Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 9 June 11 >

June 10[edit]

Category:Calvinists[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this CfD, we should use "Calvinist and Reformed" to avoid confusion rather than either term to avoid confusion. JFH (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Rename as proposed: As one of the contributors to this hierarchy, I approve this as an appropriate rename. (But note that Dutch is matched to French above -- should be two separate lines.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed --JFH (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The differences here are too fine to be worth figuring out. Categories should be broad, not overly specific.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It is not quite as simple as implied. Calvinist can eithger be a theological position or a denominational one. It will bne necessary to purge the categories of those not from these denominations into perhaps "Theological Calvinists", for those holding the theological position without belonging to one of these denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "denominational," do you mean the Continental Reformed churches, which often have "Reformed" in the name? I agree these should be a subcat here, but I don't think that's how Category:Reformed Christians is being used. And surely the Reformed tradition is more than a theological position. --JFH (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Straight edge individuals[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, straight edge is similar to teetotaler; eg someone who doesn't drink, smoke, or do drugs. Dennis_Lyxzén is a classic example here - in this interview (replace x with y - this url is banned for some reason he talks about how from time to time he will drink a glass of champagne. I think a list, which already exists at List of people that follow a straight edge lifestyle is a better way of capturing the nuance here, a category is not, especially since you're talking about mostly musicians who might float in and out of adherence to a straight-edge regime - thus a list where such behaviors can be sourced and the nuance captured is better than a category Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Obi. It's not really that defining for most of those people (IE - it should be mentioned in the lead of the biography). Ian MacKaye does, as I'd expect, but picking a few at random (Aaron Dalbec, Zach Blair) don't even mention the fact. The first article in the category, Simon Amstell, states "He is a vegan and teetotal". That's not straight edge. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not defining, since it is a temporal identity; and badly named to boot. --Lquilter (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This really should be used only for people who openly identify with a certain music sub-culture, not people who might fit its technical definition. This is not a clearly defined enough group to be worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Too common to be worth a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vegans[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per recent CFDs, consensus seems to be that diet-based categories for individuals are not considered as WP:DEFINING:

While being a vegan is obviously an important personal choice for certain of the people in these categories, I don't think ultimately these are workable as categories, as some people become vegetarian, then vegan, then go back to being vegetarian, or pescatarian, or back to omnivore. Diet choices change during one's lifetime, and are rarely static.

In addition, there are different definitions of what it means to be vegan, and whether you only do so in diet or for products you use/wear/etc, and for how long one has to be a vegan before they could be placed into this category.

Finally, when I read media profiles of many of the people in these categories, their diet is not mentioned. Thus, I think these categories generally fail WP:DEFINING.

I think this information is best kept at List of vegans, where diet choice at a given time in life can be sourced and contextualized appropriately, as opposed to as a category, which is binary membership (in or out).

We could create a category called Category:Vegan and vegetarian activists or similar for those who have actively campaigned for and promoted a vegan or vegetarian diet and have been called as such by media reports; but simply following a vegan diet should not lead to categorization as same.

You also have cases where people are categorized as vegans even though the word didn't exist at the time (word invented c.1944) - see Lewis Gompertz for example - who espoused some of what are today known as vegan principles, but also accepted eating of meat if the animal died naturally. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I notified projects animal rights, food and drink, and medicine of this discussion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nom. Good heavens, yes. (And I like vegans very much – medium rare.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just as trivial as being a vegetarian, which we previously deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Vegan sportspeople While it may be trivial for (e.g.) an actor or a politician to not eat animal products, it's noteworthy for an athlete to do it and there is ample literature about sports/fitness and vegan nutrition to justify categorizing professional athletes as having animal product-free diets. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have thoughts on the others? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Vegan athletes is a redirect to List of vegans. That being the case, I'm not sure that we have an objective basis for saying that this category really deals with a set of persons notable for being vegans. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories Not sure: When a category becomes big enough, it needs to be diffused and the most common methods (for biographies) are by nationality and by century. There's not claim that (e.g.) Chinese vegans are somehow different at being vegans than Canadian ones, but there simply has to be some method to break up larger categories into navigable ones. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - perhaps you misunderstood the nomination - I've proposed to delete the Vegans tree entirely. If it's kept, I agree on dividing by country, that's reasonable - but the proposal is that being "Vegan" is not WP:DEFINING, so we should not have such categories at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People see this as an important aspect of themselves, sometimes a health issue, sometimes a religious one, sometimes an entire lifestyle choice, and they want to be associated with it, which is why they let it be known. I can't see any reason that Wikipedia would choose to ignore it, given how we categorize for all kinds of reasons. Categories are not about people who are notable for being X. They are people who are notable, and who are also X. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree in part with your last sentence, there comes a point of diminishing returns. (For example: would we really want Category:Slovenians who had acne as teenagers?) I worry that categories like this end up being a subtle form of POV-pushing, by telling our readers "oh, look, this person whose biography you looked up for reasons other than being vegan is a vegan, along with so many other people!" I would not object to a category for people who are not only vegan, but who have made "let[ting] it be known" a major part of their life's work. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guidance is WP:DEFINING - that's how we know that Slovenians with acne is not a valid category. In most articles about the people covered here, unless the source is a pro-vegan magazine, they do not cover their dietary choices. We have a list of vegans where such statements (and adherence/non-adherence) can be covered, but since none of this can be verified it's essentially a self-declared affiliation and as such not really worthy of categorization. As it says at WP:DEFINING, "In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. I agree, and that really validates the point I was trying to make. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As not being defining to the individual. In most cases, this is trivial and would not be mentioned in the article lead. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problematic. This really should have been split into at least two - one on nationalistic lines, and the other on professional. I've no real opinion on the nationalistic side, but Vegan Sportspeople, for instance, I completely disagree with Koavf on. Very few athletes are notable for being vegans. The existence of literature about vegan nutrition and sport fitness in general does not make this a notable intersection for a specfic athlete. This intersection is easily as trivial as that of vegan politicians. Resolute 16:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not convinced identifying as a vegan is sufficiently defining to categorise people by. Robofish (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all it's not defining, it's usually not permanent (i.e., most people in these categories became vegans; and may choose to not later, so we'll need ex-vegans?). And addressing the argument proffered by SlimVirgin above: that people think this is an important aspect of their personhood is irrelevant, unless you want to categorize people by whether they're married/single, have kids, widowed, birth order, overweight, hypertensive, or all manner of things that people think is important to their personhoods. And your last sentence directly contradicts: WP:COP#N, "Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable" or else we'd have nearly everyone under 40 in Category:Skateboarders, because we've nearly all done it at least once. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just this week on The Colbert Report, Paul McCartney was asked about his claim that he was a vegan when a card that was issued with an older album says his favorite food is prime rib, if my recall is correct. When asked about that, Sir Paul kind of laughed it off. This shows the problem with this type of classification. We could correctly identify him as a Category:Beef lovers and Category:Vegans since he has identified as both. Since this type of decision does not have to be permanent, can it really be defining? Given all of the issues, I think the best solution is to delete all and listify as needed so that you can explain when and why someone changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Being a vegan is not a permanent, defining charactistic. Anyone meat eating human could decide to switch to a vegan diet, much like any vegan could go back to being a meat eater. Perhaps something like Vegaswikian's solution of listifying vegans as needed, so that we can remove as necessary should their dietary preferences change. Regardless of that, though, just delete all the categories. Canuck89 (have words with me) 06:25, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Conwy United F.C. players[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Club name changed from 'Conwy United F.C.' to 'Conwy Borough F.C.' Mattythewhite (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per C2D. GiantSnowman 10:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per C2D. FYI, I've tagged the article in question for history merge, as it was copy-paste moved in June 2012. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fitness stubs[edit]

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 (merged to Category:Health stubs). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Considering the current content, I don't see a reason to build this category when we already have Category:Health stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chinese city stubs[edit]

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. I'm also closing this related discussion as "delete". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary. We already have geography stub categories for each of the major divisions of China (PRC, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet). This category and template will only cause dissention about what constitutes a "city". Dawynn (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User miq[edit]

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: keep. I note that Template:User miq-1 was changed on 11 June so that its members no longer also populate this top category. That follows e.g. Template:User fr-1 but not some others e.g. Template:User ga-1 which currently also populates its top category. – Fayenatic London 13:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All users in the category (only two) are all miq-1, and no one uses the alternate template Template:User miq. Somehow, the miq-1 guys are also thrown into this category, an act which has no precedents. This should be deleted. I've nominated Template:User miq for deletion too. Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The miq1 guys are thrown in because that's what the template tells it to do. I'd check other language templates to see if this is common - for english it doesn't but I don't know about others. Anyway, why delete it? If the userbox exists, the cat should exist, so for now I'm !voting to keep.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This seems to be a user categoiry for Meskito speakers. That is potentially a valid category, but is it correctly constructed?
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.

Drugs[edit]

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: cleanup, no consensus for changes, except that I will take this as authority to replace Category:Video games about drugs with Category:Video games about illegal drug trade and purge it of works that casually reference drug use. – Fayenatic London 13:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The publishing of a book does not make the subject of the book notable, although the book itself might be notable. For instance, say, a book called "Famous cats through history" would not transpire that there should be a category called famous cats through history, nor does it signify that every cat in the book should have an article. Similarly, if I wrote a book about "Films about Twins" I'd want to include anything and everything that would make this book a commercial success - which is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is trying to do. So any category can only be judged by Wikipedia guidelines, in this case do the categories contain original research? and Are the categories defining? I have no objection to an well-written article about, for instance, "Drugs in film" but a category that could include any film where a character has taken an aspirin is not encyclopedic, useful, or benefit to the greater world, which is in line with Carlossuarez46's succinct comment above --Richhoncho (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re I agree with you, but this is a problem of cleanup, not a problem which require deletion. Obviously a character who takes an aspirin should not to be included in a category named "Films about drugs" (it's common sense!), but The Basketball Diaries, Christiane F. – We Children from Bahnhof Zoo, The Boost and dozens of other films surely do, and their inclusion is not ambiguous nor debatable. There are category-topics that are too loose or vague, and that could generate confusion, and should be deleted. There are others which are quite definite to be reasonably maintained. Following your arguments we should delete Category:Books about spirituality as some fool could include in it a novel in which a charachter at one point began to pray, or Category:World War I films as someone other could add a film set in 2520 in which a character refers of one ancestor who fought in World War I... these things happen, but they are surmuntable problems, and are very common for every single category. Cavarrone 12:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, it's a problem of definition, then it's a problem of clean up. My "aspirin taker character" is justified to be included because it is a pivotal moment in the film (according to me!) Most of the "about" categories in popular culture should be deleted. "About" ignores every literary device and for that reason "about" is a load of old tosh. That is not to say well written and referenced articles cannot be created - as opposed to laundry lists, which is all a category is! Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "about" means "concerning/ on the subject of" and plain and simple the said topic requires to be the primary subject of the book/film/work, and the relevant article should provide evidence of that... if the inclusion of an article is minimally debeatable this is a good sign that probably the article should not be included in the category. The question is "Do we have books that unambiguously have drug addiction or drug dealing as the primary topic?", "Do we have films that unambiguously have drug addiction or drug dealing as the primary topic?" etc., if your answer is yes, so we have a real topic. Specifically, moving from theory to practice, looking at all the memoirs listed in Category:Memoirs about drugs they all appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject, all the non-fiction books listed in Category:Non-fiction books appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject, all the TV programs listed in Category:Television programs about drugs appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject, all the documentaries listed in Category:Documentary films about drugs appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject, all the short stories listed in Category:Short stories about drugs appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject. Zero problems and no ambiguity also in Category:Poems about drugs or Category:Novels about drugs. Films and songs require a full inspection and surely could require some purging, but not so much at first sight. If we move from theory to practice, these apparent major issues reveal to be not so much big. Cavarrone 16:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In respect of non-factual, my answer to your question, Do we have films that unambiguously have drug addiction or drug dealing as the primary topic? then my answer is a resounding "NO" which is as OR as if I had said "Yes". This is quite simply because we are taking at face-value what was intended by the film director, songwriter, poet etc Are you denying that these people do use allegory, metaphor and every other literary device available? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, moving from theory to practice I have showed above how these categories are actually working well, and how the large majority of articles listed in the works about drugs categories do not require any OR nor any "interpretation effort" to be included in their categories. Les Paradis artificiels is a poem about drugs, Cocaine Cowboys is a documentary about drugs, Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue is a TV program about drugs, Opium Nation is a memoir about drugs, Trainspotting is a novel about drugs, The Panic in Needle Park is a film about drugs, The Rhetoric of Drugs is a non-fiction book about drugs, King Heroin is a song about drugs and so on, I don't think we can disagree on this. What you say is "Hey, this book could be interpreted as an allegory of drug addiction", yes, THIS is OR and the book should be purged by the category, as the categories should include only the works that explicitly have drugs as main subject. When there is a matter of opinion about the inclusion of an article, it's safer to exclude it from the category, if not (as it happens for the majority of the articles) "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies. Cavarrone 14:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, per Hmains. Stefanomione (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Video games about drugs as a very narrow and subjective categorization choice (almost all current members don't really fit). Keep Category:Documentary films about drugs as being about the topic itself. Cleanup all others to contain only works actually centered on drugs, and not just among other topics or characters who take drugs, etc. Wouldn't object to deleting all (especially songs, films) and starting anew with each article supported by reference as 90%+ of examples aren't a proper fit. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1826 establishments in Turkey[edit]

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/merge. If we need to categorize as both, the years in categories can contain both Turkey and Ottoman Empire. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal to the years in Germany tree ignores the fact that Category:1910 in Germany is clearly using the 1910 boundaries of Germany, not the present ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's likely referring to your proposal for the Germany categories and/or to the pre-1871 subcategories of Category:Years in Germany. This has little to do with "1910 in Germany" because AFAIK everyone agrees that there was a state called "Germany" in 1910, which is not necessarily the case with "Turkey" and the years covered by these categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However I have a 1911 atlas that show a country called Turkey, but it is using it for the Ottoman Empire. Turkey was a common name for a place but it was used to refer to ALL the Ottoman Empire. The attempt to use it only within its modern boundaries at times where the name Turkey was widely used creates a total mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the OE was/is often referred to as "Turkey", and Turkey became the successor state at international law; however, the vast majority of the Turkey categories were created first in time. So it's worth considering if maybe the Ottoman Empire categories never should have been created without this discussion taking place first. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the claims of the Older age of the Turkey categories are also not always so. The 1917 Ottoman Empire category is about a year older than the equivalent Turkey category. At the same time Category:1908 in the Ottoman Empire shows how problematic it would be to use Turkey, since one of the three things in that category clearly did not happen in modern Turkey. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Years/Establishments by year in the Ottoman Empire I think is definitely needed. For example the 1826 establishments category contains Asakir-i Mansure-i Muhammediye which is described as an "ocak of the Ottoman army". The appropriate category would therefore seem to be 1826 establishments in the Ottoman Empire. The question is then whether there should be a subcategory 1826 establishments in Turkey, which should be possible if there some agreed definition. Tim! (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Rename “establishments” as proposed, but retain “Years in Turkey” with content in them, as Turkey is a recognised subdivision of the Ottomann Empire. This is analogous to the 1910s and back for Austria-Hungary, when years in Austria-Hungary eg Category:1911 in Austria-Hungary has as subcategories 1911 in Austria, 1911 in Croatia, 1912 in Bohemia and 1911 in Carniola (what, you haven’t heard of Carniola?). Some but not all of these categories are also listed for “Years by country” and “19XX in Europe”; they should all be listed at least for Europe. Hugo999 (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turkey was not a subdivision of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey was a synonym of the Ottoman Empire. It had subdivisions like Adrianople, Saloniki, Janina, Selfidze, Monastir, Kossovo, and Skutari. Turkey is not a division of the Ottoman Empire, at the time it was a synonym of the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to :Category:#### establishments and :Category:Establishments in (old countryname), and Category:Establishments in Turkey would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wonder if it is worth having the establishments by year by country tree in existence before 1800. On the other hand, for almost no year are we anywhere close to filling out these categories, and that is even just with the articles we have that identify when they were established.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not anywhere close to filling out categories before 1800, indeed. However, we do have Category:11th-century_BC_years_by_country, with e.g. Category:1040 BC disestablishments in China. Note that the area that is now Turkey was (likely) already significantly inhabited in that same time, with Byzantium being a great example of a Category:657 BC establishment in Turkey a mere 500 years later (I know that Byzantium has not been categorised there .. yet, but since Guan (state) follows the scheme, I see no reason why Byzantium should not follow the same scheme). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The recent consensus is that categories such as this should use the contemporary name of the polity. "Turkey" was a contemporary popular name for the Empire, but its use is likely to casue confusion. WP has settled on the country as being the Ottoman Empire and this should be used. Perhaps the existing "Turkey" categories should be retained as cat-redirects, to discourage their re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So far, there has only really been such a consensus in cases where the boundaries of the state did not change between old name and current name, which is not the case here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not so. In the case of Category:1865 establishments in India it was decided to use this for all places then in India without regard to what the area is now called. The decision on Category:1775 establishments in the Thirteen Colonies is also relevant. Anyway, the change from the Ottoman Empire to Turkey, when it finally comes, is not really accompanied by boundary changes at all. Most of the boundary changes happen significantly earlier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am unaware of any of those discussions and you haven't linked to them, so I can't evaluate the evidence for the consensuses you claim. In any case, consensus can change, and in the past month or two I'm not seeing a strong consensus for what Peter claims. Lately, we've had discussions about German states, South African states, the Ottoman Empire—none of these are demonstrating this strong consensus for that approach. When I mentioned "boundary changes", I was referring of the boundaries of the state at the time versus the current boundaries of the successor state. The boundaries of the 19th-century Ottoman Empire are not the same boundaries of the current state of Turkey. (Whereas, for example, Zaire's boundaries were the same as DR Congo's today and Portuguese Guinea's were the same as Guinea Bissau's.) Using the USA cats is not really indicative of the overall situation since they are in a distinct minority. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The India one would be I think be findable with a link through Category:1865 establishments in Pakistan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any discussion that exists will be findable, I just don't think I should be the one to do the finding when they are cited to support your arguments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People have mentioned the German categories. The most clear thing about the German categories is that Category:1910 establishments in Germany is not using the present boundaries of the country, it is using the 1910 boundaries of the country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That fact is not relevant at all to my mentioning of German categories, at least. The ones I am referencing are all pre-1871 ones that you have nominated for deletion. No one is disputing that Germany existed as a state in 1910. In these instances, we are dealing with categories named after a current state and the current state did not exist at the time, except in international-law-predecessor-state fashion. So the issues are completely different than "1910 in Germany", as I've tried to point out above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the open RFC on this general topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Waxwings[edit]

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 and redirect. – Fayenatic London 18:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both names refer to the same family. Not sure what direction the merge should go. Ucucha (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment someone searching is more likely to use the English name. I suspect a reader who knows the scientific name wouldn't need to search, since there are only a handful of members anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody searching is going to use the search box which will direct them to Waxwing. I don't mind the common name tree, Category:Birds by common name. But the category will only come up if someone uses the advanced search box ... --Lquilter (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is unfortunate that Bombycillidae redirects to 'waxwings' which ignores Phainoptila melanoxantha. If that species is the only non-Bombycillid in the family, then I suggest tidy and merge. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User information templates[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template, and its scope is very vague. It's no longer needed. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vague (aren't most templates 'user information templates'?) and redundant to other categories. Robofish (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the one member has another suitable category. – Fayenatic London 13:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the person who originally created the category, I'm sure it had a purpose at the time but the history doesn't really help illuminate what this was. It's clear that it's not needed now. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:52, 17 June 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_10&oldid=1138398196"