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. With only albums and songs categories, this is an unnecessary eponymous parent category. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:35, 28 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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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 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.