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.
There are "lots" of other (I could name four) OS/2 text editors, some listed in category OS/2 software or REXX (programming language). I'm not going to restore
The SemWare Editor flagged as inaccurate spam since 2011; you can do if you like. –
Be..anyone (
talk)
02:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Despite the nominator's claim, the category was (and now is again) not empty.
Category:Text editors has numerous similar categories for text editors under various operating systems, so it makes sense to have a similar category for OS/2 as well. Lots of other OS/2 editors can be added here in the future (as you write we even have articles for some of them). --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
03:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)reply
It certainly was empty when I added it here. Stuff you need for a no-nonsense category includes
KEDIT (the redirect, not its target),
THE,
E, and
Vim. The various TED articles are apparently not about the tiny editor for OS/2. –
Be..anyone (
talk)
03:29, 10 February 2014 (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:Holy Land during Byzantine rule
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 explained in article
Holy land, this is more a religious concept than a name of an area. This one is the exception within relevent historical categories, which mostly use Palestine, Israel or Syria
trespassers william (
talk)
21:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I think that the proposer agrees that it is "a relevant historical category". That's why he wants to give it an historical name, not a religious one.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
22:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose - per
consensus on August 2013, categories should reflect only states which existed at the time of the category year. Commonly, Palestine refers to current State of Palestine and certainly not Palaestina Prima; furthermore, Palestine and Holy Land don't fully overlap, especially if one is taking Palaestina Prima as a reference.
GreyShark (
dibra)
19:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)reply
There is no current state of Palestine...When talking about P in relation to Byzantine history, any confusion can be cleared with one click, which is better than with using Israel. But there is no prob with Palaestina provinces under Byzantine rule, Byzantine Palaestinae Prima (like "Ottoman Syria"), or plain eponymous cats (one or two). Surely, you are not opposing to doing away with "Holy Land"?
trespassers william (
talk)
21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose -
Holy Land is a much better and more neutral word to use in this case. As the article says, "The term [Holy Land] is also used by Muslims and Christians to refer to the area between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea i.e. it includes modern Palestine as well as Israel."
Shalom11111 (
talk)
16:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose -
Holy Land is just fine. The region has been called many things over thousands of years, from Canaan to Israel to Judah to Syria-Palaestina back to Israel again and the West Bank is now known as Palestine. What if the names were to change again?
Evildoer187 (
talk)
18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose: 'The Holy Lands' is an inclusive term that includes all the lands which are the subject of this page. After 'The Holy Lands', 'Israel/Palestine would be the next most inclusive term. There is no "State of Palestine" due to the fact that the PA, the most legitimate Arab Palestinian government in the disputed territories of Palestine, has yet to declare an Arab Palestinian state. We should and must avoid politics that would confuse the subject matter of this page and make it less reliable as a reference.
Gilad55 (
talk)
19:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Gilad55reply
Comment Isn't it funny how often the ploy of decrying politics is used right after a political stance is taken? Everybody's stance is political except one's own stance of course.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
20:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename but not to Palestine. As
Good Ol’factory points out, that is a reference to a contemporary political entity. I think the term "Holy Land" is inexact, vague and to be avoided. There are many locations on Earth that are considered holy to members of specific religions and cultural backgrounds. To identify any one as THE holy land is ethnocentric. This should be a geographic category not a religious one. Plus, the two subcategories in this category identify the Holy Land as Israel, so why not rename to Israel? I realize that the country of Israel didn't exist then but those are how the child categories are identified.
LizRead!Talk!16:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Actually, you have reversed the discussion. Israel is clearly the name of a modern nation-state. Palestine is generally accepted as a more open, geographical designation.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
This is far from NPOV reasoning, but for for the record, I agree that Israel is still better than Holy Land. Note that this is a discussion about a category of Byzantine history, so what the ROMANS called it is pretty relevant. Israel and Palestine/Plaestina have comparable Google results, HL is somewhat behind.
trespassers william (
talk)
00:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)reply
But the Byzantine P are historical entities. One can look up its borders. If you use HL as a "neutral", a-historical alternative, applicable in all periods, there is no telling what area exactly you are talking about. One intuition would be to equate HL with todays Israel (plus P. territories), another to equate with Byzantine Palestine(s), another, "Jesus' land", Tiberias-the Jordan-Jerusalem -(what in the west?), another tribes of Israel-land, way into the east.
trespassers william (
talk)
19:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Now if I may note your responses on the other threads, the uses of Israel also works for you, because there is a historical Eretz Israel. Is it safe to conclude that you take them as synonimous with "west of the Jordan"? Because that runs against your agreement that HL may stretch to the east...
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:Centuries 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.
Tentative support. In principle this is correct, because the modern state of
Israel has existed only since 1948, for most of the previous 1600 years, Palestine is a more accurate name, at least since the establishment of
Palaestina Prima in 390CE. But what about the period before that? Do we put everything before 390AD under Israel? What about
Judea (Roman province) and
Syria Palaestina? This needs more attention than a simple 1948 cutoff. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Not necessarily. Events in
Strasbourg in 1980 were in France, but events there in 1880 would not be categorised as being in France, because from 1871 to 1919 the city was part of the
German Empire. Similarly, events in
Sharm el-Sheikh in the 1970s would be categorised under Israel, but I hope you wouldn't argue that the same would apply to events since the
Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt in 1982. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)reply
From 1681 til 1871 Strasbourg was a part of France. French history did not cease in 1871-1919 in the imperial territory of Alsace-Lorraine. What history is Israel history and what history is not would be the question I would pose.
Serialjoepsycho (
talk)
03:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose, In browsing through 'Category:Centuries by country', there seems to be a consensus about relating to the current country. If a decision is made, should be part of a wider discussion that would affect other parallel categories like the USA and Canada.--
Almasworld (
talk)
00:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment This is difficult and not clear cut at all. I agree with
BrownHairedGirl that there shouldn't be an arbitrary cut-off point but this discussion shouldn't be
WP:POINTY either. It is questionable to use contemporary names for geographical locations that went by different names in the past. This is more of a historic-geographic question than a cultural one. While Israel or Palestine might be top level categories, the specific child categories and articles should use the place names that were used at the time of the events described. I'm not an expert in historical geography but I think whatever practice is used worldwide, should be used in this instance.
LizRead!Talk!16:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose Israel is fine; there is no confusion, any attempt to split is confusing and unclear, what's "most"? the commons category "region of Eretz Israel in the Levant, and the contemporary State of Israel in Western Asia." pretty much sums it up. --
CyberXRef☎10:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
What's and? State of Israel and Eretz Israel don't occupy quite the same landmass. Commons' cats are no smaller mess than ours:
You are right; That's actually disconcerting, especially since inside Category:Palestine is Category:Flags of Palestine which seems to deal only with the disputed territories as if Palestine means the a country instead of the territory. --
CyberXRef☎07:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose the state of Israel existed since Biblical times - there was never a state of Palestine, there was never a Palestinian people, the whole issue is a propaganda against the right of Israel to exist.--
Yoavd (
talk)
04:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)reply
No, the state of Israel did not exist in any form from AD 100 to AD 1948. The name "Israel" actually ceased to be used prior to 700 BC. So this claim really does not work.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)reply
I think Yoavd meant to write
Kingdom of Israel, not state. And no, your claim that the name "Israel" ceased to exist is simply not true. And even if it was, as explained above, it still wouldn't be a sufficient reason to change this category's name since other counties that did not exist during these times have similar categories named after them - see
Category:Centuries by country. -
Shalom11111 (
talk)
16:04, 1 March 2014 (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:Medieval 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.
Nominator's rationale: It seems WP is leaning toward identifying Palestine as the more historically stable name of the area. See eg
Category:Land of Israel. If we do not resort to double categorization just to avoid the headache, this should be renamed, along with some others I will propose.
trespassers william (
talk)
21:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment My intention was to put all articles and categories on Middle Ages in categories named after modern countries in Europe, Middle East and North Africa. --
Bojan Talk 02:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
There is a lot of sense in that too. When dealing with more local history, like archeological sites that saw many rulers, it becomes a little silly to pick one historical name of the land, rather than the country where the site is actually located. Broader topics still feel like they are stuck in the terminal.
Oppose - both "Medeval Israel" and "Medieval Palestine", as well as "Medeval Lebanon" or any Medieval <state>, referring to modern states which didn't exist in Middle Ages, should be deleted. period. Retroactive history doesn't work, and it is nonsense to rename all wikipedia article categories if some modern state changes its name (just imagine what happens if Scotland splits from England...)
GreyShark (
dibra)
19:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Ideally that would be true, but history is not only done this way, but also written this way. Should we start counting reliable sources at
[1], or be as bold as suggest deleting
Category:Medieval Italy? What I am trying to do is find out the more stable way to refer to an area. With Israel/Palestine, it has the added bonus that the current layout of the area is significantly smaller pieces than in previous centuries, so useful sets of topic in such areas as crusader or Roman history would be united. but at the bottom line, this is an index, and readers and might want to find the history of a (smaller) land ordered in one place. In this case, a more systematic distinction between cats by country and cats by region (See
Template:Middle Ages by region) will do.
trespassers william (
talk)
21:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose In browsing through 'Category:Middle Ages by country', there seems to be a consensus about relating to the current country. If a decision is made, should be part of a wider discussion that would affect other parallel categories like the Medieval Jordan, Iraq, Iran, etc... entities that did not exist in the middle ages. --
Almasworld (
talk)
00:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)reply
But we are not going to be so modernist as to put events in Medieval Ramallah in a different category than things happening in Medieval Haifa. Also, the claim they follow modern boundaries will not hold up when the contents of some of the categories are examined. Israel is a creation of the 1940s, and should not be imposed on the Medieval period, any more than events in 1820s California should be considered part of the history of the United States.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment While the Jewish people have existed, and continue to exist, for millennia, their state or states have not done so. There were large tracts of time when Jews were a minority people in their former state(s). During those periods, the conquerors' de facto name(s) ought to be employed. This in no way diminishes any cultural or religious ties that the defeated Jews may have felt towards the conquered territories during those periods; it merely recognises geo-political realities. The situation may be contrasted with Ireland which, for the better part of 800 years was a conquered state(s), yet at no time did the conqueror re-name the territory so it correct to speak of it as Ireland throughout. This is not the case with Israel or the Land of Israel. This proposal and alternative proposal has nothing to do with the delegitimization of Israel as it did not exist as a state at that time. It is a legitimate state of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
21:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - those who agree with him and and those who said "Oppose" obviously think that the category should be kept as is, since the proposal was to change its name, not to 'delete it entirely'.
Shalom11111 (
talk)
15:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The proposal was strictly "Renaming 'Category:Medieval Israel' to 'Category:Medieval Palestin'"; that's what being opposed. --
CyberXRef☎23:16, 1 March 2014 (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:Cold War passenger ships
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: Categorizing passenger ships by a military era is a bit odd. Presumably other editors think so to and haven't been putting many articles into these categories (unless there really was just one passenger-carrying ship designed, built, or operated in Greece from 1945 to 1990). The articles I've checked are in plenty of other categories.
DexDor (
talk)
19:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Merge all to
Category:Passenger ships of Foo. I support the nominator's rationale for deletion, but merger will ensure that all articles remain properly categorised, even if the nom's checking missed something or articles are recategorised before closure. The bot handles merger as easily as deletion, so there is no reason not to specify a merge. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:49, 10 February 2014 (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:Allied vessels involved in Operation Neptune
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: We categorize articles about individual (naval) ships by the wars they've taken part in - a particular ship is unlikely to play an active part in many wars so that's not an unreasonable characteristic to categorize by. However, categorizing ships by military operations could lead to some ship articles being in many categories. This is better covered by a list - advantages include the ability to include ships that we don't (yet) have an article about and consistency with pages like
List of Allied warships that served at Gallipoli.
DexDor (
talk)
18:42, 9 February 2014 (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:People from Kalida, Ohio
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:Petron Blaze Boosters seasons
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:Howitzers of the Cold War
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: This category contains only
one article (which is in plenty of other categories). Deleting this category would be a (small) step towards tidying up this area of categorization which is a bit muddled because terms like Howitzer and Field artillery have several meanings.
DexDor (
talk)
14:38, 9 February 2014 (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:Proposed Cold War military equipment
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:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters
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: Basically all those characters are comic book characters, with a "in other media" entry detailing the films. Of course, the marvel cinematic universe is not the single adaption of Marvel comics to other media, and we can't categorize characters for all the works where they have appeared. The only original characters from the Marvel Cinematic Universe who got their own articles are
Phil Coulson and
Erik Selvig; very few to keep a category just for them
Cambalachero (
talk)
01:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Listify it doesn't seem too defining, especially as being mentioned would make it part of MCU even if it never appears. A list would give context as to how it is part of the MCU --
70.24.244.161 (
talk)
08:05, 10 February 2014 (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.