new name that would keep us from merging this category, then perhaps I'd reconsider. But I can't find anything regarding that. The guidelines put forth on WP:FOOTY regarding this area are different than what we have with American football, Baseball, Basketball and Hockey. – Michael (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, the WP:CONSENSUS is that if it's the same team with a different name, then we categorise at the current/most-recent name and use category redirects from the other names. If there really are both "Devil Rays" and "Rays" categories, that WP:OTHERSTUFF needs to be merged. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there is plenty of consensus/precedent (in soccerball at least) that one club/franchise has one article and has one set of categories. GiantSnowman 18:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per consensus and standard procedure. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename contrary to the above assertions, this is actually what the precedent says to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 19 February 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/2014_February_15&oldid=1138399202"