Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 5

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. It seems that Wikipedia has not yet developed a stable consensus on how to use political boundaries for the geographical categorisation of historical people. In most cases, this is uncontentious, because blatant anachronisms can be avoided through the use of narrow geographical areas, so that

WP:TROUT is on its way).
Nonetheless, the sub-categorisation does not appear to me to be a perverse outcome, so I will let it stand ... but since it was implemented out-of-process, editors who disagree with it should feel free to make any new nominations for renaming or merger, without any need for a delay after this closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Propose renaming Category:People from Karelia to Category:People from the Republic of Karelia

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Republic of Karelia, all of its other subcats, and main article Republic of Karelia. LeSnail (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge would also be needed, as some of these people are from Karelia, Finland. LeSnail (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split with the Finns going into Category:People from North Karelia or Category:People from South Karelia as appropriate, and the Russians going into the renamed category. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for the reason presented by the nominator (consistency). However, it should be noted that none of the persons concerned is from
  Karelian ASSR and now to the Republic of Karelia. Monegasque (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Well, that's a problem, because people who predate the establishment of the SSR really shouldn't be categorized into being resident in it. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's no problem at all, since the established Wikipedia practice is to categorize persons according to present-day administrative borders, regardless of when the persons concerned were born. The same logic applies to all countries. For instance, persons born in the territory which nowadays constitutes the Federal Republic of Germany are categorized within a framework consisting of the present-day German states, districts and cities, regardless of whether they were born at a time when the FRG and its constituent states existed or not. It is important to note the role of subcategories within this system. The German states, the Russian republics, oblast and krais, the Polish voivodeships and so on include subcategories: districts, counties, cities, towns and so on. Persons tend to first be categorized within larger units such as German or U.S. states, subjects of the Russian Federation and so on. Later on, they normally get categorized within subcategories (counties, districts, cities, towns etc). Monegasque (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a problem becausesince CfD 2012/Feb/29 Years in Benin and CfD 2012/Feb/26 1977 establishments in South Sudan the push has been to standardize in the other direction. I am not active enough in WP these days to mount an effort one way or the other.- choster (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. However if there is a plan to categorize people by current jurisdiction, it should be rethought. We should not be putting people in
  Uzhgorod Ukrainian. They were Jews. That was their ethnicity. Most of their non-Jewish neighbors were Slovaks, while a few may have been Hungarians. Any Ukrainian in that city in 1888 would have been a recent migrant from somewhere else. They were also proud citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire who in later years would try to claim some sort of special connection to Emperor Franz Josef. They were People of Austro-Hungary, but clearly not People of Slovakia, since that would not exist at all until it was forged as a sub-unit of Czechoslovakia by Slovaks meeting with Czechs in Pittsburgh 30 years later, and no one would ever concieve of Ungvar, now renamed Uzhgorod as part of Ukraine until it was annexed into Ukrain by the SOviet Union at the end of World War II. The return of it to Hungarian control after the fall of Czechoslovakia was a closer reflection of the ethnic situation there than the placement of it in Ukraine. A slavish following of the current political jurisdictions can only lead to truly bizarre characterisations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The 1910 census showed Ungvar with an 80% Magyar population, but it is unclear how the Jews there were classified. The region was about a third Magyarr, a third Slovak and a fifthed Rusyn/Ruthenian. Despite later attempts to confuse the issue, the Rusyns/Ruthenians at that time were clearly a distinct ethnic group from the Ukrainians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename This means I have repudiated my previous vote. There is an article on
  Karelo-Finnish SSR. However people connected with this place before its annexation into the USSR need to be categorized seperately. Karelia is a region that exists despite the political control of various powers over it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose renaming It's apples and oranges as John Pack Lambert so eloquently states above (8 April version). It is fine to use modern distinctions when applicable, but we have both Category:Carthaginians and Category:People from Tunis. --Bejnar (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The example above doesn't quite work as an analogy, because Ancient Carthage was not a region (such as Karelia), but an ancient city-state and Category:Carthaginians is a subcategory of Category:People of former countries, Category:People from Carthage (thus not of Category:People from Tunis) and Category:Ancient African people. On the other hand, Category:People from Silesia and Category:People from Pomerania are perfect analogies of the Karelian case. Karelia, Silesia and Pomerania are all historical regions currently divided between two (in the case in Silesia, three) countries. Karelia as a region consists of four parts: the Republic of Karelia and the Karelian Isthmus on the Russian side and North Karelia as well as South Karelia on the Finnish side of the border. If we were to define Category:People from Karelia as a subcategory of Category:People by region (as People from Silesia and People from Pomerania are), instead of a subcategory of Category:People by federal subject in Russia, a new Category:People from the Republic of Karelia would of course need to be created. This new category (a subcategory of Category:People by federal subject in Russia) would of course be as well one of the subcategories of Category:People from Karelia, alongside with Category:People from North Karelia, Category:People from South Karelia and the categories for people from the cities and districts of the Karelian Isthmus. All this according to the same logic which applies in the completely analogous cases of Category:People from Silesia and Category:People from Pomerania: a distinction between the historical region and the present-day territorial units it consists of. It is important to realize that whereas Ancient Carthage and Austria-Hungary are former states and do not exist anymore (no sane person living today in Prague, Vienna, Budapest or Bratislava would say they are living in "Austria-Hungary"), Karelia, Silesia and Pomerania still do exist as regions, although each of them is divided between two (in the case of Silesia, three) countries. Monegasque (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. The Helpful One 15:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Côte d'Ivoire to all 4 parent categories

Nominator's rationale:

WP:SMALLCAT. Only one article. There are no similar categories for any other African country. LeSnail (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose merger - Africa is a huge continent comprising 54 sovereign countries, with numerous cathedrals in diverse and geographically distant countries, from Algeria to South Africa to Côte d'Ivoire. Merging a single country's cathedral category into a larger continental category makes it harder to locate an individual cathedral(s). Other important cathedrals exist in Côte d'Ivoire - they just don't have English-language articles yet. Scanlan (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - I'd be happy to create categories for the other existing African cathedral articles by country if that helps. Scanlan (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: How many roman catholic cathedrals are there in Cote D'Ivoire? If the answer is 1, you cannot have a category for it per

WP:SMALLCAT. Perhaps consider making a list of all the cathedrals on the continent, organized by country? --Karl.brown (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Actually there are 15 Roman Catholic Cathedras in Ivory Coast at present. I do not know how many others there have been in the past that are not presently used as Cathedrals. My guess is that there have probably been at least 17 Roman Catholic cathedrals over time in that country, although the total number could easily by 20 or more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - for now. There is an exemption to

WP:SMALLCAT that allows for categories even with only one article - if there is an established category tree. At the moment, though, there is not - this is the only by-country subcategory of Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Africa. That said, if at a future date that category is by-country diffused, no prejudice should be attached to recreating this category as part of that effort. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per
  WP:SMALLCAT. This is part of the well-established by-country subcategories in Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals. I don't think it's particularly interesting to have continental subcategories though and it certainly doesn't make sense to use these as anything other than container categories for the country-specific categories. Pichpich (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep there are 16 docieces and archdioceses in Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Côte d'Ivoire. I would expect each to have a cathedral. As a former French colony, I would expect Côte d'Ivoire to have a large Catholic church. The problem is that the category needed to be populated fully, probably by creating articles on the other 15 cathedrals. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are 15 dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church in Ivory Coast at present. There is no reason why we could not have articles or at least article sections on at least 10 cathedrals. The fact that Africa is under covered and often ignored in article creation should not be used as reason to stop logical categories that are part of the standard Roman Catholic cathedrals by country plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:SMALLCAT, and per users Pichpich, Peterkingiron, and JPL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge per nominator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Moscow to Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Russia and Category:Cathedrals in Moscow

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Fails

WP:SMALLCAT. LeSnail (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per
  WP:SMALLCAT--Karl.brown (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge as nom. No possibility of expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge At present there is only 1 Roman Catholic Cathedral in Moscow and only 4 in Russia. While I am not sure that Mr. Kingiron is right in claiming there is "no possibility of expansion" because it is possible there have been other Cathedrals in the past, Cathedrals by city of location and specific denomination they are part of is not part of a regular scheme. It is rare for there to be multiple Roman Catholic Cathedrals in any given city at any time, and it would only be in cities with heavy changes in Cathedrals or extremely long histories of Roman Catholicism where you would see more than 5 Cathedrals through all history. Do we even have Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Rome?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Neurobiologists to Category:Neuroscientists

Nominator's rationale:

neurobiology redirects to neuroscience: The two terms are synonymous. Having separate categories therefore does not make any sense. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge The two terms are not quite synonymous: 'neurobiology' is often used in a more restrictive sense than 'neuroscience'. However, the concepts overlap too extensively for these categories to be maintained separately. LeSnail (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. If the naming gets sorted out, this can be nominated again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Iranian heads of Judicial System to Category:Chief Justices of Iran

Nominator's rationale: Another uses incorrectly placed a merge tag here, but I think the category merge makes sense

D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge the target is a much better name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, pending further information. According to uncited information in this article, the chief justice of Iran is not the head of the judiciary system; they are two distinct positions. The head of the judiciary system appoints the chief justice, it says. I'm not sure if this is accurate or not, but if it is, of course we shouldn't merge the two. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect) one; purge the present category (if kept). This category contains the Minister of Justice 1927-37; six post revolution chief justices and two people who do not belong here at all, one being chief prosecutor. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the current category is named as a people of x nationality by occupation category, when it appears what we really want is a people by y office category, thus maybe Category:Heads of the Judicial System of Iran would work. The issue is not that the people are Iranian but that they are head of The Judicial System of Iran or whatever exactly it is called. The system not the person has a connection to Iran. The nationality of the person will probably be Iranian as well, but that is not the issue in the category. the current name might actually be meant to be Category:Iranian heads of Judicial systems or Category:Iranian heads of judicial systems, which would allow people heading sub-national judicial system in Iran, and Iranians elsewhere heading some type of judicial system. I am pretty sure that is not what we want. I guess another possible name would be Category:Heads of the Iranian Judicial System. I have no opinion on JS of Iran verses Iranian JS.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, pending further information. The article
  Structure of the judicial system refers variously to a "head of the judiciary" (without giving a capitalised title) and a separate "Minister of Justice". I think that the relevant sections of the Iranian constitution confirm this, but I would like more input from someone who knows a bit about the topic before we make any changes. I suggest a discussion at WikiProject Iran to clarify matters before any changes are made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. As noted by some editors, it would help if there was a centralised discussion on how to approach this type of categorisation, which has been the subject of several inconclusive recent CfDs. May I suggest

WT:YEARS? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Propose merging Category:1537 establishments by country to Category:1537 establishments

Nominator's rationale: Another user incorrectly used a merge tag for this, but I think the category merge makes sense.

D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge and upmerge sub-cats. We need to figure out a standardized rule set for these categories. What is the earliest year we will subdivide by country? I would say 1700 at the earliest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Poking into a large category structure like this with no attempt made (and really no existing viable avenue) to alert other users who would likely be interested in discussing guidelines that should be implemented for the entire hierarchy, is non-productive at best, but I'd suggest it's counter-productive rather. As I've stated in the ongoing CfD about
  talk) 17:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep part of a larger system. Tim! (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have a few concerns over these, but it is more procedural then retention. First, we should be filling these in in some order. Adding only one country at a time over a period of a 100 years can leave the impression that the tree is not useful. Having said that, it is really difficult to fill in category trees like this due to the huge amount of work involved. Our
  precision naming does not allow someone to look at an article and know that it is in England or Germany or Canada. So populating these categories requires a lot of work and creating a lot of small categories up front. The second one is that care needs to be exercised as countries change names, die or are born. This has been an issue in the past and populating categories like this is likely to cause more problems. Having said that, it is not a reason to delete these, but it is a caution about the problems that will be created when someone does this work. If only one person is doing the populating, it will never get finished. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And the discourse on these years hierarchies continues in a completely disjointed fashion. I really wonder why people such as yourself present such succinct and elaborate reflections time and again instead of getting with me and the process of establishing a central forum for discussions and creating guidelines and specifications. __
  talk) 20:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, I'm slowly creating more and more of these, and there is quite a lot of info for many years and countries. Upmerging these cats makes it harder to navigate the cat tree: you get the info from the "establishments" side, but you lose it from the "country" side of the cat. If these cats are not kept, they need minimally to be merged to both sides of the tree, not just to one side.
  Fram (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong merge As in the Karelia discussions there is no consensus on whether to use historical or present-day names and borders, and moreover the concept of a "country" is only reliable in the modern age.- choster (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- These "by year" categories are remote periods are pretty pointless. I do not accept that these trees should exist. We might do a double merge, merging also to a decade by country category. I would also contest that the Norwegian church was established in 1537: Norway has been a Christian country (with a church) for 1000 years. It may have separated itself from Rome in 1537, but it was not new! Peterkingiron (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if we merge all the countents up to Category:1537 establishments that category will only have 9 articles and 2 subcats. I would say that my vote here is a "for now" merger. If at some future time we have well over 50 entries in this category dividing by country could be considered. Maybe not even that many. However the current level does not justify this type of subdivision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Based on comments in other places, how well do we know what the borders of the older countries were? Were they static or did they evolve over the years. If the later, are we asking for trouble in sourcing for categories like this? So if we are not confident that we can add accurate information then deleting would be the wisest choice. No opinion since I don't know the answers to my questions. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the further back in time we go the harder it is to place boundaries. This also comes into play once we move beyond nation states. On the other hand, the claimed and real boundaries of both the United States and Mexico in 1821, when in theory at least they did not have mutually exclusive claims, are a case in point. Is a school established within the Cherokee domains in 1859 established in the United States? I think we should err on the side of caution, and only put things in established by country categories when we can be sure they belong in that country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to decade or century: Before 1800 at least, I don't think there's much value in maintaining the by-year categories. However, I do support keeping them 'by country' (as in, the modern state). It is true that this will be in many cases inaccurate, but trying to make the categories accurate will be even harder (if not to say impossible), because over any 100 year period there will be a dozen or more different governments/entities that might have held a particular scrap of land. Thus, sticking things within the borders of the modern nation state where they currently sit seems to make sense. If they moved around a fair bit, stick them in 2 countries. I think one exception to consider is things which no longer exist. In that case, I think it's a bit more debatable whether they should be slotted in this tree. Remember, the purpose of categories is not to teach history, it is to aid navigation. I think we have to put up with a bit of inaccuracy in the name of simplicity. --KarlB (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it is much better to not try to divide by geography at all than to divide by geographies that would not come into play for centuries. Since these are categories related to things going on in the years/decades in question, they should reflect the facts involved then. This will especially be heldpful for things that are hard to place in a specific location, but clearly belong to a specific political entity, like coins and government agencies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if we start classifying Mosques established in Haifa in 1820 as Category:1820s establishments in Israel you can bet we will get people truly irate. We should not go down that path.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that's a great example. let's see what happens in the real wikipedia: Al-Bahr_Mosque, built in the 16h century, when there certainly wasn't a modern-day state of Israel. Article is created, Category:Mosques_in_Israel added to it over 1 year ago, and so far no disputes. I really think we should have a simple rule, which will end so many debates: if the thing still exists today, then put it in the country where it is today. I really can't see someone getting offended over someone saying "such and such a mosque is in Israel" - because it is. We could just make sure we clarify in the categories, so people understand if we say '1530s in England', that means the modern day England, not the boundaries of some historical state. --KarlB (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Karl, you are ignoring the fact that the Al-Bahr Mosque is an extant mosque. It is categorized on being in Israel because it exists today and is in Israel. This is a totally different case that what would happen if we had categorizes for establishments in a country that did not exist. The mosque is being categorized based on its present location. It is not in any establishment category. Do you really not understand how controversial it would be to create categories that claim that the nation of Israel existed in 1820?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's not what the category would claim. The category doesn't say "Establishments by year in contemporary country", not does it say "establishments by year in current country". The latter is equally valid (and arguably more useful to our readers) than the former. I want to know which things in current country A were established in which year. Kleinlützel Priory is an establishment in 1136 in Switzerland, and in the Holy Roman Empire. Only including the latter would not be helpful for many people. Hospices de Beaune is now listed as a 1443 establishment. Assuming you would add a country to it, would you refine it as "in Burgundy" or "In France"? If you would only list it as "In Burgundy", how would people interested to know the history of current France be able to find it easily?
  • The question should be: does this category help some users, without being wrong. Since these categories are helpful for some, and are not wrong (in the "current" interpretation of country), they should not be deleted but stimulated.
    Fram (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment I think you are underestimating the intensity of feelings about proper naming of categories that related to Palestine if you think that categories that designate things as happening in Israel in 1820 would every fly. You have no idea how much debate there has been over broad historical categories connected with Israel, categorizing things that specifically, especially non-Jewish things, as in Israel in the early 19th century would lead to major debates. To apply the name Israel to anything happinging between 720 BC and AD 1948 is not only not historically defiensible, but it will be rightly attacked as pushing a POV that undervalues the majority of people who lived in that land, at least when used after AD 100. Before AD 100 it just might work, but Judea at least through AD 70 Judea would be a better term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not pushing a POV. It would only be pushing a POV if people insisted that Israel was acceptable, and at the same time insisted that a more contemporary term (whether Judea, Palestine, Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Seleucid Empire, or whoever else was or wasn't ruler there at some time) was not acceptable. I have no objection against using the contemporary term as well.
    Fram (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ken Batcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories are discouraged, only has two articles (and main.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, the creator of the category, is currently on a temporary block and therefore can't participate in the discussion. He has asked that the following comments be added to this discussion: — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Batcher is associated with a number of other important computer science topics, e.g. the Goodyear Massively Parallel Computer (at least one), associative computing, etc. WP doesn't have articles on many of these topics. See the description of his research at his (Computer-Science Nobel Prize) award. Hillis's book on the MPP called Batcher the original MPP hacker. That said, a rename may be advisable, e.g. to 'works of Batcher'."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response But this category isn't works by him... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: per
  WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. The category members are not only not works by him, they aren't either works about him. They are just algorithsm which he has developed (but likely, others have added to them over time). Even Linus Torvalds, who created one of the most popular pieces of software of all time, doesn't have an eponymous cat. --Karl.brown (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the default is not to have these categories unless there is a particular reason to have the one in question, which no one has shown.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Wikipedia categories named after religious figures. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after Scientology figures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge Very unlikely to be populated by anything other than Category:L. Ron Hubbard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. __
  talk) 17:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Upmerge to Category:Wikipedia categories named after religious figures only. Pichpich (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American socialist organizations opposed to communism to Category:Socialist anti-communist organizations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Or somesuch per the parents Category:Anti-communist organizations in the United States and Category:Democratic socialist and social democratic parties and organizations in the United States. No matter what, the name is a mouthful, but I don't see any other categories using the construction "X opposed to communism." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, the creator of the category, is currently on a temporary block and therefore can't participate in the discussion. He has asked that the following comments be added to this discussion: — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Anti-Communist' has negative connotations, unfortunately, because of propaganda by communists and anti-anti-communists. Thus, the use of 'anti-communist' carries a considerable POV burden. 'Opposed to Communism' is descriptive and NPOV."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Anti-communist" is used to conjure up images of the John Birch Society and McCarthyism. It has too much baggage to be assumed to be equivalent to "opposed to Communism".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Political parties are, by their nature, opposed to any and all other parties to some degree (c.f.
  WP:SOAP. Warden (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Would Category:Socialist (non-communist) organizations in the United States be better. This would make clear their political stance without raising their POV on communism. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am repudiating my old vote. Warden has convinced me that this category is not useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are real issues here with definition and many socialist organizations were not communist but not consistently anti communist. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly a POV exercise of some sort. Carrite (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Warden. This category should be the same as "Category:Democratic socialist and social democratic parties and organizations in the United States." If it is not, then we have issues of defining "opposed to" and "communism". TFD (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment TFD I am not sure "Democratic Socialist" has ever caught on as a term in the United States. At some level grouping multiple political parties by an assumed shared ideology is quite difficult. It is much easier when they are grouped by real shared structual connections. Thus the various Republican Parties in each state in the United States can easily be grouped, and in general Communist parties in many nations can be grouped. However trying to group the Republican Party in the United States with any political party in any other country will be very difficult.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as it is not a null set) and propose rename to "Socialist non-communist parties in the US" to be discussed on the appropriate talk page if anyone really is affronted by "anti-communist" <g>. Collect (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Warden. The category is rather tendentious, because the distance between communists and socialists varies over and time, and depends in part on the perspective of the commentator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no action for now. Further discussion is needed to decide whether the hatnote of this category should become an article called Wireless locating, and to what extent this overlaps with Location awareness. Editors should feel free to start a new CfD discussion when those issues have been resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wireless locating to something or create a lead article.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category seems a little unfocused. I'm not sure how bluetooth belongs here, but it is. Wireless locating does not exist as an article, but the introduction here would make an article that is longer then a stub. So one option would be to keep the category, cleanup it up and move the introduction into a new article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure it makes that much sense. If you use a surveying theodolite you can "wirelessly" determine your location from known locations... 70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'd suggest reaching out to the creator of the article to understand his rationale, he seems like an expert in wireless locating/etc and has created a number of articles, like Location awareness, etc. He also seems to like categories, and has created a number of articles in this space. I agree the cat description is too long, but Location awareness may be the cat article, I'm not enough of an expert to be sure ... --Karl.brown (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the lead should be transposed to an article, preferably with citations. I think we should wait until that happens to act on the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Washington, D.C. templates. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:District of Columbia templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Washington, D.C. templates and main article and cat are at that name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge "District of Columbia" is the the entity that contains Washington. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Response
  District of Columbia redirects to Washington, D.C.... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reply Washington, DC is still in DC. The push for statehood is for DC, not Washington, when Washington was founded, there were several other towns in DC as well, and the territory lost in retrocession just before the Civil War was never part of Washington. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Okay, but nothing on Wikipedia is named
  District of Columbia or Category:District of Columbia, so why should this be any different? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Rename. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 abolished all jurisdictions within the District of Columbia other than the city of Washington, so in any practical sense the two are synonymous, and while I personally believe "District of Columbia" is the more correct term, discussion at Talk:Washington, D.C. has kept the main article at Washington, D.C., and auxiliary content like templates and categories should should conform.- choster (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment though that which existed before 1871 still wouldn't be part of Washington, either in part or in full. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Washington: long debates have led to articles being at "Washington, D.C." Anything separate on DC is redundant. I suspect that we do not have a lot on DC before 1871, but that can also be placed in Washington item, because that is the current location. We cannot afford to have too many over-nice disticntions, particlularly in technical categories, like templates. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we need to avoid presentism. The District of Columbia existed starting in 1801, and Georgeotwn was not part of Washington until 1871. Alexandria was also part of D.C. without ever being part of Washington.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not correct and not relevant. The District of Columbia was created in 1790 and the city of Washington in 1791. The main article and category for D.C. are Washington, D.C. and Category:Washington, D.C., and since this category is for templates relating to D.C., it covers the identical subject matter at Category:Washington, D.C. templates. There are no templates which would relate to D.C. before the 1871 Organic Act but not after.- choster (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have fixed an odd typo I made. choster's point that I was 11 years off allows him to chant "not correct" but misses the point. My incorrectness becomes an argument that is less relevant. We get 11 more years of DC being much beyond the city limits of Washington.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge all to new categories named "Fooish Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Albanian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Albanian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:American Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:American Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Austrian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Austrian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Belgian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Belgian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose renaming Category:Brazilian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Brazilian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Canadian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Canadian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:French Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:French Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:German Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:German Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Indian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Indian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Irish Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Irish Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Italian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Italian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Pakistani Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Pakistani Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Peruvian Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Peruvian Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Scottish Roman Catholic Religious Sisters to Category:Scottish Roman Catholic nuns

Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic Religious Sisters by order to Category:Roman Catholic nuns by order

Propose deleting Category:Roman Catholic Religious Sisters by nationality

Propose deleting Category:Roman Catholic Religious Sisters (or redirecting to Category:Roman Catholic nuns)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Some time ago, there was a test nomination to determine if the "Roman Catholic Religious Sisters" categories should be merged into the appropriate "Roman Catholic nuns" categories. It was decided that yes, they should be. This is a follow-up nomination to that discussion to merge or rename the other categories. This was a scheme fully developed by a sole editor. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge: for me the key phrase is this one, "However, in popular speech, the terms "nun" and "sister" are used interchangeably for any woman religious." from here.--Karl.brown (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I had not realized that the debate was still open. I continue to oppose this merger since the lifestyles of nuns and Religious Sisters can be extremely different. Despite the acceptance of Karl Brown and others that the popular mix up in terminology is an acceptable rationale, this is not a criterion used for other fields.

Religious Sisters fought for centuries to be recognized as a way of life in the Catholic Church. To mix them in with nuns seems to be contrary to their struggle and the reality of their lives, which is still recognized in Canon law of the Catholic Church as a distinct category.Daniel the Monk (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename in wikipedia we use common usage, and in common usage "nuns" covers all religious sisters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename all to Category:Fooish Roman Catholic nuns and religious sisters as had been suggested in the previous discussion, or to Category:Fooish members of Roman Catholic female orders and societies (per Category:Roman Catholic female orders and societies, and as there was a previous objection to the technical term "religious institutes" on grounds of unfamiliarity). Like many other subjects, the common and formal usages of terms have become jumbled, but the formal meaning persists and should not be trivialized, especially considering this is a denomination-specific branch and one would expect increasing precision with increasing specificity. Any big church could be called a cathedral and get into Category:Cathedrals, but not just any big Catholic church can be placed in Category:Catholic cathedrals.- choster (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose And I dispute that "nun" and "sister" are used interchangeably in all cases. For one thing, as noted above, there are orders which do not use the terms interchangeably. (Some in the RCC consider a nun to be cliostered, and sisters to be non cloistered, but it varies from group to group.) See also: this, for example. - jc37 20:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I would support: Rename all to

  religious. - jc37 18:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • oppose: oppose nom, but Per Jc37 I now support Category:Fooish Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns. --KarlB (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (purging of non-nuns, if necessary). By the way, I thought we had decided that the designation "Roman" was redundant, at least outside areas where there are Anglo-Catholics. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Good luck with purging. References themselves differ on nomenclature. I was just reading some Vatican II documents at vatican.va. And you're not going to find consistency. I think part of the issue is that the RCC (while providing various guidance) seems to be intentionally leaving the precise naming up to each organisation/order. I'm not certain, but this may be because the RCC typically relies upon 'tradition' for such things. And perhaps also because each order is different. (See also

  Religious institute (Catholic). The quote in the lead is telling.) - jc37 18:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • Jc37 is partly right, as Church law (to the best of my knowledge) no longer distinguishes between the type of vow made, as was true in earlier centuries. The Annuario Pontificale, however, continues to distinguish monastic Orders from institutes of "active life."