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:Rename. Upcoming is a bit ambiguous. Are these planned series which may or may not get produced? Or are they in production series? Based on the discussion a reasonable result would be to split out this category in some way. Consideration should also be given to creating a list to explain the actual status for these. Also how far in the future is upcoming?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - this category serves the function of grouping articles for TV series that have garnered enough attention before their debut to warrant articles. It's a holding category for articles for later re-categorizing into other appropriate categories. A centralized depository for such articles is helpful to the project.
Buck Winston (
talk)
04:59, 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.
Category:American people
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.
Oppose. I'm usually one for the other argument - in favour of standardization over common use. But American people is well understood to refer to citizens of the United States.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
15:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename toCategory:People of the United States. Hurrah for the nominator!! A long overdue rename. This is a case where Wikimedia Commons has always had the
correctsysteminplace. Making it explicit which state the category applies to avoids mis-categorisation. Eg. I don't know how many times I have discovered Bermuda-, Gibraltar-, Falkland Island- etc. related cats in the "British" biography trees, which Wikipedia afficionados know are only for UK-related biographies, but which a well-meaning non-Wikipedian will often assume relates to British passport holders (many of whom are not UK citizens). Clearly stating the state in the category name allows for crisp, verifiable categorisation.--
Mais oui! (
talk)
17:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
keep as is To match common usage, worldwide. To match agreed upon usage in WP. To match its main article
Americans. To match its hundreds/thousands of subcategories in the category tree of which this is the top. To match the form found in nearly every one of its sibling categories in
Category:People by nationality except for the 2 or 3 exceptions noted by nominator. 'United States' is used to refer to the country, not the citizens of the country.
Hmains (
talk)
23:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming, but if a rename happens then it ought to be "from" rather than "of"; we use "from" for existing countries and "of" for former countries. (If that was intentional, then oppose as
WP:CRYSTAL because the US has not broken up yet.) The usage of "American" is very clear and predominant, see
WP:COMMONNAME, and there is no need to rename this and all its sub-cats such as those in
Category:American people by occupation. The precedents given by the nominator required disambiguation; this does not. –
FayenaticLondon09:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment A study shows we use "of" for countries and "from" for lower level political units. There is no reason why past countries should be the limit to of, there is no reason not to use it with present countries. Fayentic london is making up historical differentiation where none is intended and then trying to make an issue where none exists. Of is just as acceptable for present countries as past ones, and there is no good reason for the attempt to limit of to the past.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This was a bad idea 5 years ago, and it remains a bad idea. "American people" is overwhelmingly understood to mean "United States people", and the latter phrase is not typically used.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:40, 27 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:The Soldiers
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. Typically, eponymous categories are created when there are an array of articles to populate it. With just two subcats of articles, a "see also cat" hatnote should suffice here. Album covers are not articles and are on the album articles, so the subcat is not an aid to readers. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:16, 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.
Category:The Wanted members
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. Per the parent category,
Category:Musicians by band, categories shouldn't be created if only one member of the band has an article, and in this case, none of them do, as they all redirect to the main article,
The Wanted, making this rather unnecessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:05, 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.
Category:German West Africa
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 the category header opens "German West Africa, in and of itself, is and was not an actual geopolitical entity". This makes no sense. Togo and Kamerron were distinct German possesions in Africa, and there is no reason to group these three possesions together in a way to exclude German East Africa. There is no reason to have this level of categorization.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:37, 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.
Category:Former Spanish colonies
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.
Oppose. I agree that these were components of the Spanish Empire, but they were colonies of Spain, not colonies of the Spanish Empire empire. The lead sentence of
Spanish Empire makes this point rather clearly: "The Spanish Empire comprised territories and colonies administered by the Spanish Crown..." Accordingly, the current category name is valid, but the proposed rename would be inaccurate. --
Orlady (
talk)
23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Support revised with the Former included. The former is useful clarification, especially as categories often come without context.
CMD (
talk)
15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)reply
As usual, Hmains makes an excellent point. This is one of many categories with the "Former Fooish colonies" naming pattern. Thank goodness someone is paying attention to context! --
Orlady (
talk)
04:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Stop the procrastiantionism' There is no reason that this nomination should not be considered on its merits. Procrastinationism makes no sense. There are good arguments in existence here, and people have participated and argued the merits at hand. There is no reason to put off a decision other than the known fact that a mass nomination will take more effort and so is unlikely to happen. Moves for a mass nomination amount to an attempt by a mionority to force their will on others by procedural sleight of hand. When people bring up issues, they should be considered on their merits, and not procrastinated by procedural slieghts of hand.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:15, 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.
Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Detroit
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 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.
Apollo gifts categories
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 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:States and territories by year of establishment
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. This nomination potentially has an effect on at least 100 subcategories, so a greater consensus would need to be reached for change.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. The propsed name makes it clear that this is for things greater than populated places, but allows a large amount of latitude in what is actually put here, which makes sense for by year established categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I doubt that we can have an English subcategory for this, because it is uncertain when most English counties were created. The exception is the metropolitan counties created in 1974, none of which have a council countil any longer. I am not sure that this is a useful category at all - Listify and Delete?. I have to say that I regard these annual categories as a menace: most need merging by decade or century to be useful. Even then, in the Old World, there is almost always something that came before. The "establishment" may thus depend on its ruler having been granted a particular title, or such like.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment It is very clear when most countries were created. Can you dispute when the Soviet Union was created, or when Michigan became a state? There is a usefullness in the by year of creation categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)reply
rename per nom of what is left of the nomination as of this date/time. This will then match the parent category
Category:Territorial entities and several of its siblings. There is no reason to come up with a differnt name and none different has been suggested.
Hmains (
talk)
05:41, 21 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:Community of interest
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.
Question, leaning toward keep: why does it seem bizarre? The present contents might not belong there (and it needs to be renamed to "Communities of interest"), but articles such as
Furry fandom or
Esperantist would be appropriate members of this category.
Nyttend (
talk)
04:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Agree entirely. The creator seemed to be looking for a parent for
Category:Works by interest (created 23:47, 3 November 2012) and made this (created 23:47, 3 November 2012) - he works quickly. Now there is no connection between
Community of interest and a work, IMO. I would have no objection to "Communities of interest" with some appropriate contents added and the present subcats removed altogether.
Oculi (
talk)
11:17, 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Upcoming is a bit ambiguous. Are these planned series which may or may not get produced? Or are they in production series? Based on the discussion a reasonable result would be to split out this category in some way. Consideration should also be given to creating a list to explain the actual status for these. Also how far in the future is upcoming?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - this category serves the function of grouping articles for TV series that have garnered enough attention before their debut to warrant articles. It's a holding category for articles for later re-categorizing into other appropriate categories. A centralized depository for such articles is helpful to the project.
Buck Winston (
talk)
04:59, 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.
Category:American people
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.
Oppose. I'm usually one for the other argument - in favour of standardization over common use. But American people is well understood to refer to citizens of the United States.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
15:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename toCategory:People of the United States. Hurrah for the nominator!! A long overdue rename. This is a case where Wikimedia Commons has always had the
correctsysteminplace. Making it explicit which state the category applies to avoids mis-categorisation. Eg. I don't know how many times I have discovered Bermuda-, Gibraltar-, Falkland Island- etc. related cats in the "British" biography trees, which Wikipedia afficionados know are only for UK-related biographies, but which a well-meaning non-Wikipedian will often assume relates to British passport holders (many of whom are not UK citizens). Clearly stating the state in the category name allows for crisp, verifiable categorisation.--
Mais oui! (
talk)
17:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
keep as is To match common usage, worldwide. To match agreed upon usage in WP. To match its main article
Americans. To match its hundreds/thousands of subcategories in the category tree of which this is the top. To match the form found in nearly every one of its sibling categories in
Category:People by nationality except for the 2 or 3 exceptions noted by nominator. 'United States' is used to refer to the country, not the citizens of the country.
Hmains (
talk)
23:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming, but if a rename happens then it ought to be "from" rather than "of"; we use "from" for existing countries and "of" for former countries. (If that was intentional, then oppose as
WP:CRYSTAL because the US has not broken up yet.) The usage of "American" is very clear and predominant, see
WP:COMMONNAME, and there is no need to rename this and all its sub-cats such as those in
Category:American people by occupation. The precedents given by the nominator required disambiguation; this does not. –
FayenaticLondon09:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment A study shows we use "of" for countries and "from" for lower level political units. There is no reason why past countries should be the limit to of, there is no reason not to use it with present countries. Fayentic london is making up historical differentiation where none is intended and then trying to make an issue where none exists. Of is just as acceptable for present countries as past ones, and there is no good reason for the attempt to limit of to the past.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This was a bad idea 5 years ago, and it remains a bad idea. "American people" is overwhelmingly understood to mean "United States people", and the latter phrase is not typically used.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:40, 27 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:The Soldiers
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. Typically, eponymous categories are created when there are an array of articles to populate it. With just two subcats of articles, a "see also cat" hatnote should suffice here. Album covers are not articles and are on the album articles, so the subcat is not an aid to readers. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:16, 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.
Category:The Wanted members
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. Per the parent category,
Category:Musicians by band, categories shouldn't be created if only one member of the band has an article, and in this case, none of them do, as they all redirect to the main article,
The Wanted, making this rather unnecessary. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:05, 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.
Category:German West Africa
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 the category header opens "German West Africa, in and of itself, is and was not an actual geopolitical entity". This makes no sense. Togo and Kamerron were distinct German possesions in Africa, and there is no reason to group these three possesions together in a way to exclude German East Africa. There is no reason to have this level of categorization.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:37, 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.
Category:Former Spanish colonies
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.
Oppose. I agree that these were components of the Spanish Empire, but they were colonies of Spain, not colonies of the Spanish Empire empire. The lead sentence of
Spanish Empire makes this point rather clearly: "The Spanish Empire comprised territories and colonies administered by the Spanish Crown..." Accordingly, the current category name is valid, but the proposed rename would be inaccurate. --
Orlady (
talk)
23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Support revised with the Former included. The former is useful clarification, especially as categories often come without context.
CMD (
talk)
15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)reply
As usual, Hmains makes an excellent point. This is one of many categories with the "Former Fooish colonies" naming pattern. Thank goodness someone is paying attention to context! --
Orlady (
talk)
04:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Stop the procrastiantionism' There is no reason that this nomination should not be considered on its merits. Procrastinationism makes no sense. There are good arguments in existence here, and people have participated and argued the merits at hand. There is no reason to put off a decision other than the known fact that a mass nomination will take more effort and so is unlikely to happen. Moves for a mass nomination amount to an attempt by a mionority to force their will on others by procedural sleight of hand. When people bring up issues, they should be considered on their merits, and not procrastinated by procedural slieghts of hand.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:15, 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.
Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Detroit
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 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.
Apollo gifts categories
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 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:States and territories by year of establishment
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. This nomination potentially has an effect on at least 100 subcategories, so a greater consensus would need to be reached for change.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. The propsed name makes it clear that this is for things greater than populated places, but allows a large amount of latitude in what is actually put here, which makes sense for by year established categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I doubt that we can have an English subcategory for this, because it is uncertain when most English counties were created. The exception is the metropolitan counties created in 1974, none of which have a council countil any longer. I am not sure that this is a useful category at all - Listify and Delete?. I have to say that I regard these annual categories as a menace: most need merging by decade or century to be useful. Even then, in the Old World, there is almost always something that came before. The "establishment" may thus depend on its ruler having been granted a particular title, or such like.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment It is very clear when most countries were created. Can you dispute when the Soviet Union was created, or when Michigan became a state? There is a usefullness in the by year of creation categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)reply
rename per nom of what is left of the nomination as of this date/time. This will then match the parent category
Category:Territorial entities and several of its siblings. There is no reason to come up with a differnt name and none different has been suggested.
Hmains (
talk)
05:41, 21 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:Community of interest
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.
Question, leaning toward keep: why does it seem bizarre? The present contents might not belong there (and it needs to be renamed to "Communities of interest"), but articles such as
Furry fandom or
Esperantist would be appropriate members of this category.
Nyttend (
talk)
04:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Agree entirely. The creator seemed to be looking for a parent for
Category:Works by interest (created 23:47, 3 November 2012) and made this (created 23:47, 3 November 2012) - he works quickly. Now there is no connection between
Community of interest and a work, IMO. I would have no objection to "Communities of interest" with some appropriate contents added and the present subcats removed altogether.
Oculi (
talk)
11:17, 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.