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: Per this
CfD, we should use "Calvinist and Reformed" to avoid confusion rather than either term to avoid confusion.
JFH (
talk)
22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge and Rename as proposed: As one of the contributors to this hierarchy, I approve this as an appropriate rename. (But note that Dutch is matched to French above -- should be two separate lines.) --
Flex (
talk/
contribs)
14:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- It is not quite as simple as implied. Calvinist can eithger be a theological position or a denominational one. It will bne necessary to purge the categories of those not from these denominations into perhaps "Theological Calvinists", for those holding the theological position without belonging to one of these denominations.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:47, 17 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:Straight edge individuals
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: As far as I can tell, straight edge is similar to teetotaler; eg someone who doesn't drink, smoke, or do drugs.
Dennis_Lyxzén is a classic example here - in this
interview (replace x with y - this url is banned for some reason he talks about how from time to time he will drink a glass of champagne. I think a list, which already exists at
List of people that follow a straight edge lifestyle is a better way of capturing the nuance here, a category is not, especially since you're talking about mostly musicians who might float in and out of adherence to a straight-edge regime - thus a list where such behaviors can be sourced and the nuance captured is better than a category
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
20:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete This really should be used only for people who openly identify with a certain music sub-culture, not people who might fit its technical definition. This is not a clearly defined enough group to be worth categorizing by.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:07, 15 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:Vegans
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.
While being a vegan is obviously an important personal choice for certain of the people in these categories, I don't think ultimately these are workable as categories, as some people become vegetarian, then vegan, then go back to being vegetarian, or pescatarian, or back to omnivore. Diet choices change during one's lifetime, and are rarely static.
In addition, there are different definitions of what it means to be vegan, and whether you only do so in diet or for products you use/wear/etc, and for how long one has to be a vegan before they could be placed into this category.
Finally, when I read media profiles of many of the people in these categories, their diet is not mentioned. Thus, I think these categories generally fail WP:DEFINING.
I think this information is best kept at
List of vegans, where diet choice at a given time in life can be sourced and contextualized appropriately, as opposed to as a category, which is binary membership (in or out).
We could create a category called
Category:Vegan and vegetarian activists or similar for those who have actively campaigned for and promoted a vegan or vegetarian diet and have been called as such by media reports; but simply following a vegan diet should not lead to categorization as same.
You also have cases where people are categorized as vegans even though the word didn't exist at the time (word invented c.1944) - see
Lewis Gompertz for example - who espoused some of what are today known as vegan principles, but also accepted eating of meat if the animal died naturally.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep
Category:Vegan sportspeople While it may be trivial for (e.g.) an actor or a politician to not eat animal products, it's noteworthy for an athlete to do it and there is ample literature about sports/fitness and vegan nutrition to justify categorizing professional athletes as having animal product-free diets. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯06:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Other categories Not sure: When a category becomes big enough, it needs to be diffused and the most common methods (for biographies) are by nationality and by century. There's not claim that (e.g.) Chinese vegans are somehow different at being vegans than Canadian ones, but there simply has to be some method to break up larger categories into navigable ones. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯21:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Ah - perhaps you misunderstood the nomination - I've proposed to delete the Vegans tree entirely. If it's kept, I agree on dividing by country, that's reasonable - but the proposal is that being "Vegan" is not WP:DEFINING, so we should not have such categories at all.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
21:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep. People see this as an important aspect of themselves, sometimes a health issue, sometimes a religious one, sometimes an entire lifestyle choice, and they want to be associated with it, which is why they let it be known. I can't see any reason that Wikipedia would choose to ignore it, given how we categorize for all kinds of reasons. Categories are not about people who are notable for being X. They are people who are notable, and who are also X.
SlimVirgin(talk)00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Although I agree in part with your last sentence, there comes a point of diminishing returns. (For example: would we really want
Category:Slovenians who had acne as teenagers?) I worry that categories like this end up being a subtle form of POV-pushing, by telling our readers "oh, look, this person whose biography you looked up for reasons other than being vegan is a vegan, along with so many other people!" I would not object to a category for people who are not only vegan, but who have made "let[ting] it be known" a major part of their life's work. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)reply
The relevant guidance is
WP:DEFINING - that's how we know that Slovenians with acne is not a valid category. In most articles about the people covered here, unless the source is a pro-vegan magazine, they do not cover their dietary choices. We have a list of vegans where such statements (and adherence/non-adherence) can be covered, but since none of this can be verified it's essentially a self-declared affiliation and as such not really worthy of categorization. As it says at WP:DEFINING, "In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative." --
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
21:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Problematic. This really should have been split into at least two - one on nationalistic lines, and the other on professional. I've no real opinion on the nationalistic side, but Vegan Sportspeople, for instance, I completely disagree with Koavf on. Very few athletes are notable for being vegans. The existence of literature about vegan nutrition and sport fitness in general does not make this a notable intersection for a specfic athlete. This intersection is easily as trivial as that of vegan politicians.
Resolute16:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all it's not defining, it's usually not permanent (i.e., most people in these categories became vegans; and may choose to not later, so we'll need ex-vegans?). And addressing the argument proffered by SlimVirgin above: that people think this is an important aspect of their personhood is irrelevant, unless you want to categorize people by whether they're married/single, have kids, widowed, birth order, overweight, hypertensive, or all manner of things that people think is important to their personhoods. And your last sentence directly contradicts:
WP:COP#N, "Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable" or else we'd have nearly everyone under 40 in
Category:Skateboarders, because we've nearly all done it at least once.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
08:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Just this week on
The Colbert Report,
Paul McCartney was asked about his claim that he was a vegan when a card that was issued with an older album says his favorite food is
prime rib, if my recall is correct. When asked about that, Sir Paul kind of laughed it off. This shows the problem with this type of classification. We could correctly identify him as a
Category:Beef lovers and
Category:Vegans since he has identified as both. Since this type of decision does not have to be permanent, can it really be defining? Given all of the issues, I think the best solution is to delete all and listify as needed so that you can explain when and why someone changed.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all Being a vegan is not a permanent, defining charactistic. Anyone meat eating human could decide to switch to a vegan diet, much like any vegan could go back to being a meat eater. Perhaps something like Vegaswikian's solution of listifying vegans as needed, so that we can remove as necessary should their dietary preferences change. Regardless of that, though, just delete all the categories. Canuck89(have words with me) 06:25, June 18, 2013 (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:Conwy United F.C. players
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.
Speedy rename per C2D. FYI, I've tagged the article in question for history merge, as it was copy-paste moved in June 2012.
Mentoz86 (
talk)
21:25, 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:Fitness 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 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:Chinese city 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary. We already have geography stub categories for each of the major divisions of China (PRC, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet). This category and template will only cause dissention about what constitutes a "city".
Dawynn (
talk)
11:40, 10 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:User miq
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.
keep The miq1 guys are thrown in because that's what the template tells it to do. I'd check other language templates to see if this is common - for english it doesn't but I don't know about others. Anyway, why delete it? If the userbox exists, the cat should exist, so for now I'm !voting to keep.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
22:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This seems to be a user categoiry for Meskito speakers. That is potentially a valid category, but is it correctly constructed?
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.
Drugs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The word "Drugs" is a bit too broad. It also could be for substances for health benefits such as treating diseases like cancer. "Substance abuse" would narrow things down.
NeoBatfreak (
talk)
06:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete all "works about" categories are meaningless because we have no objective standard for how much the work must be "about" the subject, much less reliable sources telling us that it is at least that amount.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
08:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep, "drug film" is a definite film sub-genre, with references in book, articles and other reliable sources (I own an Italian book about the theme, "Psychedelic Pop"), it is not a trivial or ambiguous categorization such as "films about twins". The same for "Literature about drugs" or for "Television programs about drugs". I'm just a bit concerned about "Video games about drugs" but this could be eventually discussed in a separate CfD discussion.
Cavarrone18:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. The publishing of a book does not make the subject of the book notable, although the book itself might be notable. For instance, say, a book called "Famous cats through history" would not transpire that there should be a category called famous cats through history, nor does it signify that every cat in the book should have an article. Similarly, if I wrote a book about "Films about Twins" I'd want to include anything and everything that would make this book a commercial success - which is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is trying to do. So any category can only be judged by Wikipedia guidelines, in this case do the categories contain original research? and Are the categories defining? I have no objection to an well-written article about, for instance, "Drugs in film" but a category that could include any film where a character has taken an aspirin is not encyclopedic, useful, or benefit to the greater world, which is in line with Carlossuarez46's succinct comment above --
Richhoncho (
talk)
11:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Re I agree with you, but this is a problem of cleanup, not a problem which require deletion. Obviously a character who takes an aspirin should not to be included in a category named "
Films about drugs" (it's common sense!), but The Basketball Diaries, Christiane F. – We Children from Bahnhof Zoo, The Boost and dozens of other films surely do, and their inclusion is not ambiguous nor debatable. There are category-topics that are too loose or vague, and that could generate confusion, and should be deleted. There are others which are quite definite to be reasonably maintained. Following your arguments we should delete
Category:Books about spirituality as some fool could include in it a novel in which a charachter at one point began to pray, or
Category:World War I films as someone other could add a film set in 2520 in which a character refers of one ancestor who fought in World War I... these things happen, but they are surmuntable problems, and are very common for every single category.
Cavarrone12:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Not quite, it's a problem of definition, then it's a problem of clean up. My "aspirin taker character" is justified to be included because it is a pivotal moment in the film (according to me!) Most of the "about" categories in popular culture should be deleted. "About" ignores every
literary device and for that reason "about" is a load of old tosh. That is not to say well written and referenced articles cannot be created - as opposed to laundry lists, which is all a category is! Cheers.--
Richhoncho (
talk)
12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, "about" means "concerning/ on the subject of" and plain and simple the said topic requires to be the primary subject of the book/film/work, and the relevant article should provide evidence of that... if the inclusion of an article is minimally debeatable this is a good sign that probably the article should not be included in the category. The question is "Do we have books that unambiguously have drug addiction or drug dealing as the primary topic?", "Do we have films that unambiguously have drug addiction or drug dealing as the primary topic?" etc., if your answer is yes, so we have a real topic. Specifically, moving from theory to practice, looking at all the memoirs listed in
Category:Memoirs about drugs they all appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject, all the non-fiction books listed in
Category:Non-fiction books appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject, all the TV programs listed in
Category:Television programs about drugs appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject, all the documentaries listed in
Category:Documentary films about drugs appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject, all the short stories listed in
Category:Short stories about drugs appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject. Zero problems and no ambiguity also in
Category:Poems about drugs or
Category:Novels about drugs. Films and songs require a full inspection and surely could require some purging, but not so much at first sight. If we move from theory to practice, these apparent major issues reveal to be not so much big.
Cavarrone16:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)reply
In respect of non-factual, my answer to your question, Do we have films that unambiguously have drug addiction or drug dealing as the primary topic? then my answer is a resounding "NO" which is as OR as if I had said "Yes". This is quite simply because we are taking at face-value what was intended by the film director, songwriter, poet etc Are you denying that these people do use allegory, metaphor and every other literary device available? --
Richhoncho (
talk)
12:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Again, moving from theory to practice I have showed above how these categories are actually working well, and how the large majority of articles listed in the
works about drugs categories do not require any OR nor any "interpretation effort" to be included in their categories.
Les Paradis artificiels is a poem about drugs,
Cocaine Cowboys is a documentary about drugs,
Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue is a TV program about drugs,
Opium Nation is a memoir about drugs,
Trainspotting is a novel about drugs,
The Panic in Needle Park is a film about drugs,
The Rhetoric of Drugs is a non-fiction book about drugs,
King Heroin is a song about drugs and so on, I don't think we can disagree on this. What you say is "Hey, this book could be interpreted as an allegory of drug addiction", yes, THIS is OR and the book should be purged by the category, as the categories should include only the works that explicitly have drugs as main subject. When there is a matter of opinion about the inclusion of an article, it's safer to exclude it from the category, if not (as it happens for the majority of the articles) "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies.
Cavarrone14:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)reply
DeleteCategory:Video games about drugs as a very narrow and subjective categorization choice (almost all current members don't really fit). KeepCategory:Documentary films about drugs as being about the topic itself. Cleanup all others to contain only works actually centered on drugs, and not just among other topics or characters who take drugs, etc. Wouldn't object to deleting all (especially songs, films) and starting anew with each article supported by reference as 90%+ of examples aren't a proper fit. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK17:10, 2 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:1826 establishments in Turkey
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. If we need to categorize as both, the years in categories can contain both Turkey and Ottoman Empire.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale The name of the country was the
Ottoman Empire. The logical way to categorize things is by what country they were in, especially when some of the things involved are geographical sub-units of the Ottoman Empire. Some of these will be mergers because both categories exist. To explain how horrible it is to use the Turkey system, just look at the one article in the 1826 category. It was established by the head of the Ottoman Empire, and is in various Ottoman Empire categories. We have decided Ottoman Empire is the accepted name for the place at the times involved. If Turkey was used at all at the times, it was used to mean the Ottoman Empire, and can not be a functional stand in for any other entity. If we do not want to rename the categories, we should at a minimum reverse merge. Turkey and the Ottoman Empire are the same thing at the times involved, there is no Turkey other than the Ottoman Empire.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose per many of the reasons given in the last discussion in December. I doubt much has changed since then for most users. The two different trees approach the issue in two different ways, and there is merit to both approaches. The "Turkey" way approaches it by using current state names/boundaries, which is useful when users are interested in things that currently exist in Turkey but were established many years ago. The "Ottoman Empire" approach takes a more purely historical approach. I see no reason that both cannot exist in parallel. If they are both kept, the "Turkey" categories can be subcategories of the "Ottoman Empire" categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
The fact of the matter is that some of these things never existed in Turkey. They existed in the Ottoman Empire, and ceased to exist afterward, such as the General Assembly of the Ottoman Empire from the 1876 category. Also, we have more recently entire scrapped such not helpful categories as pre-1971 establishments in Bangladesh. Of late there seems to have developed a clear consensus that we should use the names and boundaries of places as they existed at the time. For example
Category:1910 establishments in Germany applies the 1910 boundaries of Germany to the category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Of course, but everything in the Turkey categories once existed on the same territory that is now Turkey. The categories are thus helpful for those researching the history of those places. I don't know why you would seek to eliminate that utility. I have not seen a broad consensus for what you claim; you might be seeing what you want to see. Your
proposal for the Germany categories is currently being roundly opposed, for instance. We'll see if there is consensus in this case. I think it would be quite an unhelpful idea, personally, to delete either of these trees, given the size of the Ottoman Empire and the utility of the Turkey categories. Your proposal would probably be accepted more readily if the borders of modern Turkey and the borders of the Ottoman Empire were identical—but they were not.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose and please stop this "historical correctness". No objection to adding a category for the Ottoman Empire as well, but there is no benefit whatsoever in removing the Turkey categories. As for the supposed emerging consensus, these discussions still go in all kinds of directions and certainly aren't all going in the direction JohnPackLambert proposes (see e.g. the recent Mexico and Germany ones). People are interested in what happened in their country before the current country existed; why would we deliberately make it harder for them to find this?
Fram (
talk)
06:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)reply
However I have a 1911 atlas that show a country called Turkey, but it is using it for the Ottoman Empire. Turkey was a common name for a place but it was used to refer to ALL the Ottoman Empire. The attempt to use it only within its modern boundaries at times where the name Turkey was widely used creates a total mess.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)reply
It's true that the OE was/is often referred to as "Turkey", and Turkey became the successor state at international law; however, the vast majority of the Turkey categories were created first in time. So it's worth considering if maybe the Ottoman Empire categories never should have been created without this discussion taking place first.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)reply
the claims of the Older age of the Turkey categories are also not always so. The 1917 Ottoman Empire category is about a year older than the equivalent Turkey category. At the same time
Category:1908 in the Ottoman Empire shows how problematic it would be to use Turkey, since one of the three things in that category clearly did not happen in modern Turkey.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Years/Establishments by year in the Ottoman Empire I think is definitely needed. For example the 1826 establishments category contains
Asakir-i Mansure-i Muhammediye which is described as an "ocak of the Ottoman army". The appropriate category would therefore seem to be 1826 establishments in the Ottoman Empire. The question is then whether there should be a subcategory 1826 establishments in Turkey, which should be possible if there some agreed definition.
Tim! (
talk)
18:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment: Rename “establishments” as proposed, but retain “Years in Turkey” with content in them, as Turkey is a recognised subdivision of the Ottomann Empire. This is analogous to the 1910s and back for Austria-Hungary, when years in Austria-Hungary eg
Category:1911 in Austria-Hungary has as subcategories 1911 in Austria, 1911 in Croatia, 1912 in Bohemia and 1911 in Carniola (what, you haven’t heard of Carniola?). Some but not all of these categories are also listed for “Years by country” and “19XX in Europe”; they should all be listed at least for Europe.
Hugo999 (
talk)
01:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Turkey was not a subdivision of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey was a synonym of the Ottoman Empire. It had subdivisions like Adrianople, Saloniki, Janina, Selfidze, Monastir, Kossovo, and Skutari. Turkey is not a division of the Ottoman Empire, at the time it was a synonym of the Ottoman Empire.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to :Category:#### establishments and :Category:Establishments in (old countryname), and
Category:Establishments in Turkey would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --
Dirk BeetstraTC08:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)reply
I personally wonder if it is worth having the establishments by year by country tree in existence before 1800. On the other hand, for almost no year are we anywhere close to filling out these categories, and that is even just with the articles we have that identify when they were established.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Support -- The recent consensus is that categories such as this should use the contemporary name of the polity. "Turkey" was a contemporary popular name for the Empire, but its use is likely to casue confusion. WP has settled on the country as being the Ottoman Empire and this should be used. Perhaps the existing "Turkey" categories should be retained as cat-redirects, to discourage their re-creation.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)reply
So far, there has only really been such a consensus in cases where the boundaries of the state did not change between old name and current name, which is not the case here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)reply
I am unaware of any of those discussions and you haven't linked to them, so I can't evaluate the evidence for the consensuses you claim. In any case, consensus can change, and in the past month or two I'm not seeing a strong consensus for what Peter claims. Lately, we've had discussions about German states, South African states, the Ottoman Empire—none of these are demonstrating this strong consensus for that approach. When I mentioned "boundary changes", I was referring of the boundaries of the state at the time versus the current boundaries of the successor state. The boundaries of the 19th-century Ottoman Empire are not the same boundaries of the current state of Turkey. (Whereas, for example, Zaire's boundaries were the same as DR Congo's today and Portuguese Guinea's were the same as Guinea Bissau's.) Using the USA cats is not really indicative of the overall situation since they are in a distinct minority.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)reply
That fact is not relevant at all to my mentioning of German categories, at least. The ones I am referencing are all pre-1871 ones that
you have nominated for deletion. No one is disputing that Germany existed as a state in 1910. In these instances, we are dealing with categories named after a current state and the current state did not exist at the time, except in international-law-predecessor-state fashion. So the issues are completely different than "1910 in Germany", as I've tried to point out above.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:00, 19 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:Waxwings
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.
Comment someone searching is more likely to use the English name. I suspect a reader who knows the scientific name wouldn't need to search, since there are only a handful of members anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:37, 21 May 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:User information templates
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.
Delete, as the person who originally created the category, I'm sure it had a purpose at the time but the history doesn't really help illuminate what this was. It's clear that it's not needed now.
AndrewRT(
Talk)
18:52, 17 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.