Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 28

< May 27	May 29 >

May 28

Category:Evelyn King (singer)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Evelyn King (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. With only albums and songs categories, this is an unnecessary eponymous parent category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 29 May 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:17th-century British 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete and upmerge contents to Category:17th-century European people and Category:17th-century people by nationality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:17th-century British people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. For good or ill (mostly for ill IMHO) CFD has repeatedly stated that the word "British" in category trees is the demonym representing citizens of Great Britain (1707-1800) or the United Kingdom (1801 - present day). Neither GB nor the UK existed in the 17th-century. Mais oui! (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, double upmerge to Category:17th-century European people and Category:17th-century people by nationality. When deleting, explain the above in a comment, then salt it, otherwise it is liable to be re-created in good faith; I've just salted the 16th to be on the safe side. Navigation to the century sub-cats for English, Welsh & Scots will still be easy via Category:British people by century. – Fayenatic London (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Double upmerge per Fayenatic to Category:17th-century European people and Category:17th-century people by nationality. The nominator is correct that this is an anachronism, but Fayenatic's solution ensures that the English, Scots and welsh categories will be correctly parented. I also suggest that we should recreate it as a {{category ambiguous}} (and then protect it) to assist editors who may be confused. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it wrong rather than ambiguous? in which case maybe just redirect it to Category:17th-century European people with the explanation that you suggest? I thought the edit summary from the deletion log would suffice. – Fayenatic London (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a case for calling it wrong, but it seems to me that the main issue is that it is anachronistic. What I intend is that anyone looking at this category should be directed towards the appropriate alternative categories. So far the only template I know of which will do that is {{category ambiguous}}. If there is a better alternative template, let's use it, and if not then maybe we should create one?
It seems to me to be unhelpful to the readers to simply redirect to Category:17th-century European people, when we know that the relevant categs are a small subset of the European set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the 17th century, English and Welsh people were from the same state so I'm not sure if Welsh should be a subcategory of English, or if a separate 17th century people from the Kingdom of England category is needed. I also note other anachronistic categories such as Category:17th-century Belgian people and think there may be a wider problem than just the one nominated here. Tim! (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after emptying. The Scots should go into the European parent. The Welsh should be a subcategory of England. The Royal title was King of England, not King of England and Wales, so that the Welsh people were English citizens. I know this will be unpopular. The Belgian category is also anachronistic, but what he now call Belgium existed as a polity, under the title "Spanish Netherlands", so that the problem there could be resolved by measn of a head note, saying that it concerns Flemish, Walloon ands other citizens of the Spanish Netherlands. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither GB nor the UK existed at the time. The subcats should re-arranged broadly as described above. --RA (talk) 23:19, 9 June 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:17th century in the British Empire

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 to Category:17th century in the English colonial empire and Category:17th-century establishments in the English colonial empire. I note that there are subcategories not included in this nomination that use the phrase "British Empire". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:17th century in the British Empire to Category:17th century in the English Empire
Propose renaming Category:17th-century establishments in the British Empire to Category:17th-century establishments in the English Empire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. changed from a CFD to a CFR. On reflection, all the articles are about the English Empire, so we should call a spade a spade. Mais oui! (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: should the category names follow the lead article English colonial empire? English Empire is a disambiguation page. – Fayenatic London (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO I do not think that English Empire should be a disambiguation page. It would be better as a redirect to English colonial empire, or, probably better, vice versa (see reliable ext refs, eg: "Envisioning An English Empire: Jamestown And The Making Of The North Atlantic World", Robert Appelbaum, John Wood Sweet, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005 or "The English empire in America, 1602-1658: beyond Jamestown", Louis H. Roper, Pickering & Chatto, 2009). Then the ambiguousness (see eg. The English Empire: Its Structure and Spirit 1497-1953, Eric Anderson Walker, Bowes and Bowes, 1953) could be dealt with by a hatnote, in the normal fashion. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to English Colonial Empire. That sounds correct. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both to English Colonial Empire per head article English colonial empire. If the head article is moved (per Mais Oui's suggestion, which I support), the categories can be speedied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename using English empire, lower case. I have no objection to renaming the lead article without "colonial", but in the examples of usage given above, the second word "empire" was only capitalised when the phrase was within a title or headline. – Fayenatic London (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Fayenatic london. Tim! (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname but I too would prefer it with "colonial" in. As far as I am aware there were no Scottish colonies except the failed one in Darien in the 1700s. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Seems sensible. --RA (talk) 23:23, 9 June 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:African American history by school

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 to Category:Historically black schools. Dana boomer (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:African American history by school to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: I am not sure precisely what is being categorized here, and I have requested clarification from the category creator, but the title is incorrect. The category does not (as the title suggests) contain content, sorted by school, about African-American history. Instead, it contains articles about 20 historically black schools.

There is a high degree (about 75%) of overlap with Category:Historically segregated African American schools in the United States and Category:Historically black universities and colleges in the United States, which leads me to think that the category should be merged into those two. For reference, the 'unique' members are: Curry Normal and Industrial Institute, Freetown Rosenwald School, Grand Bay Elementary School for Colored, Noyes Academy and Victoria Colored School. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Historically black schools, since this appears to be an attempt to include places that were not technically segragated in the category coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternate proposal Rename to Category:Historically African American high schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I prefer Category:Historically black schools or, better yet, Category:Black schools, since the main article is Black school and that seems to be the common, accepted name of the thing. I do not think that 'Historically' is necessary; after all, we have Category:Soviet politicians and not Category:Historically Soviet politicians, even though many of the former retained political office following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Historically black schools, as the WP:COMMONNAME. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 19 June 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:African American establishments

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 to Category:Populated places established by African Americans. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:African American establishments to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: The title is ambiguous and fails to convey the declared scope of the category, which is "current and former populated places established by or for African Americans". The phrase African American establishments has at least two other meanings: business establishments owned or operated by or for African Americans (e.g., a restaurant owned by an African American or catering primarily to African-American customers); and entities, such as businesses, churches, schools and other organizations, established by African Americans.

With regard to the category's scope, I think that that the purpose of establishment is more significant than the race of the founder. The former reflects a significant detail about the history and purpose of a settlement whereas the latter reflects a detail, which may or may not be significant, about a founder. The problem is, however, that I cannot think of a name better than Category:Populated places established for African Americans.

An alternative to renaming is to convert the category into a List of settlements established for African Americans that could provide key information such as who established the settlement, when, for whom, and so on. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Populated places established by African Americans. The "by or for" ignores the fact that in these places the actual settlers were African Americans, thus the ones who established them as populated places, even if the schemes were dreamed up by people of other ethnicities. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would work, I think. You raise a good point, in that the establishment of a populated place requires more than just planning or vision: it requires settlement. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:14, 13 June 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:African American segregated schools in the United States

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:African American segregated schools in the United States to both parents

Nominator's rationale: Since official segregation of schools is no longer legal in the U.S., this category is not likely to ever contain anything other than Category:Historically segregated African American schools in the United States‎. Thus, there is no real need for this intermediate layer. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This proposal would work fine. The extra category layer in the current structure resulted from a rather convoluted CFD discussion, but I don't recall what the argument was that led to the addition of extra layers. --Orlady (talk) 22:26, 3 June 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:Dexter characters

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 to Category:Dexter (series) characters. There is consensus to rename to something, but as to which one the opinions are split down the middle, so I'm defaulting to the broader, less specific name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dexter characters to Category:Dexter (TV series) characters

Nominator's rationale: Clarifying my earlier nom. Since the main article is located at Dexter (TV series) and the main category is Category:Dexter (TV series), then it's appropriate to rename this as well. Note that my earlier speedy nomination was contested. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copy of speedy nomination

Category:Dexter characters to Category:Dexter (TV series) characters – per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but that category is not solely about the TV series, it also includes the novel series. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)−[reply]
Is there any (notable) character from the novel series that did not appear in the TV series? If not, then renaming the category would not result in any inaccuracy. We would simply be making a choice to organize content around the TV series rather than both the TV and novel series. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, either to Category:Dexter (series) characters (and make the category a child of Category:Dexter (series)) or to Category:Dexter (TV series) characters. I have no strong preference for either option, but both are an improvement over the current, undisambiguated title. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Dexter (TV series) characters per nom. The only characters exclusive to the novel are in this section. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Dexter (series) characters and reparent to Category:Dexter (series) . 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Dexter (TV series) characters per nom. Steam5 (talk) 05:30, 1 June 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:Predominantly African American Christian denominations

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 to Category:Historically African-American Christian denominations and Category:Clergy of historically African-American Christian denominations. While a sudden alteration in membership could conceivably change the "predominantly" part, it can't change the history. There's no consensus on the "black" vs. "African-American" part, but I am adding the hyphen to conform with similar recent changes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Predominantly African American Christian denominations to Category:Black churches
- Category:Clergy of predominantly African American Christian denominations to Category:Clergy of black churches

Nominator's rationale: The key article for this category is Black church, which defines the term as "Christian churches that minister to predominantly African-American congregations in the United States." In other words, the phrase "black church" captures precisely what the category's unwieldy title attempts to explain.

Furthermore, the term 'black church' is widely recognized as a distinct class of entity by reliable sources, which refer to it as such: The Black Church in the African American Experience (Duke University Press, 1990); Mighty Like a River: The Black Church and Social Reform (Oxford University Press, 2003); Black Church Beginnings: The Long-Hidden Realities Of The First Years (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004); The Black Church In America: African American Christian Spirituality (John Wiley & Sons, 2006); and countless others.

A previous discussion, held in 2007, about this category ended without consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a conflation here; the article is about historically African-American congregations as a concept, both those belonging to "black" denominations such as the AME or CME and those belonging to "white" denominations such as Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago (a member of the United Methodist Church). While "historically African-American denominations" or "historically black churches" has some appeal to me, I hesitate to propose it because the situation is somewhat different from that of historically black colleges and universities which were born out of segregation.- choster (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment and clarification. If I've not misunderstood, then the term "black church" extends to historically African-American congregations of all types, including those that currently belong to predominantly 'white' demonations (and, of course, also to those that belong to predominantly 'black' denominations). I saw that Category:Historically black churches was proposed in the 2007 discussion but did not think it was necessary to preface the title with 'Historically'; however, if it helps to make the category clearer, then I wouldn't object to Category:Historically black churches or Category:Historically African-American denominations. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per consistency with the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we do not categorize by race. This means we use African American and not black.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Black church' is the name attached to this class/type of church; Category:Black churches would, therefore, reflect categorization by history rather than race. Black churches can and do have non-African-American adherents, and racially 'Black' denominations are not necessarily black churches. In fact, I think that the current title focuses more on race, since it defines membership according to ethnic/racial majority. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename consistency with head. @JPL, I don't think 'black' is any more of a race than 'african-american' is - both black and 'african american' are seen by some in america as races, and by others as ethnicities. In this case however, it is common usage which prevails, and the common usage is black church.--KarlB (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Amerocentric; we use the term "black churches" in the UK too, e.g. for branches of RCCG and Kingsway International Christian Centre. Category names should be less ambiguous than article names. – Fayenatic London (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African-American churches, then, perhaps? The main article does, after all, suggest that 'black church' and 'African-American church' are interchangeable. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then rename as Category:African-American Christian denominations, to avoid ambiguity that might lead individual congregations to be categorised alongside denominations. – Fayenatic London (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly rename somehow. A "predominantly" category cannot be right. I have no view whehter the targetr should be "Black" or "Afro-America" or "African American". The UK equivalent is churches and denominations mainly of the descendants of West Indians (where each island has its own version of the Church of God) and some mainly for African or Indian immigrants. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom as the WP:COMMONNAME. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:African-American Christian denominations or Category:Predominantly African-American Christian denominations. The category name may offend some who believe in political correctness, but political correctness isn't reality. The reality is that there are a number of denominations that were founded and operated to serve African Americans who were denied participation in white denominations. "African-American" is a defining characteristic of these denominations. The word "predominantly" is unnecessary, but harmless; however, the hyphen needs to be added for grammatical reasons. Do not rename this to "Black churches" because that term includes both "black" denominations and individual black churches -- not to mention Fayenatic London's and Peterkingiron's concern about its having a different meaning in the UK. It does appear, however, that additional (separate) categories are needed for individual black churches in the U.S. and for "Black churches in the United Kingdom". --Orlady (talk) 00:23, 20 June 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.