Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials[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.
Object - While the American South is probably the most common use of "confederate", I do not think it is the only one. Renaming the list article is probably unobjectionable, but categories with imprecise names are liable to pick up articles unrelated to their intended subject, the classic case being Birmingham (AL or UK). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From personal experience. As a child, I read Lost in the Andes! (1949), (in Greek translation), where a major plot point is that the natives learned the English language from an explorer from Birmingham. I always assumed that this was a reference to Birmingham, the second most populous city in the United Kingdom. It took me over 20 years to learn that there is a more obscure city called Birmingham in Alabama. After checking with sources about the English version of the story, I found out that the natives in the story are speaking in a dialect of Southern American English. Dimadick (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It would leave the category ambiguous, as there are too many other examples of "Confederate" (see Confederacy). In fact the most recent example I saw was earlier today: a Prince Edward Island license plate bearing the motto "Birthplace of Confederation", referring to the Charlottetown Conference of 1864 and Canadian Confederation (it's an interesting coincidence that 1864 was during the brief existence of the Confederate States of America). Mojoworker (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2017 (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:WP:SMALLCATs for just one person from each town. As always, every town does not automatically get one of these the moment one person from there has an article to file in it -- people are categorized by county, not by individual town, until there are at least five people with articles to file in a new town subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2017 (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: It does not help Wikipedia to categorize both those "interested" in reading as well as those who "enjoy" reading. While I'm extremely skeptical of the merge target as well (What topics could such users be reasonably expected to collaborate on? There are so many different topics under the scope of reading it seems entirely useless to categorize those "interested" in reading) a category for those who "enjoy" reading is that much worse in that it both fails to fall in line with established naming conventions and does not differentiate itself in any meaningful way, insofar as improvement to the encyclopedia, from its "interested in" counterpart. VegaDark (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, delete per nom's rationale. Should hunt down any more of these. Probably created in error, not realizing the other existed. I don't share nom's skepticism about the merge target. An easy-to-imagine collaborative purpose would be for WikiProject Books, WikiProject Novels, WikiProject News, etc., to periodically look for people in this category who have not yet been invited to participate in the wikiproject. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 17:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, no discernable difference in scope. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Same topic. One has less than ten users, the other over 4,000. Though to be honest, I would expect most editors in Wikipedia to be interested in reading various types of books and comic books. Barely literate people don't bother to write articles about topics which require research. Dimadick (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There's no significant distinction in meaning between "enjoying" reading and being "interested in" reading. I do see VegaDark's point about the target, however — there'd be more value in categories which specifically identify a person's specific reading interests (e.g. Canadian literature, British literature, poetry, history, etc.) than there is in one that just generally identifies the user as a person who reads. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2017 (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.
