Category talk:Chinook Jargon place names

post-CfD attempt to empty the category

User:Carlossuarez46 attempted to remove the category from articles that it was designed to hold, saying "article is about the place, not the toponym" which is a narrow interpretation of the cat's purpose and uncalled-for; in the CfD it was pointed out that only articles that did mention the CJ origin of the names should be in it. There was nothing said about removing the bulk of articles on it based on such a narrow interpretation of terms. Purging a category this was is not constructive activity, nor consensual.@Fayenatic london:, @Good Olfactory:.Skookum1 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• The articles removed were not articles on Chinook Jargon place names. They were about the places. Are we going to let anything with a Fooish name that merely mentions that fact be in a category so named? Rediculous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• The two articles left in the category were about the toponyms. Your edit summaries are provably false - I had nothing to do with the prior AFD, nothing in the removing inappropriate articles from the cat to make it useful, the cat is fine, the inclusion of articles on places is wholly inappropriate, as were your edit summaries and reversions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I reject our logic about you supposedly "improving" the category, you were altering its purposes based on your own narrow interpretation of its terminology; it would be unnecessary to make it Category:Places with Chinook Jargon place names in the same way that Category:Algonquian ethnonyms isn't Category:Places and governments with Algonquian ethnonyms. This category (yes, created by me) was intended to hold articles about places with Chinook jargon place names; repeated the word "place(s)" in the same catname would be redundant, so it wasn't used.Skookum1 (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is the normal interpretation of theses sorts of cats. See Category:French words and phrases, for example. Ethnonyms in the language of the peoples may be an exception, but categories like this filled with articles only on places, not on toponyms as toponyms are improper see [[1]], unless it's your personal view that somehow Spanish places deserve somehow worse treatment? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually, because as pointed out in the CfD (and not by me), the US placenames are overwhelmingly in places that were part of New Spain and Mexico before being added to the US. The CJ placenames are not of the same kind and have a special role and significance in the region they mostly are in; and are unique in that way; as also laid out in the CfD, and not only by me. This is not the same as "French placenames in France" or "Spanish placenames in parts of the US that were formerly New Spain" or the like. Read the CfD, which is closed as "keep". Stripping the category of its intended content is not acceptable and the articles I have restored the category to were what it was intended for in the first place. It failed the deletion attempt, and your attempt to empty it on the same grounds as the failed nomination is desctructive, not constructive, and your narrow interpretation of "filled with articles only on places, not on toponyms as toponyms" is specious and narrow...and not this category's intent.Skookum1 (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that the category is kept is no endorsement to each article's presence in the category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, as the complainer has not bothered to give links for the actions discussed above, here are Carlossuarez46's edits and here are Skookum1's reversions. – Fayenatic London 07:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)