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.
Oppose. We don't want to start creating inconsistencies between categories in different periods for mere changes in styling. Compare South West Africa, which one citation from 1966 refers to with a hyphen; I have no idea when that was dropped in practice, as no official change of name is mentioned in that article. I note that several templates still use the redirect South-West Africa, even though the article and all its categories are un-hyphenated. – FayenaticLondon08:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen many users get upset about these types of categories when they present "anachronisms" of using the "wrong" name for things that happened in a particular year. If a particular spelling was official, I don't see how this is any different than a different name. I'm usually not very convinced by the anachronism argument, but I thought this would be a proposal in line with where recent consensus on the issue has been. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think one of these categories I initially tried to create using North-West Territories, and the template would not let me do so. I think a bigger issue is that we need to make sure to remove all pre-1905 Alberta and Sascachewan categories and put those things in North-West Terrotires/Northwest Territories categories. Overall a big problem in Wikipedia is these by year establishment categories tend to be on the small side because so few things get categorized in this way, in part because the origins of things are often under covered. I have been trying to categorize school districts by year established, and it is amazing how many articles neglect to say when the school district was formed. Well over 90% of all school district articles say nothing of their formation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for more guidance let me see if I am getting this straight. The North-west Territories come under Canadian control in 1870. So pre-1870 I should place anything happening there in the British Empire Category. I am still not 100% sure on the boundaries with Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Saskachewan. What I am clear of is from 1870-1905 anything happening in what is now Alberta and Sascachewan should be placed in the Northwest/North-West Territories category.
OK, so the District of Kewatin was a seperate unit that coveraged areas in northern Ontario, Northern Manitoba and some of modern Nunavut. In was seperate from 1876-1906. I am not sure we need a category for establishments there, but we need to not place things established there in the Manitoba or Ontario categories. I am not sure much exists in those parts of Manitoba and Ontario, so this might not be a big issue, but we need to reflect this in categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should have categories that reflect the reality on the ground at the time. Thus we should not have a category using Alberta before it became a province. Historians writing about the formation of such places as Cardston consistently refer to it as being organized in the North-west Territories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's one view, but I disagree. A book about the history of Alberta does not begin in 1905. It's okay to categorize things that were founded in present-day Alberta in an Alberta category. That is probably where most users would look for it anyway. The very article Cardston (your example) states in the lede: "Cardston was established in 1887 by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who travelled from Utah, via the Macleod-Benton Trail, to Alberta in one of the century's last wagon migrations."Good Ol’factory(talk)01:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Reliable sources on the matter always refer to the area at the time as the Northwest Territories. We have had this discussion many times, and it has always come out in favor of reflectinvg the reality on the ground on the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable sources on the matter always refer to the area at the time as the Northwest Territories." Um, no, they all don't. Have you actually looked at them? For instance, the very first line of this article states: "In the spring of 1887, Charles Ora Card, president of the Cache Valley Stake of Zion, led a small group of polygamous Mormon families into Alberta, Canada." (John C. Lehr, "Polygamy, Patrimony, and Prophecy: The Mormon Colonization of Cardston", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Winter 1988), pp. 114-121.) There are many others. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the book edited by Roy and Carma Prete consistently does. The fact that some writers are inprecise and misleading about how they talk about the past does not mean we should be in the creation of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's so much about being imprecise about the past as it is a matter of using current geography to help orient the person to where things happened in the past. If reading a history of (southern) Alberta I would expect to find information about the Mormons settling there prior to Alberta being established. The history would not begin in 1905. Yes, it might mention that it was part of the North-West Territories at the time, but so too would it indicate that this happened in present-day Alberta. Hence, I think both type of category could be helpful. I don't oppose either type's existence. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:44, 25 June 2021 (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:Association football goalkeepers who have scored
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.
Second comment My main rationale towards this change is to keep the category and main article names the same. If, as multiple people are stating below, we need to add "association football" for ambiguity purposes, then it should also be added to List of goalscoring goalkeepers. The same title can't be too ambigous for a category, but good enough for an article. Nehme149913:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as suggested as being ambiguous (we need the sport in there), and unsure how 'goalkeeping goalscorers' is any better than 'goalkeepers who have scored'? GiantSnowman21:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the present name is preferable, as a subcat of Category:Association football goalkeepers. (Category names follow parent category names, for consistency and predictability.) 'Goalkeeping goalscorers' would include strikers who have occasionally played in goal, which is probably not the intention. Oculi (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removing the sport name As Lee Vilenski noted, other sports like hockey and lacrosse and handball have goalkeepers, leaving a "goalscoring goalkeepers" category ambiguous as to exactly which sport we're talking about.Canuck89(Talk to me) 07:37, May 18, 2021 (UTC)
Comment -- Hockey and other sports also have goalkeepers. The attribute is sufficiently unusual to warrant mention, but should be limited to games where the scorer was playing as keeper. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2021 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Proposing a merger between these two categories. Although the "of Anaheim" category states that the team name changed after 2015, this did not seem to be very "official", and it has been difficult to find an exact date for the name change. The infobox on the Los Angeles Angels article simply shows "Los Angeles Angels (2005–present)", possibly to avoid the confusion of these name changes. The name changes have been discussed many times on the talk page, including here, here, and here.
Therefore, I believe these two categories should be merged, as there does not seem to be a clear delineation between the era of the "Angels of Anaheim" and "Angels" eras, in contrast to clear name changes, e.g. Anaheim Angels to Los Angeles Angels (of Anaheim) or California Angels to Anaheim Angels. Natg 19 (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I do not see benefit in keeping the categories in question independent. Even if there was clear timing delineation between the two variants of the name, I do not view the change as noteworthy (as it pertains to Categories placed in the biographies of players), as there was no significant change to the team, contrasted with a change such as Brooklyn Dodgers --> Los Angeles Dodgers. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2021 (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.
Nominator's rationale: The only entry in the category (Jackie Wong) is not a website so this is basically an empty category. Wong does have a podcast but I don't think this warrants a category. Pichpich (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2021 (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:Post-apocalyptic role-playing video games
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 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.
I am not proposing to remove them from Flemish categories. All the categories of Habsburg Netherlands/Spanish Netherlands/ Austrian Netherlands people should be in Flemish categories. But this should distinguish these historical categories from the modern Flemish categories. Rathfelder (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't put "Habsburg Netherlands" categories into "Flemish" categories, as the Habsburg ones encompass a much wider territory (North Netherlands as well). Flemish can be where appropriate a subcategory of Habsburg Netherlands, but not the other way around. And there is already an easy way, if you need it, to distinguish these cats from more modern ones; the "17th-century" part... Fram (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The language in which is person teaches is highly defining. Part of the Spanish Netherlands was Walloon (speaking French) and the rest spoke Flemish (a version of Dutch). As long as we do not limit this to the province of Flanders, I see not reason for not keeping it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. We do not categorize educators by language taught in, and considering the nature of education at the time, we would be presumptuous to even assume we know what language some of these people were teaching in. Education categorization is by nationality, and we should use the best term to reflect what nationality was at the time, which is the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2021 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Before Belgium existed. Contemporary Flemish categories are about language, but the 16th-century ones seem to be about location. Happy to change the format to "of" or "from" if there is agreement in respect of the earlier nominations. Rathfelder (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strongly and would urge the nominator to revert his out-of-process depopulation of these categories, where they knew before starting that it was opposed anyway (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 13#Category:16th-century Flemish people by occupation, where they nominated the parent cat of three of these categories, only to get clear opposition: I even explicitly named Anna Bijns as an example of someone who is regularly described as a "Flemish writer" by high quality English sources.[1] The "Habsburg Netherlands" are a much wider entity, and this merge loses important, pertinent information from the category tree. (The Belgian cats should go though, mostly replaced by Flemish ones were appropriate). Fram (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that meanwhile the nom Rathfelder has completely depopulated some (or all) of these categories, against all accepted practices here. I would expect an editor who so often deals with cats and CfD to know and respect this (even more so if, as said above, the renaming or merging of these categories is already opposed in another open nom by the same editor). I have asked them to stop and self-revert, if not I'll have to do it for them. Fram (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite a bald assertion. You are proposing to merge Category:16th-century Flemish writers away. That category has two members now, Anna Bijns and Marcus van Vaernewyck. You removed botharticles from this category after nominating it for merging, basically performing your own suggested merge despite the opposition here and in other discussions you started. Fine if you want the disrupt the process in this way, but then at the very least have the guts to be honest abot what you did, instead of claming that black is white. Fram (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Flemish as an ethnicity emerged with the Flemish Movement in the 19th century. On the other hand the County of Flanders had ceased to exist as an independent entity by end of 14th century. The 16th century, which is what we are talking about now, was in between the two different clearly identifiable meanings of "Flemish". In this century there was Flemish art, but that also contained art from neighbouring French-speaking Tournaisis so that does not help very much in identifying what Flemish in the 16th century meant. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We go with what the reliable sources say. If they call these people "Flemish" whatever, then we follow. Yes, it is sometimes confusing, so what? History is confusing, ethnicity is confusing, things aren't always exactly defined and what is called "Flemish" today may be called "Brabantian" in a hundred years. But that doesn't change the fact that it is called Flemish today, and that we should reflect that. Fram (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources (as mentioned in the articles) hardly ever mention nationality, ethnicity or geography to begin with. I have checked all links in a handful of articles and encountered "from Bruges" once, and "nationality: Belgium" once, and that was it. The prominent mentioning of Flemish is apparently Wikipedia editorial work. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. When e.g. looking at the sources for Rembert Dodoens, this one mentions a "Flemish School" of botanists (of which Dodoens was the foremost), and "Flemish botanists". Oh wait, the same article also links to the Britannica article about him[2], where he is described as "Flemish physician and botanist". So no, the prominent mentioning of Flemish is not "Wikipedia editorial work", as I already had established in the previous discussion, butcan easily be found in excellent sources (linked from our articles or not).
If you encountered e.g. "from Bruges" only once, it's perhaps because you didn't look hard enough? I don't know which articles or sources you checked, but at Anselmus de Boodt, the first source is titled "Anselmus Boetius De Boodt (1550-1632) Brugs humanist aan het Hof van Oostenrijk"[3]. The second source[4] calls him "a native from Bruges in the Flanders". Fram (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"in the Flanders" nicely illustrates the ambiguity. Does this refer to the County of Flanders, to the two modern provinces of Flanders, or to a Flemish ethnicity? From a linguistic-technical point of view, the former two explanations are a better match but it remains open to interpretation. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for "Flemish" categories, neutral on "Belgian" categories. The use of the term Flemish for this era is highly problematic as ambiguous, as it can refer either to the modern Flanders region, the medieval County of Flanders or something else. Articles about Flemish painting, Early Netherlandish painting and Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painting (which are what the term Flemish is most associated with in this era) clearly state that this term is used in this context to refer to the Burgundian, Habsburg and Spanish Netherlands, especially centered on Antwerp, which was not in the County of Flanders but in the Duchy of Brabant. Place Clichy (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Flemish means something other than location/period for these articles I'm quite happy for them to be in both Flemish and Habsburg Netherlands categories. I'm trying to sort them out by century and nationality, and in particular to take out any anachronistic references to Belgium. Rathfelder (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the Oxford English Dictionary puts it: "The name Belgium and related words appear from the 16th cent. in several European languages, including English, as a name for the southern regions of the Low Countries, both historical and contemporary, often in contrast with Batavia". So the word was in use before there was an independent Belgian state, and it is accepted English usage to apply it to "the southern regions of the Low Countries, both historical and contemporary". It might have been helpful to centralise discussion of "Belgian" categories, perhaps at WikiProject Belgium, to get more input before launching changes across hundreds of pages. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Object to changing Flemish, which is an appropriate adjective to refer to Flemish (aka Dutch) speaking inhabitants of Hapsburg Netherlands. The Belgian entries should as far as possible be split into Flemish and Walloon categories, just as we split British inot English, Welsh, and Scottish. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a province of Flanders in the 16th century. (Even in modern Belgium, there are provinces called East Flanders and West Flanders but not Flanders, whereas the region of Flanders includes many other areas that were never part of the former County of Flanders, but of course not French Flanders and Walloon Flanders which were part of it.) Anyway, good luck in establishing with certainty the language(s) spoken by these 16th- and 17th-century individuals. Many writers and scientists of the time wrote in Latin; are you going to call them Romans? Trying to apply to the Renaissance period the concept of Flemish as understood by modern-day Flemish nationalists is anachronistic. Place Clichy (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2021 (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.
