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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional behavioural scientists to Category:Fictional social scientists

Nominator's rationale: rename to match the parent category. there isn't a Category:behavioural scientists Mason (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and purge, Category:Fictional ethologists does not belong, certainly not after renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smasongarrison: in fact, when only two subcategories would be left, we can just as well upmerge the entire category to Category:Fictional scientists. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We'd be able to add Fictional linguists‎ and Fictional anthropologists‎ making it slightly larger. Mason (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, that makes sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2024 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:People from the Kazakh Khanate. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:18th-century Kazakhstani people to Category:People from the Kazakh Khanate

Nominator's rationale: rename, the name of the country at the time was Kazakh Khanate, not Khazachstan. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2024 (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.

The result of the discussion was: partial merge as per nom, no consensus for the alternative nomination. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Battles involving Saudi Arabia to Category:Battles involving Saudi Arabia and Category:Battles involving the House of Saud

Nominator's rationale: Saudi Arabia was founded in 1925 but the battles in this category date back into the 18th and 19th centuries. The category description refers to "independent Saudi states (1744–present)" linking to the House of Saud for which we have a parent Category:House of Saud. – Fayenatic London 09:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, or alternatively to Category:Battles in the Arabian Peninsula. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of Category:Battles by country is "Battles involving X", but there are Battles in medieval Macedonia, Battles in Jamaica and Battles in Uganda, so that has precedents. However, it would exclude the Wahhabi sack of Karbala (1802). – Fayenatic London 10:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be leaning towards a split, but further comments on split target would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:25, 24 January 2024 (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.

The result of the discussion was: no action. This is a monster of a thread, and there is a lot to unpack. I agree with Place Clichy's summary that there are three issues under discussion here:

1. The rename itself
2. Whether we should have categories like "Foo in the United States by territory" at all
3. Whether DC should be in "by state or territory" categories

There is no consensus on the first point. If anything, there is consensus that the answers to questions two and three should be "yes", but that is really beyond the scope of this individual CfD. I would recommend an RfC to develop global consensus on this issue, rather than having mega-CfD after mega-CfD coming to a patchwork of LOCALCONSENSUS decisions. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming:

• Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by condition by state to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by condition and state or territory
• Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state to Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state or territory
• Category:Populated places in the United States by state to Category:Populated places in the United States by state or territory
• Category:Roads in the United States by territory to Category:Roads in the United States by state or territory
• Category:Sports in the United States by state to Category:Sports in the United States by state or territory
• Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States by state to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States by state or territory

Nominator's rationale: Moved from Speedy to full Cfd. This matter needs to be settled becasue a lot of categories are dependant on this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Place Clichy, @Smasongarrison, @Aidan721, @Mercy11, @Marcocapelle, @Ymblanter, @The Eloquent Peasant, and @Elizabeth Linden Rahway from the speedy discussion. If I missed anyone, please add them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an opinion, but just want to mention that some categories have been speedy processed (this happened before first objections were raised). I do not have a list of those, but it probably can be taken from the page histories. If the outcome of this discussion is oppose or no consensus, those categories must be moved back. Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the alt rename from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_1#People_by_populated_place_in_the_United_States would be included as part of any change here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding participants from the intial Cfd on this name change: @Fayenatic london and @Peterkingiron. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Qualified support for renaming, but I do not support including things that are not states or territories in this scheme (i.e. [x] from Washington, D.C.). The United States has four-top level administrative divisions under our federal government and states and territories are not the same thing as the federal district or tribal lands, so I don't support conflating those. If someone wants to make the category scheme actually be about more than states and territories, then I suggest some other kind of name, possibly "[x] by place in the United States" which itself can include categories for states, territories, or even general regions like the Midwest. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  However, in reference to "possibly '[x] by place in the United States' which itself can include categories for states, territories..." that would not be factual for the territories are not in the United States. Please review what constitutes "the United States". Mercy11 (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment, I have tagged the category pages but I do not have a particular opinion in this discussion. This was merely technical assistance. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The broader tail allows for states, territories, historical territories, and federal districts to be included. See List of states and territories of the United States. It may be helpful to add a {{Cmbox}} to clarify insular area relationship to the United States and the inclusion of both current and historical territories as well as the federal district. Having all the top-level subdivisions in the same category scheme is best for navigation purposes. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support per nom and echo Aidan721. I think that the broader tail is extremely valuable as it doesn't impose a hierarchy on the types groups/territories etc. In many cases, the type of district/state etc isn't a meaningful intersection (like are Jews from Washington DC uniquely different from Jews from Montana because one is a state and one is a district?), but rather a means to diffuse a very large category. Mason (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  However, in reference to "the broader tail is extremely valuable as it doesn't impose a hierarchy on the types groups/territories etc", that argument would be the Straw man Fallacy as it doesn't say why imposing a hierarchy on the types of groups/territories would be a bad thing. Mercy11 (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aidan721: The proposed scheme and its naming would not include Washingotn, D.C. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Koavf, it would. That is the point of making it "state or territory", so the territories and federal districts don't require a seperate tree. I know you don't agree but I would say that everyone voting "support" on here (and in previous related Cfds) is in agreement on that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Washington, D.C. is not a territory. The Navajo Nation is not a territory. Thule Air Force Base is not a territory, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I'm aware, Native American reservations and military bases don't have categories like Washington, D.C. does. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  E.g. Category:Prisons in Guantanamo Bay and Category:Prisons in Puerto Rico or Category:Prisons in Arizona, also Category:Navajo Nation airports and Category:Airports in Guam or Category:Airports in Nebraska. Washington, D.C. is not a territory. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Washington, D.C. is a federal district, which is a special type of territory. [1] –Aidan721 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is why too many concepts in one category leads to problems and requires careful thought out discussion. I was amazed when you attempted to do this during the busy holidays as a speedy change. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Eloquent Peasant, Aidan did it because a previous Cfd on the matter (this one) changed the names of all such categories from "State" to "State or territory". I think it is unfair to imply that he did without any previous discussion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you ought to owe me an apology for the absurd accusations you've thrown my way. If you'd have done any ounce of investigating into how this category divide came to be, you'd see that the root category was moved via discussion in 2019 OF WHICH I WAS NO A PART OF NOR THE ONE ABOVE. I moved the categories according to the consensus reached BY PRIOR DISCUSSIONS. To make this into some kind of personal attack in a slippery slope my friend. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Washington is not a federal district, but the federal district. Words carry weight here. Additionally, Washington is not a territory, so it couldn't possibly be a "special type of territory" either. Let's not craft our own definitions when the SCOTUS has already done that work for us. The only way we could argue Washington is a territory is to define it using the general meaning of "territory", that is, "an area of land". But in that case, of course, all the 50 states would also be territories of the US, and we would then have to look to rename all categories in "Category:Foo in the United States by state" into "Category:Foo in the United States by territory", which would contain all 50 states and DC as territories of the US, but not Puerto Rico, the USVI, American Samoa, etc., since they aren't in the US. Is that really what we want? Mercy11 (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of what a Scottish encyclopedia says:

  • The District of Columbia is not a territory
  • The United States controls 14 territories, none of which are D. C.
  • The United States controls 14 territories, none of which are D. C.
  • There are only five populated American territories
  • An insular area is "not a state or a federal district" and there are 13 unincorporated territories and one incorporated territory
  • There are five populated territories

  Please stop spreading this misinformation. WASHINGTON, D. C. IS NOT A TERRITORY and cannot be a territory. Do not categorize it like it's a state or territory when it is not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  However, in reference to "Support...the broader tail allows for...territories, historical territories, and federal districts to be included", that would be like saying "Oppose...the narrower tail allows for territories, historical territories, and federal districts to be excluded," both irrelevant conclusion fallacies. Mercy11 (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and propose - I propose the following scheme.
• Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by condition by state to Category:Buildings and structures OF the United States by condition and state or territory
• Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state to Category:Buildings and structures OF the United States by state or territory
• Category:Populated places in the United States by state to Category:Populated places OF the United States by state or territory
• Category:Roads in the United States by territory to Category:Roads OF the United States by state or territory
• Category:Sports in the United States by state to Category:Sports OF the United States by state or territory
• Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States by state to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges OF the United States by state or territory without the capitalization of the word of, of course. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes, "of" sounds odd. For example with buildings: a building is of the owner of the building, rather than of the United States. It also creates inconsistency with other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The general rule on Wikipedia is that "of" is used for things occurring naturally, such as rivers and mountains, and "in" for human-made/cultural things such as roads and buildings. As such, I'd oppose Eloquent Peasant's suggestions. Grutness...wha? 03:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• *Why the use of "of" or "in" is important here:

Search for any of the 50 US states and the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to them as "constituent states of the US" https://www.britannica.com/place/Virginia-state Search for any of the US territories and the EB states they are "associated with", or "unincorporated territories of". Constituent means part of.

Please refer to an example here: The US Census indicates that this map is "...of the United States and Puerto Rico." https://www.loc.gov/item/2004628731/ that is because PR is "associated with the US" https://www.britannica.com/place/Puerto-Rico and not "in" it.

Would we want to then / need to update US school curriculums and have the world over update US maps to show that the territories are "in" the US?? That is what WP would be trying to accomplish with this category move request. If we reword the categories to say "in the United States by state or territory", as a group we'd be perpetuating a lie, mistake, or ignorance. Prepositions are important. The 50 states and DC are in the US, the territories are "subject to", "associated with", in "free association with", "unincorporated territories of". Yes "of". "of" doesn't only need to be used for rivers. Just like the powerful comma changes the entire meaning of a statement, here the word "of" or "in" needs to be correct. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here. "of" gives the sense of ownership in this context. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely why it makes sense to block the category being proposed in this discussion, "Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States", and need to continue building instead on "Category:Insular areas of the United States", because the Insular areas are owned by the US but the states aren't. The states already had their own category since 2004, namely, "Category:Categories by state of the United States". Mercy11 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, prepositions can make a difference. However, prepositions alone will not solve the fundamental problem triggered by the proposed Moves from Foo IN the United States by state -----TO----> Foo IN the United States by state or territory. The fundamental problem is that the move introduces an assumption that is false: that the territories are part of the United States. So, whether the move is from "Foo IN the United States by state" or from "Foo OF the United States by state" and into "Foo IN the United States by state or territory" AND/OR "Foo OF the United States by state or territory", it makes no difference because the problem is conflating those 2 in the same root category, i.e., the problem is in adding "territories" to the category tail.

For example, "Category:Hot springs of the United States by state" is fine because the states are a constituent part of the United States, but "Category:Hot springs of the United States by state or territory" would not be because the territories aren't a constituent part of the United States, therefore Hot Springs whether IN or OF the United States would not include hot springs in the territories because hot springs of the United States cannot possibly include any hot springs in the territories because the territories aren't part of the United States. Another example, "Category:Military installations of the United States in Puerto Rico" is fine as is "Category:United States Army officers" (would contain Puerto Ricans like Pedro Albizu Campos) and "Category:Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives" (would contain Puerto Ricans like Santiago Iglesias). "Category:Foo on the National Register of Historic Places by state" is fine as would "Category:National Register of Historic Places by insular areas of the United States" because NRHP sites in the territories are located in insular areas of the US, not in the US proper. By the same token, "Category:Foo on the National Register of Historic Places by state or territory" would not be correct because it would needlessly duplicate the NRHP in the insular areas. Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• support with caveat those in the OP and moved from the speedies. I am concerned about changing the "Buildings and structures in the United States by condition by state" to "...by condition and state or territory", though. Firstly, I don't think that's the normsl naming on WP, and second, "condition and state" is confusing given the different meanings of "state". I'd mane that "Buildings and structures in the United States by condition by state or territory" Grutness...wha? 04:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think the categories of the form "American fooers by state or territory" are unopposed and there appears to be some mixed opinions/ideas for how to handle the remaining categories (i.e. Foo in the United States by state or territory). –Aidan721 (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also any of the "Foo on the National Register of Historic Places by state or territory" seem fully supported as well. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aidan721, just for clarification - because one user here is strongly against Washington, D.C. being a part of "state or territory" categories - D.C. WILL be included if the change is in favor of "state or territory", correct? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is what I would advocate for. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite. Those two categories, "American fooers...by state or territory" and "Foo on the NRHP...by state or territory" (as well as "Category: People by populated place in the United States" where the territories are assumed to be part of the US, when they aren't), are all intertwined with the parent discussion on the root category "Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States" because they all stem from the same faulty premise that "since the territories are in the US, appending 'or territory' to those categories won't hurt anything". But the territories (and its residents) cannot be piggybacked to the categories on states because they aren't states, aren't part of the US, and aren't in the US. Mercy11 (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and proposal. Regarding "I think the categories of the form 'American fooers by state or territory' are unopposed", we don't lump residents of the territories with those of the United States because the territories aren't part of the US, so their residents couldn't possibly be Americans. Manifestations of this are seen in many common instances in real life; for example, the US Census Bureau in its population of the US, doesn't include the populations in the territories. Another example, it would be an error for people born in the unincorporated territory of, for example, Puerto Rico (examples Antonio Correa Cotto, Filiberto Ojeda Rios, and Isabel la Negra) to be included in "American fooers by state or territory" because merely being a resident of one of the territories doesn't automatically make the person an American, which is the implication of the category title "American fooers by state or territory", that people in the territories are Americans. This is why we have categories for residents of the insular areas (e.g., Category:Mayors of places in insular areas of the United States).

I propose the "or territory" in the category root "American fooers by state or territory" be removed and become simply "American fooers by state", so the residents of the insular areas can continue to categorize under "Category:Foo in insular areas of the United States" without duplication under the "by state or territory" root category. Mercy11 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would advocate for this and this could work with the existing top level "Category:Political divisions of the United States". We should continue to develop the existing category, "Category:Foo in insular areas of the United States". Could the issue with Washington DC be solved by having "Category:Foo in the US by state or Washington, DC"? Then would also have "Category:Foo in the US by tribal lands". That way we would move down the tree via the "Category:Political divisions of the US.", without conflating different political divisions of the US.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Approve of Mercy11’s proposal above. Also approve eliminating the root tree Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States which is the main source of this unnecessary confusion. Yarfpr (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose removal. This suggestion serves to exclude many people from territories from a ton of categories, where it the state/territory is just there for diffusion. Mason (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure I understand this comment. Naming a handful of such "ton of categories" might help. Comment appears contradictory. Mercy11 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposed and proposal. There is nothing in common between the U.S. states and the U.S. territories to warrant placing them in the same category; categorizing the territories with the states erroneously implies there is. For example, unlike the states, the territories are not in the United States, nor are they a part of the United States, nor do they have the same constitutional rights as the states. btw, these 3 aren't an exhaustive list.

Since WP's founding decades ago WP editors have recognized this distinction, which is why we have used separate tree roots for the US states (Category:Categories by state of the United States) and for the US territories (Category:Insular areas of the United States): they have nothing in common.

Additionally, expanding "Category:Foo in (or, OF) the United States by state", into "Category:Foo in the United States by state or territory" would make the existence of "Category:Insular areas of the United States" unnecessary because it will no longer be needed if all its groups were already categorized under the proposed "Category:Foo in the United States by state or territory". Thus, a vote in support of Category:Foo in the US by state or territory is a vote to eliminate the root "Category:Insular areas of the United States". Is that really what we want?

Additionally yet, the proposed "Category:Foo in the United States by state or territory" is a bad option in that it can be confusing as Territories of the United States can also refer to those that would include places like the Wyoming Territory, but not places like Puerto Rico.

Keeping "Category:Categories by state of the United States" as it currently exists (i.e., without subcategories such as "Category:Foo in the United States by state or territory") represents the correct political and geographical reality as it exists today. Statehooders have oftentimes attempted to push their political agenda via WP by making seemingly insignificant tweaks to WP like this one. We should keep such POVs out of WP by eliminating all categories of the type "Foo in the United States by state or territory" because a territory becomes a state when Congress says so, not when statehooders try to pass them as such in WP. Recategorizing that entire root category to also include territories implies the territories and states are somehow linked, which is not factual. The 2 tree roots "Category:Categories by state of the United States" and "Category:Insular areas of the United States" already successfully categorize groups related to United State and its possessions while also keeping political overtones out of the categories.

I propose the request for the Category Moves not only be disallowed but, also, that the (recently created) entire branch Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States be eliminated altogether. Mercy11 (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States dates to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_13#United_States_locations, which I would not call recent. I for one do not see the consensus Timrollpickering saw in that discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category "Insular areas of the US" (DOB 2004) is almost 20 years old while the one proposed in this discussion, "Foo in the US by state or territory" (DOB 2019), is only a bit more than 4. Mercy11 (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the root of Category:Insular areas of the United States should be removed, and I don't think that this proposition implies that it should. Place Clichy (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I.

What I was proposing is for the root of Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States be done away with as it is redundant with the union of the two (and long-standing) categories "Category:Categories by state of the United States" and "Category:Insular areas of the United States". That is, the latter two already account for all the subcategory families related to the incorporated territories of the US (aka, the states and DC) as well as to the unincorporated US territories (aka, the Insular Areas). Perhaps most important, the category "Category:Categories by state or territory of the United States", in attempting to act as a catch-all, actually introduces ambiguity, in addition to presumptions that are contrary to reality, such as equating --albeit unintentionally-- the territories with the states of the Union (see explanation above). Mercy11 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State and territory is not just for insular areas, it also includes Washington D.C., historic territories and the uninhabited minor outlying islands. Insular areas categories can be a child of the state and territory categories, one does not contradict the other. Place Clichy (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The discussion above about whether Washington, D.C is a territory shows that this rename introduces ambiguity, without actually solving any clear problem. The few categories by non-state subdivisions of the United States can be put directly in "foos in the United States" without further subcategorization. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh? I don't understand. You appear to be contradiction yourself. Mercy11 (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh? I don't understand how you think my comment is contradictory. Reiterated: this discussion shows several conflicting definitions for the term "territory". Without taking a position on which is correct, having categories with ambiguous names is not helpful. It's better to have one unambiguous name, and accept that things that don't fit whichever name is chosen don't go in the resulting category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support a renaming that uses by state and territory. What matters here most is how to organize content that's relative to American subdivisions. What matters less, but has in the past unfortunately polluted such discussions as well as the organization of categories, is the respective status of these places. An obvious need is to diffuse large US-related categories by geography, per WP:DIFFUSE, and an obvious solution is to have children diffusion categories that cover all types of subdivisions, i.e. states, historic and present-day territories, minor outlying islands and the federal district. A similar solution is used for Categories by state or territory of Australia, Categories by province or territory of Canada and Categories by state or union territory of India which are comparable. We unfortunately still see pernickety editors removing places like Washington D.C. from geographically diffused American categories, placing them at the root of U.S. categories, which defeats the purpose of diffusion by geography. Place Clichy (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's pernickety. @Koavf: Could the 1 issue with Washington DC be solved by having "Category:Foo in the US by state or Washington, DC"? The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but that would not include territories. There's no simple way to diffuse this: there are inaccurate and simple ways or mush-mouthed and accurate ways. I suggested the "by place" possibility above, but no one wants to seem to bite. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And it shouldn't include territories 'cause those are Insular areas covered under a separate category. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How are territories not a "place"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Koavf: of course, territories are a place just not "in" the US which is what this renaming is spearheading to do. It's trying to say the Insular areas (territores) are "in" the US. An editor or 2 argued that using "of" in the category name would not work because it sounds odd or something. Never mind, that it'd be accurate. See above for arguments against "of the US". I wish people would stop spreading misinformation as well. WP:PRUS The insular areas are not "in" the US. There are 50 states and DC in the US. The territories are Insular Areas "of" the US. But this renaming insists on saying they are "in" the US. So, no consensus.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The territories are just as much "in" the United States as the states or federal district:

  The term “United States” means the 50 States of the United States of America and the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway Islands, Kingman Reef, Johnston Atoll, the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other trust territory or possession of the United States.

  You are making a distinction that does not exist legally. Where are you getting your infformation? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A distinction does exist. One of the polaces I get my information from the Encyclopedia Brittanica: The US https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States you can see here what it includes AND Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States. https://www.britannica.com/place/Guam AND Northern Mariana Northern Mariana Islands, a self-governing commonwealth in association with the United States. https://www.britannica.com/place/Northern-Mariana-Islands AND If you search any of the 50 states in the EB, it will say, for example: North Carolina - the EB will say "North Carolina is a constituent state of the US" https://www.britannica.com/place/North-Carolina-state Constituent means "part of" because the states and Washington DC are constituent parts of the US. BTW, the definition you posted is regarding a code regarding Trade of Tobacco BUT that a specific code defines the US as such doesn't mean the territories are "in" the US. The code is stating it applies to the US and the territories. Other codes / US laws exclude the territories, when the specific code doesn't apply to them. That definition does nothing to define what is "in" the US. Why do you want to say the territories are in the US. The insular areas are not in, they are associated with, unincorporated territories of --> insular areas of the US. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In this map by the US Census the distinction is clear. The map is labeled "Combined Statistical areas of the United States and Puerto Rico". Why would it need to say Puerto Rico if PR were in the US? That would be like saying here is a "Combined Statistical areas of the US and Virginia". Yeah if Virginia were not in the US, the label would need to be written that way. https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3701e.ct001208r/?r=0.277,-0.008,0.661,0.239,0 The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, @Koavf, the territories are not just as much "in" the United States as the states or federal district, no matter what the Cornell U. website chose to write in its website. Cornell U. isn't a dictionary. To define what most people understand by "United States" we don't go to Cornell but to dictionaries, and all major dictionaries state United States is "the 50 states and DC", nothing else. [2] [3] [4] [5]

  For a political entity --like a US territory-- to be "in" the US, it must be "a part of" the US. Territories aren’t "in" the US because they are not a part of the US; they belong to the US, but aren‘t part of it. Analogy: your heart is "in" you; therefore, it is "a part of" you. Your car is not "in" you (but it belongs to you, like territories belong to the US); therefore, your car is not "a part of" you. Mercy11 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Eloquent Peasant and Mercy11: Cornell is quoting the U. S. Code. The actual laws of the United States supersede an encyclopedia or dictionaries as a reliable source. The territories are part of the United States, just like the states and federal district. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Koavf: Cornell is quoting that in this case this particular law applies to the states, and the territories etc. You are trying to simplify a complicated relationship that the territories have with the US because you want to say they are in the US. It's like telling your girlfriend "we're married honey, yes we are sweetie", when you're actually not. So are Micronesia, The Marshall Islands and Palau also in the US? See pg. 8 (printed on page bottom) or page 15 /67 https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/docs/2007-report-by-the-president-task-force-on-puerto-rico-status.pdf .... These territories receive military service from the US. ... "another possible model of independence is that of the “freely associated states” of micronesia, the marshall islands, and Palau. These states, which the united States had administered since World War ii, became independent after congress approved negotiated “compacts of free association” with the territories. The freely associated states retained close ties to the united States, however, and the United States continues to provide security, defense, and various other types of financial assistance and services. citizens of the freely associated states may generally enter the united States as non-immigrants and may establish residence and work here. " The distinction does matter. Puerto Rico belongs to but is not part of the US. See here. and the other territories as mentioned in this comment have different relationships with the US, i.e. close ties with. We should not be grouping states with territories (insular areas) because they are different.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Cornell is not quoting a case, they are quoting the United States Code, which is reiterated elsewhere in said Code (e.g. Unless otherwise stated, the 50 States, including offshore areas within their jurisdiction pursuant to section 3 of the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1311), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all territories, dependencies, and possessions of the United States. You are quoting a case that explicitly is about considering territories part of the United States within the meaning of the Uniformity Clause only (p. 69). Again, more sources from the United States federal government:

  • The United States is more than just the fifty states and the District of Columbia and continues to include the territories.
  • The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia (a special area that is the home of the federal government), the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S.Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico

  Of course, individual agencies of the federal government may or may not consider the territories as part of the United States for their competence or certain pieces of legislation may not include the territories in their scope, but many do:

  • U.S. territories, or possessions, are under the jurisdiction of the United States
  • U.S. citizens do not need a passport to travel between the U.S. and these territories
  • The term "state" applies to various territories in various contexts of tax law
  • The Clean Water Act defines “state” as “a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.” and the "waters of the United States includes all of the territories.
  • For decades, the FCC have included the many territories in part of their mandate for American broadcasting
  • For employment eligibility verification purposes, the “United States” is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as the continental United States (including the District of Columbia), Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
  • In another example from the United States Code: The term "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Wake Island, the Canal Zone, and Outer Continental Shelf lands defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

  Etc.

  The states in free association are not part of the United States, nor otherwise under its sovereignty.

  Note also that the source you gave literally says that Puerto Rico is part of the Unitednbsp;States. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  Do you have any source explicitly stating that they are not part of the United States? I have provided several that explicitly say that they are. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Although the article title reads "part of" it does not report that .... in the artículo it says:

  .the U.S. Supreme Court defined Puerto Rico in 1901 as “foreign to the United States in a domestic sense” because it was neither a state of the American union nor an independent republic.

  The court also ruled that the island was “a territory belonging to … but not a part of the United States.” The US Supreme Court said it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Eloquent Peasant (talk • contribs) January 31, 2024 (UTC)

  @Koavf: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The US Supreme Court said in 1901 that PR is a "territory belonging to... but not a part of the United States." See here. In this, I don't have a POV. I don't care if PR becomes a state or doesn't. What I am pointing out is the fact as it is now. The Supreme Court never went and changed that definition, so it stands still defined that way. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read the citation I provided above? The court found that this was the case for the purpose of the Uniformity Clause, as that was the question. Please also take care with formatting your comments here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Koavf: Yes, "the court found that this was the case for the purpose of the Uniformity Clause, as that was the question", but how many times did it find that Puerto Rico was part of the United States? -- None, Zip, Zero, not once. So it's One-to-Zero that the Court found Puerto Rico is not part of the United States, and Zero that Puerto Rico is part. It's simple mathematics; simple mathematics that people without KISS just don't get. Mercy11 (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By definition, when something is unincorporated it means "not a part of". So the territories aren't part of the US. The US consists of the 50 states and DC only. The US Code Cornell makes reference to doesn't say anywhere the territories are part of the US. This is supported by the SCOTUS who determined in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) the territories aren't part of the US. "They territories belong to the US but aren't part of the US." Mercy11 (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What is unincorporated is the provisions of the Constitution. See above for multiple sources that explicitly state that the territories are part of the United States. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, there may be "multiple sources that explicitly state that the territories are part of the United States", but then we could also say that Dewey Defeated Truman, right? The fact is what matters here is the opinion of the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS has stated, multiple times, that the territories are not part of the United States. See {Insular Cases]] for a sampling. It's nonsensical against the findings of the SCOTUS. Mercy11 (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is how territories are not a place: when we categorize by "place" we are categorizing by the concept of location, that is, geography. However, when we attempt to categorize "by state or territory" we are categorizing by types of political status. The one thing that makes territories different from states is their political status, nothing else. If a territory where to become a state, it's location doesn't change, only its political status changes. For example, the Oklahoma Territory. A categorization "by location" would certainly not help. Mercy11 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Washington, D.C. is not a state or territory. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Category:American rabbis by state and Category:American racing drivers by state were tagged in the original CFDS nomination but not listed or tagged for this discussion until now. It should probably be added. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Are people open to an alternative name? @Koavf@Mercy11@Place Clichy Mason (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the most important issue here is to have categories that allow diffusion by any type of place regardless of status. Although I feel that by state or territory would accomplish that, I am willing to consider maybe by state or territory or district instead for the one user (it seems) who feels that such a name would exclude Washington D.C.

  Also, I do agree that insular territories areas categories are useful. In my opinion they should be made a child category of the by state or territory [or district], rather than left completely out of U.S.-related categories, because despite their different status they have a defining relationship with the United States. Note that the geographically diffused American categories also include, when appropriate, the historic territories and the uninhabited minor outlying islands. Place Clichy (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, TTBOMK, there is no such thing as an "insular territory". The terminology used by the US government, and that in general use, uses the terms "insular areas" and "unincorporated territories" only. When the term "territories" is used alone (i.e., as opposed to "incorporated territories" and "unincorporated territories") it defaults to unincorporated territories. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My bad, I meant to write insular areas categories instead of insular territories. However, territories also applies to places like Alaska Territory, Hawaii Territory or Michigan Territory before they became states. TTBOMK, there is little or no difference between the status of these places and the present-day territories of the U.S., who happen to be all located on islands and are rightfully called insular areas for practical reasons. Place Clichy (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm open to "by (administrative) division" or "by place", but I do not think we should call Washington, D.C. basically just a state or a territory because it's easy for us. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  E.g. see Category:Russian people by location, where Russia has krais and oblasts and republics and districts and federal cityies, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Great. My hope is that Mercy11, is open to the idea. I know that @Mercy11 feels very strongly about insular territories areas, so I would like to wait to get their input. No one is disputing that the insular territory area categories are useful or value or that they have a unique relationship with the united states that is not properly captured by the the current category naming of "state or territory". I believe that are scenarios, where the distinction between each type of state, territory, insular territory area and district aren't particularly defining (and more serve to break up larger categories). But there are also cases were it *really* matters. Mason (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no distinction between "territories" and "insular territories". Whatever the latter is supposed to mean (the United States Minor Outlying Islands?), they are just territories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While "by state or territory or district" may allude to differences in political status and function, the fact is their common thread is they are all political entities. Likewise, the nomination seeks to categorize by political entities ("by state or territory"). However the suggestion to categorize "by location" alludes to something totally different, something more akin to geography. If the category is going to have a "by location" in it, that would NOT allude to California, Puerto Rico, DC, etc. because those aren't locations; they are political entities. When we categorize "by location", we expect to see subcategories such as Western US, Caribbean, East Coast, etc., because they are locations, and we do not expect to see subcategories like "California" (a state), "Puerto Rico" (a territory), or "DC" (the federal district). BTW, the terminology used by the US Government is both "insular areas" and "unincorporated territories", both of which are interchangeable. I do not recall ever seeing the term "insular territories" employed in US Govt literature. I think we should try preserve that (US Govt) terminology in the categories for it's easily associated with factual entities in real life. Mercy11 (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Like Mercy11 here, I prefer categories based on the principle of political divisions. By place or by location could also refer to lower divisions such as counties and cities, which IMHO completely misses the point. I also support keeping by insular area categories, because we also have category structures for dependent territories of other countries such as British Overseas Territories and Overseas France, a tree in which the U.S. insular areas deserve to be parented. I believe the insular areas categories should be a child of the U.S. by state or territory [or district] category. Again, other comparable federal countries whose subdivisions have different statuses use similar wordings: Categories by state or territory of Australia, Categories by province or territory of Canada and Categories by state or union territory of India. Re: Russia, the comparable category is Category:People from Russia by federal subject, per Federal subjects of Russia (a collective name for all the first-level subdivisions of the country i.e. oblasts, krais and republics etc.). The by location category also includes cities and districts (equivalent of counties). Place Clichy (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the clarification @Mercy11 in terms of terminology, as well as the distinction between geographic groupings and political groupings. Because it sounds like the contention is that we need a satisfactory name for the category that parents both types (level one in this diagram). Note that"()" denotes a single category within a single level , where as "|" is used to denote different categories in the same level:

  Level 1: ( geographic, political, really everything that is a first level potential grouping)

  Level 2: (any geographic) | (any political)

  Level 3: (more specific geographic) | (more specific political)

  ...

  Level N: (individual geographic units)| (individual states) |(individual territories) |(individual districts )| (individual units that have some geographic parents and some political parents) etc

  ...

  Does this structure map onto to everyone's understanding/is not objectionable? @Aidan721@Koavf@Place Clichy. I'm intentionally keeping to devoid of content, so that we can focus on the levels. Mason (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not smart enough to understand what you wrote. Maybe give a fer instance? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison: I think including content would be good and also please include in your proposal for the new category, the entire name you are proposing. Just saying "...by state or territory" is not clear. Please be clear. I am opposed to a parent category that states the insular areas are in the US because they are not. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See map of the US ..50 states and DC. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/united-states-regions/ The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Copying this here because I accidentally posted it above the relisted section. See what the Encyclopedia Britannica calls the unincorporated territories. Nowhere does it state they are in the US.

  Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States. https://www.britannica.com/place/Guam AND Northern Mariana Northern Mariana Islands, a self-governing commonwealth in association with the United States. https://www.britannica.com/place/Northern-Mariana-Islands AND If you search any of the 50 states in the EB, it will say, for example: North Carolina - the EB will say "North Carolina is a constituent state of the US" https://www.britannica.com/place/North-Carolina-state Constituent means "part of" because the states and Washington DC are constituent parts of the US. PR is a "commonwealth in association with the US." https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3290m.gct00217/?sp=37&r=-0.181,0.128,0.733,0.265,0 None of these reliable sources talk about the territories being in the US. That is why keeping categories that collect Foo by Insular areas of the United States is correct... The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Foo by state or other first-level political subdivision would probably cover the district and territories and Indian reservations, altho not Air Force bases which I also saw mentioned above. it's unwieldy but the autofill and robots won't mind. jengod (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if we can agree on a general structure of the nesting, we can hammer out some of the semantic details, that folks like @User:The Eloquent Peasant have brought up. I am going to use an example that is explicitly not American.

People of Mars

Level	Shorthand	Description	Examples of categories within it
1	Martians by subdivision	geographic, political, really everything that is a first level potential grouping	Martians by first-level subdivision, Martians by 2nd-level subdivision
2	Martians by method of subdivision	(any geographic) | (any political)	Martians by geographical subdivisions; Martians by political subdivisions
3	Martians by level and method	(more specific geographic) | (more specific political)	Martians by mountains; Martians by state; Martians by district
4	Martians by individual unit.	(individual geographic units)| (individual states) |(individual territories) |(individual districts )| (individual units that have some geographic parents and some political parents) etc	Martians from the Red Mountains; Martians from the Green Round State; Martians from the Square District.

Does this help? I really really don't want to start with content examples as then we can get derailed by which preposition we should use or whether folks are using the proper phrasing. Mason (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's work with actual instances of those found at "Remaining categories from speedy" above which is really what this discussion is about.

The Remaining categories list contains 3 basic cases exemplified by these 3 generic types:

(1) Something in the US,

(2) Something in the NRHP, and

(3) American people with some particular function.

Three actual instances of those 3 generic types above from the Remaining categories are:

· Category:Cemeteries in the United States by state to Category:Cemeteries in the United States by state or territory

· Category:Road bridges on the National Register of Historic Places by state to Category:Road bridges on the National Register of Historic Places by state or territory

· Category:American models by state to Category:American models by state or territory

That is, Cemeteries in the US are "Something in the US", Road bridges in the NRHP are "Something in the NRHP", and American models are "American people with some particular function".

I prefer to use the 3 undisputable cases above and stay away from the generalized so-called "examples" used by some editors here (myself included) like the various "examples" proffered above, including

Category:Foo in the US by state or territory or federal district

Category:Level 1: (geographic, political, really everything that is a first level potential grouping)

Category:Level 1:Martians by subdivision

and the reason is the generalized so-called "examples" are more prone to lead to confusion and error.

That said, at least one problem becomes immediately evident in that the hierarchy breaks down for all subcategories of type 3, the “American models by state or territory” (the "American people with some particular function") because, unless we assume that the peoples in the territories are American, which they aren’t, we are going to end up with "people with a particular function" (such as Category:Puerto Rican models) under "American people with some particular function" who aren't Americans. Specifically, in terms of the unincorporated territories, Puerto Ricans are not Americans, they are Puerto Ricans, and Guamanians are not Americans, they are Guamanians, and, likewise, American Samoans are not Americans, they are American Samoans, etc. There is a reason why the peoples of the territories have their own WP articles separate from Americans, and --with all respect to the peoples of the territories-- that's because they aren’t Americans.

So, these 3 category types need to be located under "by insular areas of the US" (or, "in insular areas of the US", as the case be), which can then be located under "in [or, "from", as the case be] the US" and not directly under "in the US by state or territory". The territories are immensely different from the states, and a proper hierarchy should preserve this distinction by subcategorizing them under "insular areas of the US" and not directly under "by state or territory [of the US]" as the Speedy Category Move proposal attempts to do. The "by state or territory" categorization is not needed; it creates confusion because it is not a true reflection of the reality of the relationship between the United States and the peoples --and places-- in those insular areas. Mercy11 (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I'd rather not focus on the speedy cases, as we're effectively just talking past each other and getting bogged down in sematics. I think that if we can agree on a structure, we can then spend time hammering out what the terminology is. For example, "Category:Foo in the US by state or territory or federal district" isn't a level one category. It's a level 2 category, and I agree that it should not include "insular areas of the US". Mason (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be extremely helpful for me is for you, @Mercy11, to let me know if the structure I have proposed is acceptable/reasonable consistent with your understanding of the categories. If it is, then I can spend some time hammering out more of the details of specific categories for a proposal that *I* think would give us a path to an acceptable solution. Under the proposal I am envisioning, insular areas would not be classified as a political grouping. Mason (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: I think what Mercy11 is saying is that they don't think Category:In the United States by state or territory should exist at all because it's erroneous (and I agree). --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hear that, but what I'm trying to get at is the underlying structure of the categories, rather than any that we specifically have right now. @The Eloquent Peasant, does the structure I have proposed is acceptable/reasonable consistent with your understanding of the categories. Mason (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to waste my time working on a proposal if there's not some common ground/willingness to find consensus. Mason (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your latest you are still proposing a Category:Foo in the US by state or territory or federal district, which is what began the discussion when it was done by speedy during Christmas. What I have been trying to explain is that the Territories of the United States have various types of relationships with the US none of which are "IN" or "PART OF". This document explains that the "Unincorporated territories are not integral parts of the United States..."

Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. (pdf) The Encyclopedia Britannica says PR is "associated with the US". How does that mean "in" ? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing anything specific right now. I am trying to get people on board with a general framework that facilitates the multiple kinds of relationships that the Territories of the United States have with the US. I don't want to spend time on the specific language, like "in" "with" or "from", unless we have a method to organize the relationships. Mason (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guamanians and Puerto Ricans are Americans. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Now that is just funny. Do you know how people celebrate their "x-ness". For example, Russians celebrate being Russian and Americans celebrate being American. In Puerto Rico people celebrate being Puerto Rican and in Guam they celebrate being Guamanian. The citizenship bestowed on them by the US is something else. The citizenship doesn't take away their Guamanian or PuertoRican-ness. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is a great thing that no one said that it did. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment seems to be a big step towards consensus. We can establish that articles about Guamanian people and topics (etc.) should not be directly placed under an 'American' or 'United States' category, but instead in a Guamanian category (etc.), which should itself be placed in a parent relative to the U.S.. The first part reflects the Guamanianness, the second part reflects the defining link between the territories and the U.S. I believe this is close to the notion introduced by Mason as diffusion by political division. Place Clichy (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Exactly! I am happy to hammer out the nuances of what the divisions are (as it is very possible we have more than geography and political), and think that this framework would allow us to discuss the nuances of how to convey each relationship (and be thoughtful about whether we should diffuse by geography, political, or any level 1 unit <aka not distinguishing between whether the division is geographic or political>). My sense is that at the heart of it the disagreement stems from the semi-fusion of political and geographic divisions together, especially when we effectively move geographic divisions into political ones. Mason (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is logical and legitimate to diffuse U.S.-related categories by political division (past and present). These political divisions are of the following types: states, territories (incl. historic territories, insular areas, and minor outlying islands), and the federal district. It seems pretty straightforward to call these categories American foo by state or territory, or Topic in/of the United States by state or territory, as is done for Australia, Canada and India. I believe this name is widely understood and practical. Which kinda brings us back to the initial proposal. Place Clichy (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal didn't clearly make the distinction between political and geographic clear. Hence concerns about steam-rolling/erasing the other division. I think that naming the parent category "first level administrate division" might allow us to actually reach something tolerable for everyone involved. Many of the political divisions could be moved up a level to "first level" administrate division. I would have really like to get an answer from @Mercy11 to my question about whether the proposed divisions were conceptually reasonable. Mason (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guamanians and Puerto Ricans are American citizens, they are not Americans. There is a distinction. Getting American citizenship doesn't make you an American, it only makes you an American citizen. Mercy11 (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy: While this conversation is ongoing, could you please not make edits like this? Please undo this edit. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Clearly, Category:Christians from Washington, D.C. belongs in Category:American Christians by state or territory. I don't see anything against it in the present discussion and that category is not part of the categories proposed for renaming. You may establish consensus that we should rename these categories to e.g. American Christians by state or territory or district, as I have proposed, but so far I don't see much support for this proposal. Lastly, please note that I used non-alphabetical sort key +, per WP:SORTKEY, in order to underline the special position of D.C. as a federal district. Place Clichy (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C. is neither a state nor a territory. Please undo this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sense of failure to be a team player when edits like the one Place Clichy made are made. I agree with User:koavf that User:Place_Clichy undo his own edit. Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This is a monster of a discussion, and having read all of it I am not finding any consensus for any course of action. However, a no consensus close is not going to be particularly useful, given that it would not solve this dispute. Even if there were consensus for something, there are many other categories that would need to be renamed/purged/merged/deleted. Rather than fight this out CfD-by-CfD, I suspect that it would be most productive to close this CfD and open a RfC to get clearer, community-wide consensus on how these states/territories/insular areas/etc. ought to be categorized. Would this be an amenable course of action? Pinging participants @Aidan721, Elizabeth Linden Rahway, Fayenatic london, Grutness, Jengod, Koavf, Marcocapelle, Mercy11, Omnis Scientia, Peterkingiron, Place Clichy, Place Clichy, Pppery, Qwerfjkl, Smasongarrison, The Eloquent Peasant, Yarfpr, and Ymblanter. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A no-consensus closure is very reasonable. Though I wonder how and why an RFC would bring us any further. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster, I agree. We aren't getting anywhere with this one; clearly a lot of people feel strongly about equating states and territories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are several points which were discussed and on which we may look for consensus, or maybe open towards a new dedicated discussion. Anyway there's IMHO no way but to look at them separately:
  1. Washington D.C.: there is in fact just one user, in my understanding, who expressed opposition to placing categories related to Washington D.C. in the geographically diffused American categories (which are often called ... by state or ... by state or territory). To be frank I found their argument weak, and they never answered at my several proposals on this topic, such as adding ... territory or district or using non-alphabetical sort keys.
  2. Puerto Rico and other insular areas: there was very vocal opposition from two users to put this content in American categories, but in my understanding there is even more opposition to remove this content entirely from U.S.-related categories. The debate was mostly centered on the preference to say that topics related to these islands can be said to be of the United States but not in it, and some argued that people there are not American, while some argue that they are indeed American citizens. In one of my last edits I suggested that: Guamanian people and topics (etc.) should not be directly placed under an 'American' or 'United States' category, but instead in a Guamanian category (etc.), which should itself be placed in a parent relative to the U.S. Maybe this can reach consensus if allowed to go further. Anyway, there seems to be consensus to keep categories by insular area as an intermediate layer, at least when there is content about at least two territories.
  3. The name of U.S. diffused categories: this was in fact probably the least discussed topic. There seems to be consensus that by state is not satisfactory and not appropriate for diffusion as it excludes all the places that are not U.S. states. Various proposals were by state or territory [or district], by political division, by first-level administrative division, the latter two being late suggestions. In fact I have not seen any convincing arguments against using by state or territory, besides the fear that people would erroneously infer things on the actual status of D.C. and Puerto Rico.

I would strongly suggest to look for consensus separately on each of these 3 points. In fact, I sincerely believe that consensus is largely already there on each of the three. Place Clichy (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster I think that you've done a great job summarizing this. I think a lot of progress was made in this discussion and that the consensus is that the current system doesn't work. It is now clear that there were conflated questions captured under the same name. I think that the framework I've proposed of intently dividing the divisions into geographic and political, and gives us a path out to get consensus on each component individually. I'm not sure a broader call will help, but I do think that approaching this through a series of intentional CFDs would be workable, as @Place Clichy as mentioned. Mason (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to spend some time implementing a structure for a single occupation, as I think it'll be helpful to illustrate with a real example. (and test if its workable). Mason (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose a broader discussion. It would be nice if Place Clichy (talk · contribs) would undo his edits as multiple users have now asked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 9 February 2024 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Los Angeles Dodgers Legend Bureau ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete category per WP:NARROWCAT. I can't find any reliable source for this "Dodgers Legends Bureau" nor is there a Wikipedia article on it. From what little I found, I THINK its a community services thing linked with the Dodgers organization but not entirely sure. Its definitely not an award and I can't find another Major League Baseball team which has this type of category that lists ex-players associated with a team-ran community service/charity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison, @Marcocapelle, pinging for an opinion because sometimes "small" nominations get missed out when (a lot of) relistings happen. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support in principle: but shouldn't it be merge to Category:Los Angeles Dodgers players, instead of delete? Mason (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smasongarrison, the articles are already in that category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Great! Mason (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not defining to the articles, at least as currently written. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2024 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge/rename. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Financial commentators by nationality to Category:Financial commentators
• Propose renaming Category:German financial commentators to Category:German commentators

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There are only two categories in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. I'm also skeptical as to whether we really need to diffuse by nationality at all. Mason (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. The German subcategory may be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Added to nom. per @Marcocapelle: rename rationale: Too small of a category for just "financial commentators". Mason (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/rename per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2024 (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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Demons by culture to Category:Demons by continent

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. Move Category:Demons in religion back to Category:Demons. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename. I included Category:Demons in religion as a subcategory of Category:Demons by culture for a reason. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is just daft. A category tree by culture presupposes that every subcategory represents a culture. But a continent is not "a culture". And religion is not "a culture". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: The continent categories contain subcategories by culture/location. And religion is integral to cultural identity, especially when it comes to mythological entities. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support per nom. I don't understand the opposition. A continent isn't a culture and neither is a religion. Mason (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are several other categories like this: Category:Legendary creatures by culture; Category:Deities by culture, Category:Dragons by culture etc. These should all be renamed. @Marcocapelle, the grand parent category does the culture grouping closer to right: Category:Legendary and mythological characters by culture Mason (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Legendary creatures by culture to Category:Legendary creatures by continent
• Propose renaming Category:Deities by culture to Category:Deities by continent and move Category:Deities by religion back to Category:Deities, move Category:Goddesses by culture and Category:Gods by culture to Category:Legendary and mythological characters by culture
• Propose renaming Category:Dragons by culture to Category:Dragons by continent

• Thank you. If you know more, feel free to add them here. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per nom, it's incomprehensible that one would equate continents with individual cultures. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Category:Demons in religion can be moved to parent Category:Demons. Place Clichy (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2024 (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.

The result of the discussion was: split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:17th-century South African people to Category:17th-century Cape Colony people and Category:17th-century African people
• Propose splitting Category:18th-century South African people to Category:18th-century Cape Colony people and Category:18th-century African people
• Propose splitting Category:19th-century South African people to Category:19th-century Cape Colony people and Category:19th-century African people

Nominator's rationale: split, South Africa did not exist yet before the 20th century and in that period the Cape Colony does not have a shared history with other regions in what is now South Africa. Presumably the subcategories of the 19th century can just be renamed to Cape Colony, but let's look at that in more detail in a later follow-up nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: were would someone like Krotoa be categorized with this rename? They're from the area, but aren't really defined by the colony. Mason (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As she worked for the Dutch East India Company, she would belong in Category:17th-century Cape Colony people. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. And reparent as appropriate. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2024 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Cheondoism. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Cheondoists to Category:Cheondoism

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's really not enough here for a category. Mason (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2024 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Articles generated by AI ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My definition of redundant is "it will probably not be necessary for a long while, if ever". That doesn't seem to be the case here, as the moment someone creates an article with a non-GPT AI, this category will need to be recreated. It seems like minor quibbling to delete it now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not the moment someone creates such an article. The moment their doing so becomes a matter of attention by the community and needs to be noted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per nom, but I'm not sure how much this would be a defining category beyond maintenance. Mason (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2024 (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.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Republic of Venice writers. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Republic of Venice novelists to Category:Republic of Venice writers and Category:Italian novelists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one page in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with some regret, since the Italian parent is a bit odd. I think this is the only case where we have a huge tree by occupation for what was just a region at the time (pre-1800). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smasongarrison: it appears that the subject of the article was born in Zadar which was part of the Republic of Venice but was not in Italy at all. I would suggest to drop the second merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmmm, I think we'll have to manually merge then, to ensure that we don't lose the fact that these are novelists. Mason (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is already in Category:16th-century novelists so it stays in the novelists tree regardless. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok sounds good, happy to do a single merge then Mason (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2024 (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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:18th-century biochemists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is effectively empty. The only page in here, is a redirect who was born in the 19th century. Mason (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the fact that biochemistry wasnt even defined then. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2024 (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.