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: Category for radio stations that happen to be streamed on a particular internet streaming platform, completely independent of ownership status. If some or any of these stations were exclusive to this platform, then a category for those stations might be warranted, but supplementary distribution platforms are not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an AM or FM radio station. This is essentially the broadcasting equivalent of a performer by performance category — by comparison, we do not have a category for every terrestrial radio station that happens to be streamable through TuneIn Radio, we do not have a category for every terrestrial radio station I can also listen to in the 900+ channel range on my Rogers Cable digital box, we never had a comparable category for Radiolicious, and on and so forth. A list might be acceptable, but this is not an appropriate basis for a category. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify.iHeartRadio is notable in part because of its number of member stations, and many of the stations prominently declare their involvement. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 01:40, 01 November 2015 (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: Describes the contents of the categories better. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Neotropical and Palearctic seem to refer to one each of the eight global zones, so surely can't refer to 50% of it! Even if the categories were to be renamed with a techinically correct term, I'd recommend a redirect remains for the benefit of us non-geographers. Sionk (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without investigation, Oppose -- These subject and target are concerned with completely different concepts. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2015 (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:Listed railway stations in Australia[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. No prejudice against speedy renomination for renaming. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 17:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is a "listed railway station"? This is not a term used in Australia, and so this category makes no sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to a more widely recognizable term. When I created the category, I tried to find a name that is descriptive of what it contains and was consistent with other categories that covered railway stations that are listed on national historical registers. I went with the "listed railway stations" to be consistent. This category helps to avoid systemic bias because there are, as we can see in the category right now, 39 railway station articles I was able to identify that are listed on historic registers in Australia. The parent category, Category:Railway stations by heritage register had three subcategories when I created this category, one for the US, one for the UK and one for Canada. Since national historic registers exist worldwide, making similar subcategories for other countries is a natural extension. Slambo(Speak) 18:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is in fact adequate recognition of heritage listed railway buildings and rolling stock in Australia, one editors issue does not make a national one, and it does make sense - a qualifier in the main space could have been a sufficient response. JarrahTree 05:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not challenging having a category for heritage-listed railway stations, I'm saying that "listed [whatever]" without any further context is not phrasing common in Australian English. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough -, there is a need for a qualifier for the category, which I added on the main page.JarrahTree 13:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until someone comes up with a better name, and then rename; if others think Marcocapelle's suggestion to be a better name, I don't have an objection to following it. The problem is that someone's applied the UK's terminology, listed building, to Australia; none of the contents of Category:Heritage registers in Australia use the term "listed", aside from the Rockhampton list, and after extensive discussions at WT:NRHP (the US counterpart), I can testify that adjectival forms of proper nouns shouldn't be adopted by us: just as "Registered Historic Places" isn't a correct term for places on the "National Register of Historic Places", "listed building" may not be a proper term for buildings on the Australian National Heritage List or the Commonwealth Heritage List. If someone can find "listed building" being used for buildings on either of these lists or for buildings on some other heritage register, "listed building" should remain in use (since it's the official term), but lacking such official use, a different name needs to be picked. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Railway stations in Australia listed in a heritage register. UK has "listed buildings", but Australia seems to have "heritage registers". We should be using the local term. This does not mean that the parent should be renamed. I am not Austrialian and will bow to the superior knowledge of any one who is. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2015 (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: A couple of duplicate categories have been created, these need merging into the pre-existing common format categories "Architects from FOOia". Sionk (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I can see "Italian architects from New York", "Italian architects from Chicago", etc. being useful, but since Lazio and Lombardy are Italian regions, almost all of their architects will be Italian. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge...since "Italian" here is a nationality not an ethnicity. I disagree with Nyttend's comments. If an Italian (citizen) architect is from Chicago, he or she would just be dumped into Category:Italian architects. If the idea is to categorize architects from Chicago by ethnicity there is no showing that there is any difference among them on that basis and would run afoul of WP:OCEGRS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Italian is obviously redundant. If there is an American architect resident in Lazio, he belongs in the target, which does not need to have foreigners split out of it. I doubt that we would keep "Italian architects from New York", but would upmerge it to appropriate parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2015 (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: Category:Venetian architects appears to have begun as a redirect to the latter, but has suddenly(?) begun to attract its own contents. I don't see a clear difference between a Venetian architect and an architect from Venice, so merging (and restoring the redirect) looks like the best option. "Architects from FOOia" seems to be the standard format. Sionk (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From what I have seen in categories, "Venetian" is often used for people who were from the Republic of Venice; ie, their nationality was Venetian. The head category is Category:Republic of Venice people, so it might be better to use "Republic of Venice FOO" for these types of categories. (Most of the subcategories currently use "Venetian".) "From Venice" is used for people whose nationality is Italian but are from the city. This would suggest Category:Republic of Venice architects might be an appropriate rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So this would be a category for pre-1797(?) architects from the Republic of Venice? Sionk (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support Good Olfactory's formulation as this is nationality not some stylistic genre. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I can conceive of a subcat for Category:Architects from the Republic of Venice, but I doubt that we would populate it sufficiently for it to be worthwhile; and we would need something similar for each of the other pre-Risorgimento states: do we want that? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having one for the RoV necessarily mandates that we have ones for other each of the other states. It would all depend on available content. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:54, 8 November 2015 (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: Redundant categories. Recipients of the Bavarian Order of Merit are members of the Bavarian Order of Merit and vice versa. "Recipients" probably is the proper expression. Sitacuisses (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom -- In many orders of chivalry, member is a lower category that knight. Recipient would cover both. However we have been deleting a lot of such award categories, of late: should we keep this? My view is that we should keep award categories for those awards by a state mainly to its own citizens, recognising their notability, but others seem to disagree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2015 (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:Jesuit history in Central and South America[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.
Support, per rationale. Central America is also a more vague concept and more linked to N. America than S. America. Dentren | Talk 18:04, 31 October 2015 (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: rename per actual content - both are a container category for 4 continents, except article Jewish Christian that may however be moved to the Asian category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with one reservation. What about Category:Syriac Orthodox Christians ? They define themselves more by ethnicity than by geography. But it's a bit of a melange. Would a separate tree structure by ethnicity be necessary to cater for their like? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jewish Christian does not fit the scheme, but the best solution is probably to move that up to a higher level category. Category:Syriac Orthodox Christians was not in the category when I looked, but seems obviously Asian to me, excluding modern emigrants. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all and keep redirects from former category names. — ξxplicit 05:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The correct adjective for things of the nationality of Kiribati is "i-Kiribati". We've shied away from using this term in Wikipedia categories (see this discussion from 2008) and have used "Kiribati" as a bit of a compromise between the clearly incorrect "Kiribatian" and the technically correct "i-Kiribati". However, I have found that in the past decade, "i-Kiribati" has become more and more common in English-language sources and the term has essentially now been adopted into English as not only the correct but now widely used form. I think Wikipedia categories should follow suit. (If the categories are renamed, I think redirects should be kept on all of the pre-existing "Kiribati" categories. We should probably also arrange to have the categories sort to "K" alphabetically.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't the categories become difficult to find, if someone wanted to add someone from Kiribat to a category? Perhaps an option would be to leave a redirect from the old "Kiribati... " categories, if the renaming goes ahead. At the moment there's no suggestion at Kiribati people that the term I-Kiribati is used. Sionk (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: The nom did suggest leaving category redirects from all of them, and the article you linked (a redirect to Demographics of Kiribati) does claim "I-Kiribati" as the demonym under #Nationality (I-Kiribati itself redirects right to that section). —烏Γ(kaw) │ 19:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as the correct term, per nom. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 19:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' It would be much easier if all nations used the nation-name form instead of the demonym, such as currently used, or with xyz in Kiribati or xyz from Kiribati or ethnic Kiribati xyz -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Demonyms are often less known or there are competing ones for the same country. But, I don't see how we can treat people differently from this country. RenameRevelationDirect (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with adopting a "xxx from Kiribati" form universally to replace the current form is that not all people of "FOOian" nationality are from the country of "FOO". Given that nationality in many cases is a question of jus sanguinis and not place of birth, there are millions of people around the world who are FOOian people who have never set foot in FOO, so it would be quite incorrect to say that these people are "from FOO"—in Wikipedia terms (and probably common language-wise) that phrase usually means the person has lived there. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Lugnuts, well, per Lugnuts. We should use the correct adjectival form, not a contrived modification thereof. And please nominate Category:Botswana people and its subcategories for renaming, since they should be "Batswana", not "Botswana". Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few others that are incorrect as well ... Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lugnuts but rename as many as possible as "boo of (or from) Kiribati". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does this deal with the problem I identified above with the "FOO from Kiribati" form? Or if it doesn't deal with it, how is it then better? Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:55, 8 November 2015 (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.
