From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 12

Category:Krassó-Szörény County

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. Note that this nomination did not include Category:People from Krassó-Szörény County. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It is used to categorize places over the inclusion in a county that no longer exists. We should only categorize them with the current territorial units, not what was valid a hundred years ago. For some towns in more disputed areas, this would lead to a dozen or two new categories. bogdan ( talk) 18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Moreover, categories of this type serve as parent categories for the subcategories consisting of people born within the county (or comparable administative unit) while it existed. Category:People from Krassó-Szörény County, for instance, is a subcategory of both Category:Krassó-Szörény County and Category:Austro-Hungarian people. See the corresponding categories for other parts of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, the German Empire, the Russian Empire etc. As I said, it's all part of a much larger established scheme of historical categorisation. Lekoren ( talk) 13:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The main article, Krassó-Szörény County, is already in Category:Counties in the Kingdom of Hungary so there wouldn't be disruption there. The question here is are the other articles in this category defined by being part of this historic county? For instance, Oravița makes no mention of it. RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the people from category is sufficiently linked to Category:Austro-Hungarian people and with the header that links to the article on this county. While arguably Jerusalem and many other such places could benefit from being in categories for every political division they have been part of, that is really not what categories are for. Categories are for defining characteristics of the article. For people, if they were born in one county, where they were born was annexed to another country where they did a part of their defining activities, and then a third country annexed the place and they continued doing defining activities, maybe they were a writer publishing works while a national of all 3 countries, than all three countries can be defining. However, places have much longer history and so the many different countries they were in over time will not be as defining. It does not seem a good way to categorize places. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not useful nor practical to organize places by former countries and subdivisions. Think of how many categories many places would be in. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:06, 18 August 2015 (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:LGBT places

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:  Relisted at 2015 SEP 11 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons whereby Wikipedia consensus has insisted on categorizing films as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:LGBT-related films rather than "LGBT films", magazines as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:LGBT-related magazines rather than "LGBT magazines", and on and so forth, this needs to be renamed — the current naming implies, wrongly, that the places have an inherent sexual orientation or gender identity of their own, rather than simply being associated with people who have sexual orientations or gender identities. The places are LGBT-related, but they don't have sexual or gender identities per se. Bearcat ( talk) 16:55, 12 August 2015 (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.