< December 13 December 15 >

December 14

Category:Rugby biography stubs

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Useless container category for just two sports, based on a common history but bordering on shared name. The non-stub equivalents eg Category:Rugby league people do not have such a parent. Only member William Gilbert (rugby) is a businessman who sold early balls, and already has 2 other stub tags which adequately cover him. Suggest deleting both cat and template and putting the rugbies into Category:Sportspeople stubs by sport directly. Qetuth (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Rugby union has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Rugby league has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Actually, I did propose what to do with the template - delete it as useless. It is currently only used for a single article, which is for a businessman who made sporting equipment. It is extremely unlikely more articles on 'Rugby' pre-current definitions would appear, and nowhere else is our main categorisation of sports bios by the predecessors to that sport. Especially when there are plenty of other modern successors to develop out of Rugby which haven't kept the name. As for it being useful to have a container category for those who can't find the category for the right sport, we have similar things with say Category:Winter sports biography stubs - I certainly wouldn't have a problem with something like Category:Football biography stubs but the current category just arbitrarily splits off a pair of football codes on a common name. --Qetuth (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another note on the 'some articles are common to rugby rather than to either sport' argument: Category:Rugby footballers‎ has 0 articles - as a sport, there only appear to be 4 rugby bio articles total: the game founder, the two original ball producers, and a historian. --Qetuth (talk) 10:07, 19 December 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.

Turkey categories

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. We need a solid direction on whether to make establishment categories apply to the original country or the current one. This discussion doesn't get us there. Somewhere else, this needs to be settled so that editors have a clear guide.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1826 establishments in Turkey[edit]
  • Note: the target categories Category:xxxx establishments in the Ottoman Empire were created and populated by the proposer just before the move was proposed here. This pre-emptive activity is confusing and misleading. Ephebi (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true in all cases. Category:1873 establishments in the Ottoman Empire was created last may by another user.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(thanks for formatting your replies inline.) ... To respond, your point shows why working within modern boundaries is so much easier and obvious, per BHG. If you have ever spent any time in the archives researching the activities of the Sublime Porte across its territories, I can't imagine that you would ever assert that we can conflate all its Ottoman inhabitants with Turks, and vice versa. Vali and military officers were trained in Constantinople, but those areas outside Anatolia were not referred to as Turkish in any serious contemporary correspondence. Before WWI these areas operated with different levels of separation or protection (Egypt, Kuwait, Basra...) and the fragmentation of WWI clearly demonstrated that difference. (Also please be more careful with your statement about what "had to happen" - this could be badly misconstrued.) Ephebi (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottoman Empire is what the place is. The things were established in the Ottoman Empire. To treat Thessalonika as anything else is just misleading at best. To try and differentiate things in Thessalonika in 1911 from those in Istanbul in the same year because of events a decade later is just plain historically inaccurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That Moda FC lede is strangely-written, I agree - Istanbul did not exist in the Ottoman Empire in 1908, for sure. I presume you saw that the article does cross-reference List of Turkish Sports Clubs by Foundation Dates? Football's not my thing, but as you seem to claim some expertise here maybe you know if they were from Stamboul, Pera, or across Constantinople? Ephebi (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and please JPL, I have asked you before, if you are replying to someone's comments and are not !voting, will you indent and place your comments after the other's statements? As it is, spraying the whole page with *Comment lines makes it hard work to know if you are responding to someone or ruminating aloud. Its also unnecessary if you are only repeating your earlier rationale; we already read it and got it. But repetition looks WP:SHOUTy. Also can you please avoid re-categorising/re-writing pages to fit your proposal until after the move has been agreed, like you did at Moda FC. Thanks in anticipation, Ephebi (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Moda FC article clearly says it was established in the Ottoman Empire. I did not put that in the opening sentance which says this, in fact the article opened by saying the istitution was in the Ottoman EMpire when it was put in the Turkey category without any reference to Turkey in the article. Unless people think we should delete Category:1903 establishments in the Ottoman Empire, which no one has motioned we should do, I see absolutely no reason for it to be in any category other than that one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Up until I added my own thoughts as well, this was the whole talk page on the item "== Not a Turkish club! ==

It was an English club of Istanbul. (note: I'm a Turk)Böri (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)" It seems pretty clear to me that it should never have been put in the Turkish category. It is the Ottoman Empire that the people who established were operating in, so we can state that without any dispute.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1911 establishments in Turkey[edit]
Members of WP:YEAR are well qualified to give an opinion what "we do by year" - please notify them of your intention to refine what this mean. Thank you. Ephebi (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1838 in Turkey[edit]
This is not an establishments category. It is a x in y year category. In general the stuff are events that happened in that particular year in a given place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
er, this proposal isn't about establishments. Its about annual events or some such? Jumbling up these proposals at random is confusing. Personally, I'd like to see how the "establishments" thread plays out before considering the general "Year in Foo" categories. Ephebi (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worse, the argument for these is probably even more for using the name of the place at the time, because in general these are things that happened in that year, they do not still exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 25 December 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.

Category:1889 establishments in the Czech Republic

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 Category:1889 establishments in the Czech Republic to Category:1889 establishments in Austria-Hungary. I've looked at a lot of these discussions around whether to name the categories after the modern place names or the names used at the they relate to. It seems to me that there's a consensus emerging to do the latter, although it's not unanimous and both sides make well reasoned points. It looks to me like in this particular discussion that a consensus does exist to rename the category. delldot ∇. 03:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the large number of pages allocated to their contemporary location, it seems a lot of our fellow editors do not think this is clearly about allocating things to the earliest historical country/empire/political union/fuzzy pink line on scrap of vellum. If we could get a rational discussion in one place it would then be worthwhile seeking a clearer alternative wording or lede for these articles. So lets keep things where they are 'til then. Ephebi (talk) 01:55, 24 December 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.

Category:1924 establishments in Israel

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 to Category:xxxx establishments in Mandatory Palestine. None of the supporters of the rename seemed to object to this option as opposed to "British Palestine". This discussion is one in a series about whether to name categories by their modern names or to use the names of the places at the time that they relate to. I have looked at a lot of them and I think I'm seeing a consensus emerge to use the names of the places at the time; however, the consensus is not as clear in some discussions as I think it is in this one. I appreciate that one participant brought up WP:MODERNPLACENAME, which points to an existing consensus. I have not taken into account the argument that people might be offended by a certain name, my task here is to find consensus among Wikipedians in line with the broader consensus of the community. delldot ∇. 03:38, 1 January 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:1912 establishments in Israel

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 to to Category:xxxx establishments in the Ottoman Empire. Whether there should be subcategories of that category need not be part of this decision, that can be for users to figure out through ongoing discussion. delldot ∇. 03:55, 1 January 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:Non Malayali actors acted in Malayalam-language films

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:Malayalam film actors. No objections from the nom, it seems like the proponents of merging that contributed before this was suggested would be ok with this. delldot ∇. 01:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Non-standard categorization, looking like confusing WP:OVERCAT. Malayali is not an ethnicity according to the article. Brandmeistertalk 11:25, 14 December 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.

Category:Afyonkarahisar geography stubs

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC):* Propose renaming Category:Afyonkarahisar geography stubs to Category:Afyonkarahisar Province geography stubs[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change reflects the naming of the permanent categories. Dawynn (talk) 09:08, 14 December 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.

Category:Unincorporated cities in Norway

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Norway does not a system with unicorporated areas that are parts of a greater local government 83.109.44.162 (talk) 09:00, 14 December 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.

Category:Danube in culture

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 The Bushranger One ping only 19:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very little about the Danube in culture than a category of things named for the Danube in disguise WP:OCAT shared name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to which does Army of the Danube order of battle belong, among others? It's just a shared name category pure and simple - little different than if we had a Category:Stalin in popular culture or Category:Stalin in fiction and put anything named "Stalin" in them (see Category:Cities named for Stalin, which we deleted). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be just cleaned up, I think there is enough relevant things to put there other than famous The Blue Danube. Brandmeistertalk 20:26, 14 December 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.

Category:1760s establishments in the United States

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 into Category:1760s establishments in the Thirteen Colonies. No objections to this suggestion by previous contributors, it seems like the nom and earlier contributors would be ok with this idea since arguments revolved around historical inaccuracy. delldot ∇. 01:57, 31 December 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.

Category:Ancient Christianity

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 Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity to Category:Early Christianity and Category:Late Ancient history of Christianity to Category:Late ancient Christianity. Keep Category:Ancient Christianity as their parent for now, as other sub-cats straddle those periods. – Fayenatic London 23:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
Rename Category:Ancient Christianity to more clearly separate out the years 313 to 476.
Merge Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity to remove redundant and newly created category for the same period. It also has an unnecessarily wordy and miscapitalized name. At the the very least Category:Ancient Christianity and Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity need to be merged under somename.
Rename Category:Late Ancient history of Christianity to remove unnecessarily wordy and miscapitalized name. tahc chat 03:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You raise an excellent point. I personaly would treat this CFD as a test case, and afterward create a new to CFD to discuss spliting the subcats into new names, on what can be a case-by-case basis. Of course anyone can add any or all of them to this CDF (today only) if they feel it would help. Until or unless they are unsplit, the sub-categories can be added to both Category:Early Christianity and Category:Late ancient Christianity. tahc chat 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS I've just noticed that the proposer changed the scope of the category at the same time as submitting this proposal.It used to read "This category is for events, eras, and people of Christianity, from roughly the Resurrection of Jesus around the year 30 until Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD. It caters for those articles and categories that canot be neatly assigned to the categories of Early Ancient or Late Ancient Christianity." Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene would not use the names of the main articles for the categories. In addition, Post-Nicene could include anything from 313 up to the present day. tahc chat 06:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because those supposed main articles probably shouldn't exist. The divisions used by those in the field are Apostolic Age and Ante-Nicene Period, because those are the significant divisions; I don't know where this other division comes from, but I'd be surprised that it reflected scholarly usage anywhere in the field. This split discussion really needs to be closed early and started over with all the categories and articles discussed together; as it is we have at least two (and think really three and maybe even four) series of articles for the same overall history; we really can't solve the category problem without reducing the articles to a single unified series. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category, whether named "Post Nicene" or "Late Ancient", could continue to use the scope definition of "This category is for events, eras, and people of Christian history from the rise of Christianity under Emperor Constantine (c. 313), until Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD.". Would the title have to reflect this rather unwieldy scope definition? For example, would it have to be "Christianity from Ante-Nicene period until the Fall of the Western Roman Empire"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The convertion of Constantine is (IMHO) about the 2nd most important event in Christian history, and it does make a very common and natural dividing point. The two time periods do have one article each, and there are not any articles for the combined time period. If you have a good reason to combine them please consider creating a new CFD after this one is finished. If you do so, I will wait for it to play out before CFDing any of the subcats after the pattern of these two. tahc chat 06:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so there's no cogent reason to split them. The categories are not overly large and there's no confusion of terminology. The reason for splitting is merely a couple of editors' opinion. I also note that the article Early Christianity uses the Council of Nicea in 325 as the boundary point rather than Constantine's conversion possibly as many as 13 years earlier. Delete both the newly created categories Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity & Category:Late Ancient history of Christianity, which are just adding a pointless, extra, un-needed layer. I have no strong opinion on Ancient vs Early for the principal question here, so as the article seems to be stable at "Early Christianity" our protocols would have us rename Ancient Christianity to Early Christianity. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YES, given existing boundaries we use Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity to Category:Early Christianity
Propose renaming Category:Late Ancient history of Christianity to Category:Late ancient ChristianityCategory:Christianity in Late Antiquity - using a standard term, if one also lacking clear date boundaries, but which can be restricted to 476.

Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod's suggestions still do not adress the problem identified above - what to do with those categories that straddle the Early and Late periods and do not lend themselves to easy division: "It would be wrong to merge it exclusively to Early as many of its contents are post-Nicene." Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:23, 26 December 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.
More