June 19
Category:Profession user templates
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 7#Category:Profession user templates
Category:American genderqueer novelists
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 13#Category:American genderqueer novelists
Ukraine
- 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: Option A – rename using "z". There is consensus to make a change in order to achieve consistency, but opinions on which way to go are finely balanced. To be consistent with the precedent for France (which was also closed by me), I am giving weight to the spelling used on the national government websites. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming under one of the following options:
- User:Od Mishehu launched a series of cfds on this topic in 2017, the premise being that a given country should use either 'z' or 's' (but not a mixture thereof); eg France, Brazil, Bolivia, Iran, Angola, Greece, Poland, Israel, Puerto Rico, Turkey. Oculi (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support A, use z - the status quo would be Option B, following Category:Organisations based in Ukraine. I am however unaware of any compelling reason for Ukraine to use 'organisation' rather than the more widely accepted 'organization'. Also, as we have Category:Organizations based in Russia, the present Category:Organizations based in Crimea is preferable. Oculi (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Prefer z. less of a clash with the global categories.Rathfelder (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly standardize, prefer z as z is acceptable in both British and American English. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Option B as Ukraine is is the British sphere of influence, not the US. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- LL has used this phrase before, and described it as "half joke, half metaphor". See this cfd closed with the comment "I suggest that the remaining cases like this should favour -z- except where there has been a strong British connection" by the sagacious closer @Fayenatic london:. Oculi (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment, for what it is worth, the Ukrainian state website uses organizations as well [1]. But that may be pretty coincidental, because Ukraine is neither in the American nor in the British sphere of influence. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- The arguments about local usage do not bite on countries where English is not spoken, and the stuff about sphere of influence is both bogus and irrelevant. Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support Option B. Status quo given the existence of Category:Organisations based in Ukraine. It is completely incorrect to say that the 'z' spelling is "more widely accepted". It is in the American-influenced world; it is not in the Commonwealth. Ukraine is in neither. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- 'z' is correct everywhere. 's' is wrong in North America. (Oxford spelling - "The suffix -ize has been in use in the UK since the 15th century,[9] and is the spelling variation used in North American English. The belief that -ize is an exclusively North American variant is incorrect.[9]"; "In both the King James Bible and the works of Shakespeare, -ize endings are used throughout.") It is the British who have strayed from the classical English of Shakespeare. Oculi (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Moreover 'ize' is used much more often in Ukraine. "Organization" gets 600 hits on the Ukranian government website https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/ whereas 'organisation' gets a trifling 22. Oculi (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oculi I must correct you on your statement that
'z' is correct everywhere
, 'ize' is very much incorrect in Australia. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC).- WP:SPELLING#English_spelling_comparison_chart gives either for Australia (and Canada), but only 'ise' for NZ. So I concede that my statement should be: "'z' is correct everywhere except Oceania; 's' is wrong in the US." But this is Ukraine. Oculi (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- A better test is 'realize/realise' as neither appears as a proper noun. For Ukraine z gets 503 whereas s gets 5. This is 100:1, not even close; perhaps Ukrainians are avid readers of the Times Literary Supplement, George Orwell and Shakespeare. (https://grammarist.com/spelling/realise-realize/ gives a good account of the 2 spellings.) Oculi (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oculi I must correct you on your statement that
- Option B per Necrothesp. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2019 (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:Places named after Thomas Jefferson
- 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. MER-C 08:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Places named after Thomas Jefferson
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
- This category consists of places (mostly U.S. counties) with little to do with President Jefferson other than they were named after him. Many U.S. counties are named after early presidents: this category has Jefferson counties from Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio and Pennsylvania but all those states also have counties named after President Washington and President Adams so this approach would lead to category clutter. This category does not seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- My goodness, all those counties (19 of 'em) - surely they deserve their very own subcat (Category:Counties named after Thomas Jefferson) don't you think? (Sorry, couldn't resist... ) Seriously, just be glad all of the roads and streets aren't listed. (For starters, I just discovered that there are FOUR different Jefferson Street Historic Districts in four different states.)
- In case it wasn't already obvious, this kind of stuff is classic LIST material. And whadayaknow, there already is an oddly misnamed article called List of memorials to Thomas Jefferson (which I've just added to Category:Places named after Thomas Jefferson). Unfortunately, there's a lot missing - like 4 of those 19 counties. Yup. Oh well, at least it's a reasonably good starting point... and it's already divided into sections. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, places named for Thomas Jefferson seems a distinct and limited category. Many other categories are similarly named for individuals. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, these aren't monuments and memorials established to commemorate Thomas Jefferson, they are just random places and counties bearing his name. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe when they named them someone threw all of the names ever named into a hat and by astronomical odds dozens of naming-committees picked the name "Thomas Jefferson". Of course naming a county or a ship or a playground after someone is a way of honoring and memorializing them. The concept "memorial" means "to remember". Randy Kryn (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you may well regard it as throwing names into a hat and picking one randomly, though not all names have equal probabilities and "Thomas Jefferson" clearly has much higher probability than average. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - classic WP:SHAREDNAME. Oculi (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete/Purge. IMO the whole Memorials category tree should be restricted to things that were specifically created as memorials (e.g. statues) - not things such as mountains, counties and bridges (which are well categorized by the more permanent characteristics of what they are). DexDor (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Listify (if necessary) then delete This is a classic SHAREDNAME case of Overcategorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2019 (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:21st-century heads of state of France
- 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. MER-C 08:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:21st-century heads of state of France to Category:21st-century Presidents of France
- Nominator's rationale: No reason for this intermediate step: under the current French Fifth Republic, France has only one head of state: the president. — JFG talk 08:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Successor category to Category:20th-century heads of state of France, in an attempt to cover multiple regime changes. Dimadick (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Suggest to nominate Category:18th-century heads of state of France until Category:21st-century heads of state of France for merger to Category:Heads of state of France. There aren't that many regime changes during a century, and the large amount of heads of state are monarchs and presidents who each already have their own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment In France's case, beside the monarchs and Presidents, we also have the Presidents of the National Convention (1792-1795), the Presidents of the Committee of Public Safety (1793-1795), the Directors of the Directory (1795-1799), the French consuls (1799-1804), the acting heads of state during the Revolution of 1830, the acting heads of state during the Revolution of 1848, the heads of the Government of National Defense (1870-1871), the heads of Vichy France (1940-1944), the heads of the Provisional Government of the French Republic (1944-1947). See: List of heads of state of France for more details. Dimadick (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Some corrections can be made to the list: "the Presidents of the National Convention (1792-1795)" were not heads of state, just presidents of the parliament. The assertion "whose president (elected from within for a 14-day term) may be considered as France's legitimate Head of State during this period" is POV. There was no head of state between 1792-1795. I have also strong doubts about the "Presidents of the Committee of Public Safety", where does the list come from? To my knowledge, Robespierre was not president of the Committee. T8612 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Pointless extra layer; if France has a constitutional crisis and regime change, then this category might have reason to exist. The header at Category:20th-century heads of state of France can easily be altered to point to Category:21st-century Presidents of France instead. Opera hat (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- The subject might be kept as a cat-redirect, but it would be better to edit the 20th century category so that the "following" item was the target here. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Mild oppose. Note that even in the absence of any regime change, a resignation or death of the President would bring an interim President, which is not usually considered a President in full capacity. Note for instance how Alain Poher, interim President in 1969 and 1974, is in Category:20th-century heads of state of France but not Category:20th-century Presidents of France. So, in this capacity, this category makes at least some sense. However, I am quite convinced by @Marcocapelle 's opinion that all Xth-century heads of state of France could be upmerged to Xth-century rulers and Heads of state of France. After all, we don't seem to have similar hierarchies for other countries, and the content of these categories seems to show certain flaws, for instance overlooking regents. Place Clichy (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I am still trying to tag various articles on French heads of state/government from the French Revolution-era for rating. From the French Revolution onwards, only 3 people have been regents. I am not certain whether they should count as heads of state: 1) Louis XVIII of France, nominal regent for his nephew Louis XVII of France from 1793 to 1795. A position recognized only by royalists. Claimed the throne in his own right, following Louis XVII's death. 2) Charles X of France. Briefly regent in 1814, while Louis XVIII was absent abroad. 3) Eugénie de Montijo. Three brief terms as regent, while Napoleon III was absent abroad.Dimadick (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- In other centuries the head of state has had various titles, but I see no reason why the 21st century category in the series should not be "President". Alternatively, the 21st century head of state cat should become a cat-redirect to "President", as this would be effective to prevent re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The House of Bourbon might rise again. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose These categories should be kept consistent. Nothing is lost if this category is left the way it is, but consistency with its partner categories is lost if it is merged into a more specific category. The history of France is vast, and the present categorization scheme properly encapsulates the changes that have happened in French leadership over the centuries. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2019 (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.
Churches
- 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 for now (as WP:SOFTDELETE) except for group 4 and Category:Churches in Düsseldorf, Category:Churches in Osnabrück, Category:Churches in Limassol, Category:Churches in Plzeň, Category:Churches in Darmstadt, Category:Churches in Leeuwarden, Category:Churches in Weimar; Category:Churches in Lucknow, Category:Churches in Mysore, Category:Churches in Pune, Category:Churches in Srinagar, Category:Churches in Jaffna, Category:Churches in Banja Luka, Category:Churches in Batumi, Category:Churches in Agartala. – Fayenatic London 04:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- (group 1)
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Banja Luka to Category:Banja Luka
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Batumi to Category:Buildings and structures in Batumi
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Bendigo to Category:Buildings and structures in Bendigo
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Boboshticë to Category:Boboshticë
more of group 1
|
|---|
|
- (group 2)
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Agartala to Category:Buildings and structures in Agartala and Category:Churches in Tripura
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Bethel, Connecticut to Category:Buildings and structures in Bethel, Connecticut and Category:Churches in Fairfield County, Connecticut
- group 3)
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Benson, Minnesota to Category:Benson, Minnesota and Category:Churches in Swift County, Minnesota
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Chillicothe, Missouri to Category:Chillicothe, Missouri and Category:Churches in Livingston County, Missouri
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Crosstown, Missouri to Category:Crosstown, Missouri and Category:Churches in Perry County, Missouri
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Halifax, North Carolina to Category:Halifax, North Carolina and Category:Churches in Halifax County, North Carolina
more of group 3
|
|---|
|
- (group 4)
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Batticaloa to Category:Places of worship in Batticaloa and Category:Churches in Batticaloa District
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Gampaha to Category:Places of worship in Gampaha and Category:Churches in Gampaha District
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Jaffna to Category:Places of worship in Jaffna and Category:Churches in Jaffna District
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Kurunegala to Category:Places of worship in Kurunegala and Category:Churches in Kurunegala District
- (withdrawn)
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Abuja to Category:Buildings and structures in Abuja and Category:Churches in Nigeria
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to Category:Buildings and structures in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Category:Churches in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Tianjin to Category:Buildings and structures in Tianjin and Category:Religion in Tianjin
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Xi'an to Category:Buildings and structures in Xi'an and Category:Churches in Shaanxi
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Changchun to Category:Buildings and structures in Changchun and Category:Churches in Jilin
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Chongqing to Category:Places of worship in Chongqing
- Propose merging Category:Churches in Sacramento, California to Category:Places of worship in Sacramento, California and Category:Churches in Sacramento County, California
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 1 or 2 articles in each of these cities. While there may well be some room for expansion in any of those cities it remains a matter of a crystal ball to determine how many churches are really notable. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion. Note that I have no intention of batch-nominating categories of 3 or more articles.
- Note that the nomination consists of four groups:
- articles for which only one merge target has been specified, for example because the Churches in region or country parent category has been diffused by denomination and the articles are already in the denominational cousin categories;
- articles with a Buildings and structures in city target and a Churches in region or country target;
- articles with a City target and a Churches in region or country target, because the city does not even have a Buildings and structures in city subcategory;
- articles with other merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support All While there are some other churches in these locations, it's not clear there are 3 or 4 notable ones so this is just breaking up articles and hindering navigation. (If I'm mistaken and any of these categories get up to 5 or so articles, no objection to recreating.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose the Chinese ones: Category:Churches in Tianjin, Category:Churches in Xi'an, Category:Churches in Changchun, Category:Churches in Chongqing. These are huge cities with populations of 10 million or more, and have many notable churches. The equivalent category on Chinese Wikipedia for Tianjin, for example, includes almost 30 churches, and even that is not exhaustive. Just because articles have not yet been created does not mean they are WP:SMALLCAT. -Zanhe (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose all Back to basics! What does WP:SMALLCAT actually say? This: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, ....". Is there "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" for churches? Yes of course there is. Please don't refer to policies without reading them! Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is a larger overall accepted sub-categorization scheme for countries, not for populated places. With some exceptions (as nominated), subcategories of cities are being created upon need, not by default. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose categories for very large cities. These are likely to grow. Abuja, Baton Rouge and those mentioned by Zanhe. Otherwise support deletion of smaller cities that are highly unlikely to ever grow.--TM 03:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, then I'll withdraw these. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would request that you withdraw the Sacramento category as well. It now has 3 articles and, with a population of over 500,000 residents, there are likely several other notable church buildings in the city.--TM 19:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment, To be honest I do not feel strongly one way or the other, but I have a feeling some of these are useless categories. There are three categories for communities that I am familiar with and I will limit my comments to them. To begin with, they can all be merged as proposed. Ottumwa and Keokuk, Iowa are small cities with few notable churches. Another problem with these two is that the individual churches are categorized in both their respective city and county church categories. There is no need for all four categories, the city's church categories will not grow much more, if at all, so I would maintain the county church categories and eliminate those from the cities.
- Silver Spring Maryland is a slightly different case. First of all, it is an unincorporated area in the southern part of Montgomery County, with part of that area forming a census-designated place (CDP) called Silver Spring. However, places with a Silver Spring address exist in other CDPs as the boundaries of these places change at the discretion of the US Census Bureau. The post office, based on their needs, generally keeps address locations the same regardless of the changing CDPs. This is all background to say that neither church categorized as Silver Spring is in the CDP, but they maintain their Silver Spring addresses. So their "municipal" category is based on their address and not their changeable jurisdiction. They, like the Iowa churches, are categorized in both the municipal and county church categories.
- I haven't checked the other categories from the US, but is this double categorizing common for all of them? If so, it seems to me that they might be better served by their county church category than their city church category while maintaining their inclusion in the city or city building/structure category. I realize, however, that this may not be true for all locals and a determination needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. Farragutful (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support pruned list. I must also express my admiration for the categorisation rationale employed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose the following: Category:Churches in Düsseldorf, Category:Churches in Osnabrück, Category:Churches in Limassol, Category:Churches in Osnabrück, Category:Churches in Plzeň, Category:Churches in Darmstadt, Category:Churches in Leeuwarden, Category:Churches in Weimar; Category:Churches in Lucknow, Category:Churches in Mysore, Category:Churches in Pune, Category:Churches in Srinagar. The European citites are historically important, and mostly large: there is no doubt that these cats are capable of expansion (the equivalent cat for Düsseldorf on de:Wiki for example contains 111 churches). The Indian ones are very large cities: Lucknow 2.9 million, Mysore 1.2 million, Pune 7.25 million, Srinagar 1.2 million (figures for metro areas) as well as being highly significant historically. Ingratis (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - per above oppose !votes, namely the size and cultural importance of these cities makes these categories relevant. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Inter&anthro: Some of the settlements in the nomination are towns, not cities, e.g. Bethel, Connecticut. Please clarify whether you oppose the whole nomination of towns and cities, or you just oppose certain cities which have been specifically opposed by others above. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: I've been going through the categories and generally I feel that if the center of population has more than 40,000-50,000 people, or if it is the the regional capital, than the category should be kept as there probably are more than 2 churches in that city and potential for growth. If the place has a population less than 10,000 than I think merging is more acceptable as there probably aren't that many churches there, hence the application of SMALLCAT. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Can I take it that applying your criteria would roughly correspond to the lists of categories named by other opposing editors above? – Fayenatic London 14:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: Generally speaking yes, although I guess I would also be opposed to regional capitals such as Jaffna, Banja Luka, Batumi, Agartala etc. as these are regional capitals with a population over 50,000 with a descent sized Christian percentage and a theoretical potential for category growth. But for places such as Bethel, Connecticut and Chillicothe, Missouri which are at best only minor population centers, I think the logic for merging is far stronger. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Can I take it that applying your criteria would roughly correspond to the lists of categories named by other opposing editors above? – Fayenatic London 14:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: I've been going through the categories and generally I feel that if the center of population has more than 40,000-50,000 people, or if it is the the regional capital, than the category should be kept as there probably are more than 2 churches in that city and potential for growth. If the place has a population less than 10,000 than I think merging is more acceptable as there probably aren't that many churches there, hence the application of SMALLCAT. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Inter&anthro: Some of the settlements in the nomination are towns, not cities, e.g. Bethel, Connecticut. Please clarify whether you oppose the whole nomination of towns and cities, or you just oppose certain cities which have been specifically opposed by others above. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 28 June 2019 (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:Religion in France by city
- 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. MER-C 10:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Propose merging Category:Religion in France by city to Category:Religion in France and Category:Religion in Europe by city- Propose merging Category:Religious buildings and structures in France by city to Category:Religious buildings and structures in France and Category:Religious buildings and structures by city (excluding the churches subcat)
- Nominator's rationale: Only few cities in France have a separate religion category on top of the Christianity category, or a separate places of worship category on top of the churches category, which makes sense because Christianity is dominant in the French religious landscape. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge per nom, IDK if Christianity is still dominant in the French religious landscape now, but it has had the most massive role to play in France's long, long, history.
I am from the U.S. and have not sufficiently studied French history outside of their Revolution, and thus may be wrong. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC) - I dont think religion in France, or indeed in other countries, varies much from city to city. The articles are mostly about Places of worship.Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Category:Religion in France by city now has 10 subcats, after I created a few more.
- Category:Places of worship in France by city is good way of grouping religious buildings by city. There should be more such categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Roman Catholic churches in France by city exists for a good reason, but the number of places of worship other than Roman Catholic churches is very limited in smaller French cities. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Withdraw first nomination, while imho the new-created subcategories add little value, it would require a separate nomination to have them upmerged as well. Given the fact that they exist, a merger of Category:Religion in France by city is no longer applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Some of the by-city subcats of Category:Religion in France by city which I created have been reduced to single-item containers by the noninator's subsequent creation of Category:Christianity in France by city, and its subcats Category:Christianity in Toulouse, Category:Christianity in Strasbourg, Category:Christianity in Nice, Category:Christianity in Marseille , Category:Christianity in Lille.
- It is surprising that @Marcocapelle chose not to disclose those creations when complaining that the broader
new-created subcategories add little value
. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)- It was already addressed in the nomination rationale that there is too little content about religion beside Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note that the Category:Places of worship in France by city is one of ~1000 similar categories which at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 21#Places_of_worship I have proposed renaming to the slightly broader title "Religious buildings". In some cases, this will add a few articles to those categories, so if there is consensus for that renaming, it may alter the assessment of the categories nominated here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support the remaining nomination. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2019 (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.
People from Sardinia
- 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: please renominate Category:Sardinian Roman Catholic priests for renaming, delete everything else. MER-C 15:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Sardinian Roman Catholic priests to Category:Roman Catholic priests from Sardinia
- Propose deleting:
- Category:Sardinian people by period
- Category:Sardinian people by century
- Category:16th-century Sardinian people
- Category:Sardinian people by religion
- Category:Sardinian Christian clergy
- Category:Sardinian Christian monks
- Category:Sardinian Christian religious leaders
- Category:Sardinian Christians
- Category:Sardinian Franciscans
- Category:Sardinian Roman Catholic clergy
- Category:Sardinian priests
- Category:Sardinian people by period
- Nominator's rationale. Series of new categories created by new editor @RecycledPixels, with edit summaries noting that they were copied from the Italian categories. With two problems:
- Sardinia is not a sovereign state, we categorise people from there by the "People from Foo" convention, rather than by the demonyms which we used for nationalities.
- We don't need to replicate the whole category structure for a country in the category tree for an island. We don't have many article on people from Sardinia, and that path would just be over-categorisation.
- So this nomination seeks to rename the one category with actual substantive article content (Category:Sardinian Roman Catholic priests, with 16 pages), and delete the rest. (Category:16th-century Sardinian people contains one page, but we don't need to start a by-century tree just for one page).--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - per parent Category:People from Sardinia + lack of content. Oculi (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure lack of content is a fair reason to delete a category that was just created a few hours ago. I'm sure that a nation that existed for more than five centuries had more than one or two notable people in it. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, as creator. Agreed that modern Sardinia is not a sovereign state. However it used to be; see Kingdom of Sardinia which existed from the early 14th until the mid-19th century. The need for the category came to my attention while editing the Francesco Zirano article, of a 16th-century priest from Sardinia. The article before I started editing it identified him as an Italian Roman Catholic Priest. Another editor raised what I saw as a valid objection to this label (see edit summary at [2]. That edit had to do with the mentions within the article, but when I came back to the article, I noticed that there were several categories on the article that categorized the articles under categories like "italian Franciscans", 16th century Italian People, and so on. I don't feel that categorizing these articles as Italian or as Spanish people under the existing categories would be appropriate. Nor would I feel that people from Sardinia today should be put into these categories, but people from the Kingdom of Sardinia should be put there. No objection to renaming from "Sardinian priests" to "Kingdom of Sardinian priests", and so on if that would be less confusing, it just makes for confusingly long category names. A similar situation exists for categories like Category:Norman Franciscans. It wouldn't be appropriate to merge that into Category:French Franciscans just because Normandy is now part of modern-day France. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is Category:People from the Kingdom of Sardinia. Custom is to follow the format of the parent category. Oculi (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, then I probably just botched the category tree. My goal was just to create new categories attached to the Francesco_Zirano article, but didn't want to leave a bunch or orphan categories, so I tried to copy the category structure from the Italian categories. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also pinging @Dk1919 Franking: because that user started populating some of the Sardinian categories shortly after I created them. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Here are some additional categories I created at the same time that aren't listed in the original nomination, so they can all be included in this discussion (feel free to cut and paste into the top section if you like):
- Category:History of Sardinia by period
- Category:Centuries in Sardinia
- Category:16th century in Sardinia
- Category:Sardinian monks
- Category:Christianity in Sardinia
- Category:Religion in Sardinia
- Category:Sardinian religious leaders
- Category:Sardinian clergy
- These were all created just to maintain the same category heirarchy, and I used the Italian categories as a model. As you can see, it turned out to be quite a trip down the rabbit hole just to avoid leaving categories around that weren't appropriately connected to their parent categories. And the purpose of this was to replace four inappropriate categories on the Francesco Zirano article: Category:16th-century Italian people, Category:Italian Franciscans, Category:Italian Roman Catholic priests, and Category:Italian beatified people, so if there is a better way to do it, I'm open to feedback. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- The hierarchy should be created gradually, adding a category to the hierarchy only when it can be populated with at least around 5 articles (not counting articles in its subcategories). That is why below I voted delete, to be interpreted as "delete for now". Feel free to populate the categories while the discussion is going on and I will withdraw my opposition against any categories that reach a substantial number of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- These were all created just to maintain the same category heirarchy, and I used the Italian categories as a model. As you can see, it turned out to be quite a trip down the rabbit hole just to avoid leaving categories around that weren't appropriately connected to their parent categories. And the purpose of this was to replace four inappropriate categories on the Francesco Zirano article: Category:16th-century Italian people, Category:Italian Franciscans, Category:Italian Roman Catholic priests, and Category:Italian beatified people, so if there is a better way to do it, I'm open to feedback. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Roman Catholic priests from the Kingdom of Sardinia per Oculi, delete other categories per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi everyone! I suppose we may reach a compromise by moving everyone's category to the aforementioned Category:People from the Kingdom of Sardinia, which I think is the safest, and most respectable as well from an historical point of view, option. The point that I indeed raised and started the whole debate was that Sardinia was then its own Kingdom, as the nacció sarda following the early concept of "nation", with relatively few cultural and political contacts with Italy (so much so that Sardinia would in fact be part of the Council of Aragon, rather than Italy's, until its eventual handing over to the Austrians and then Savoyards, which marked the beginning of the Piedmontese rule over the island); as I said, it would be somewhat of an anachronism to attribute modern nationalities to people from such an early age. Therefore, I'm indifferent to whether we should keep the categories of "Sardinian monks, priests, etc." (the presence of which I nevertheless support and the elimination oppose) or just place them undel the label of "people from Sardinia" or also "people from the Kingdom of Sardinia", which sounds like the safest action to undertake. I conclude by personally thanking @RecycledPixels: for the sensibility shown to the historical question.--Dk1919 (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename per Marcocapelle and Oculi. "People from Sardinia" would cover those from the island, probably mainly modern people. The renamed category would apply to the island and rest of the kingdom from 1718 to 1861 (when the kingdom was renamed to Italy). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Catholic priests from Sardinia per the relevant article Catholic Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Rename/delete per nom. For all purposes, people connected to the former Kingdom of Sardinia can be considered Italian as far as nationality goes (and were at the time). Carving them out creates more trouble than value. For those whose relationship with that Kingdom is defining enough, a double inclusion in Italian fooers and People from the Kingdom of Sardinia is more useful than making up a Sardinian fooers category.
I have no prejudice against renaming the priests category to Category:Catholic priests from Sardinia, as there are probably too few notable Eastern Catholic priests linked with Sardinia for the difference to make sense.Place Clichy (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)- Strike the last part: national Catholic priests categories are currently diffused between Roman Catholic priests by nationality and Eastern Catholic priests by nationality, and the parent is at Italian Roman Catholic priests. This category should therefore follow the current category structure, or could be immediately renamed accordingly per WP:C2C. Place Clichy (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Catholic priests from Sardinia per above arguments. PPEMES (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: What should Category:Sardinian Roman Catholic priests be renamed to? The rest of this nomination has rough consensus. MER-C 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- So we have "Sardinian" vs "from Sardinia" vs "from the Kingdom of Sardinia" and we also have "Roman Catholic" vs "Catholic", that makes 3 * 2 = 6 possible combinations. Honestly I do not count on getting consensus on this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Withdraw and start again with just the Kingdom of Sardinia people. Work out from there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with User:Laurel Lodged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2019 (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:Recipients of the Benson Medal
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 28#Category:Recipients of the Benson Medal
Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in India
- 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. MER-C 10:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in India to Category:Catholic dioceses in India
- Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara are not under a Roman Catholic diocese but are still in the category.Manabimasu (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2019 (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.