< June 5 June 7 >

June 6

Category:Innovators

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 as container category. Include Category:Discoverers and lists as appropriate. Manual checks are needed to listify/categorise where appropriate; I volunteer. – Fayenatic London 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 'Innovators' is extremely vague and poorly defined. The people and organisations in this category have little in common, beyond somehow doing something that was in some way new or better than other people had done it. 'Innovators' here is more of a peacock term than a useful categorisation. People who are actually notable for developing/creating something can be put in other, better-defined categories such as Category:Inventors, Category:Founders and Category:Pioneers. Robofish (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
consider keep as container hmm. this could work, but only as a container category. I agree it's not defining for individuals, but it could be a useful container for the subcats. Anyone want to take a crack at purging it and turning it into a container only-cat? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a container category, diffuse entries to sub-categories. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:11, 7 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.

1905 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/merge per nom. Not sure how the point of Ottoman Syria affect this, but since one of these was a merge, the action as proposed seemed logical. If Ottoman Syria is the better direction, then a group rename is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general we categorize things by where they were founded when they were founded. For example, the 1910 category includes Grand Theatre, Poznań, which was clearly established in Germany, even if where it was established is now in Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we do not have any establishments by year cats yet for Ottoman Syria. If we merge this to the Ottoman Empire cat we can subdivide when and if it gets large enough to sub-divide. These cats are not really large enough yet to subdivide. We have things like the American University of Beirut sitting in Category:1866 establishments in the Ottoman Empire, and that category is at present far too small to subdivide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, modern states of the Levant cannot be applied for previous states and periods.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:46, 20 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.

Categories: History artists and Historical painters

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:History painters and Category:19th-century painters of historical subjects respectively. The latter is not Category:19th-century history painters to avoid ambiguity over painters of 19th-century history. I will leave it to the interested editors to recategorise other C19 artists into the sub-category as appropriate. – Fayenatic London 19:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If kept the two should be merged (anyway) and re-focused to contain 19th-century painters of historical subjects, which is a valid subject on which there are plenty of books and articles. I'm willing to sort through the merged categories & remove anyone who doesn't belong, or for whom the category is not defining (quite a few). For example the 17th century Gabriël Metsu (in Historical painters) is well known for genre subjects, but in fact (though you won't know this from our article) painted two (count 'em) religious subjects when young. He should not be there. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fram is not I think used to discussions here. He should have disclosed that he is the category creator, and is busy adding to it. He does not I think realize that category names should not be ambiguous, nor that they should be defining for the articles in them. The first link he quotes [5] demonstrates the problem, as it seems clear it is using "historical painters" in the typical modern sense of people who paint scenes from history, not the wider "story painter" sense the category is using, including painters of scenes from religion, myth and allegory. Who can tell what sense his second, slightly desparate, snippet view link means? I should say that my initial comments to him after he created this category has resulted in edit-warring and talk page discussion at History painting. I don't at all agree with his additions, which distort what the sources say. My version of what the lead etc should say is this, but that can be sorted out later, and I will take it up on talk. Note the other comments there from User:Paul Barlow, who is a professor specializing in 19th-century painting. Johnbod (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(for readers wanting the backstory to my comment, see User talk:Johnbod#Please calm down) JohnBod, how many times do I have to ask you to keep your paternalizing claptrap to yourself? Think whatever you like about me, but learn to keep it to yourself. If you want me to follow a rule, provide a link to a policy or guideline. If it is only something you believe to be true, I'm not interested. Yes, your inital entry has lead to talk page discussion. Shocking! I also tried discussing things with you at Category talk:Historical painters, but you were apparently more interested in edit warring than discussion. You are quick to criticize sources, but you "forget" to mention that you only keep your sources in the article, not the one contradicting your position, and that you have even removed a source which you introduced (since you thought it supported you), but which you speedily removed again when it turned out that it actually supported my position, not yours.
As for your actual comments here; you claim that my first example source supports you; but it doesn't; it discussed how the focus of historical painting has shifted, not that history painting has become historical painting. It clearly includes the "Burgundian and Venetian historical painters in the renaissance[...] with the sublimation of power into allegory and mythology" in the same genre as 19th century historical painters (just like, surprise, this category I created and you want to delete). Your reading of it is clearly contradicted by the actual book. I can understand that you get "slightly desperate" about my second link; the snippet is only an illustration, the book is what counts. If you fail to understand it, that's your problem, but I think it is quite clear for most objective readers. I also provided as an example on Talk:History painting this link, which clearly supports my position and thus wasn't worthy of inclusion in the article (not for being too old, Johnbod happily used sources from 1854 or 1913 when he thought they supported his version). The category is only ambiguous if you follow your minority idea of a strict and clear division between history painting and historical painting, which doesn't exist to most observers. Fram (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: the objection to "historical painters" is that it is ambiguous (which I don't agree with, but passons); as far as I can tell, the only objection against "history painters" is that it would be too large a category (please correct me if I'm wrong). This seems to me not a reason for deletion, but at most a reason for diffusion (by period, country, or subgenre). So, as a compromise, who can agree with a rename of Category:Historical painters to Category:History painters? I wouldn't mind, as to me they are the same anyway, but I'ld like to hear what others think. Fram (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an improvement, but might well be felt to be ambiguous by many. I still think my proposed narrower scope is the best and most useful category available here. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we agree to split out Category:19th-century painters of historical subjects regardless of the outcome (unless it's delete everything)? I am happy to help sorting them out. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with having such subcats per period where wanted (assuming that the main cat is kept under whatever name). Fram (talk) 14:08, 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:1864 establishments in Germany

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are mixing two issues. We are clearly not using modern political boundaries with the German categories, since we are putting things now in Russia and Poland into these Germany categories. On the other hand we have Category:1769 establishments in New Spain which consists entirely at present of things established in what is now the United States. There has been a general attempt to apply these categories to places as they existed at the time of organization. Another example is Category:1858 establishments in Virginia that applies the 1858 boundaries of Virginia. The one precedent that might be citable here is Category:1858 establishments in India, which applies the term as it was understood at the time without any direct restrictions based on political control, however the failure to include establishments in the part of Austria that was considered to be Germany (including what is now the Czech Republic) is these categories shows that it is not applying Germany as it was understood at the time, nor is it applying Germany on modern boundaries, but a hybrid based neither on history nor present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prussia was certainly understood as part of Germany in 1864, as before and after. I wouldn't mind if it was added to Category:1864 establishments in Poland also. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
East Prussia, West Prussia and Posen divisions of Prussia were not within the boundaries of the German Confederation. On the other hand since in 1864 Prussia included Berlin, Dortmond, Dusseldorf, Aachen, Cologne, Koblenz and many other places that have never been part of Poland, we cannot connect it with Poland. It also included Koenigsberg and Tilsit that are withing the current boundaries of Russia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They may have been "much the same", but East Prussia, West Prussia and Posen were not part of the Confederation. However they were part of the Kingdom of Prussia which also included much in the confederation. On the other hand the Confederation included Austria and Luxembourg, which were not part of the German Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 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:1868 establishments in Germany

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 1 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:1855 establishments in Germany

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree that this would be creating a miniscule category, which has no chance of growth, and would just cause confusion. 16:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel the Monk (talk • contribs)
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:Mammals of the People's Republic of China

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per China (some time ago it was decided that China should be about PRC, not disambiguation). Brandmeistertalk 09:59, 6 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:Zimbabwean fraudsters

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one person in the category and although Chenjerai Hunzvi was a controversial politician, and someone against whom claims of fraud were made, he was not a convicted fraudster. I suggest WP:COAT Babakathy (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am doing as suggested. Babakathy (talk) 10:49, 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:1936 in Guinea-Bissau

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per yesterday's nomination of Category:1936 establishments in Guinea-Bissau to Category:1936 establishments in Portuguese Guinea Tim! (talk) 05:54, 6 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:North Carolina Music Hall of Fame inductees

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) 23:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having been inducted into this HoF is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: There is a list at North Carolina Music Hall of Fame#Inductees. DexDor (talk) 05:00, 6 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:Military operations of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

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. Orlady (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Military operations of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) to Category:Military operations of the War in Afghanistan (2001–)
Nominator's rationale: We should avoid the word "present" in this and any other categories (and articles for that matter) as what it means is (by definition) continually changing. There's no guarantee that someone will edit WP to put in the date when (if?) the war ends or that all copies of WP will be updated. If this nom is sucessful I may CSD other similarly named categories. DexDor (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? War in Afghanistan is a disambiguation page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 9 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:1928 Summer Olympic venues

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. Orlady (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Olympics are not a WP:DEFINING characteristic for subjects such as Amsterdam and Zuiderzee so articles about such subjects should be removed from this category. The category would then no longer contain all the 1928 Summer Olympic venues and the list article (Venues of the 1928 Summer Olympics) would serve readers better. This is a test case as similar logic could be applied to many other categories in Category:Sports venues by competition. DexDor (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A category such as "Structures created as venues for the 1928 Summer Olympics" might be OK. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the keep !votes above provide any argument that having hosted the Olympics is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of Amsterdam, Amersfoort, Zuiderzee etc. The Amsterdam article mentions dozens of things that may be of more long-term significance to the city (e.g. being occupied by Germany in WW2). None of those 3 articles mention the olympics in the lead - which is generally a good indication that it's not a defining characteristic. A category such as "Venues created for the 1928 Olympics" would be OK as its membership would be limited to articles for which the Olympics is a defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said to remove them, and keep the category. Hosting an Olympic event is a defining characteristic of a building. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:11, 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:Collegiate woodsman teams

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) 00:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If this category contained articles about collegiate woodsman teams it would be fine. However, it contains articles about "universities and colleges with intercollegiate woodsman teams". Having a woodsman team is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a college/uni. What next - catagorizing colleges by whether or not they have a rugby team or a rowing crew ? DexDor (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I'm not convinced this is a defining characteristic of these institutions. This category should only be created when we have actual articles on college woodsman teams, assuming any are sufficiently notable to have one. Robofish (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. The list at the main article if enough. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 7 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.
More