December 1
Category:Suspected criminals
- 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. --
Tavix (
talk)
05:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Suspected criminals to Category:People suspected of crimes
- Nominator's rationale: The present wording makes it sound like this is about confirmed criminals who are suspected. I don't think the noun criminal should be used when it is only describing suspicion. This seems more neutral. I thought perhaps Category:Criminal suspects but that has a similar problem in using the adjective 'criminal' to describe people who are merely suspects. To keep it brief Category:Suspects of crimes could work since "people" probably isn't needed, as there are no non-person suspects. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 23:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Alt rename to
Category:People charged for crimes, mere suspicion does not belong in an encyclopedia.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- A cursory look at the category would show that not to be the case, for example,
List of Jack the Ripper suspects is a historically notable example of suspects being encyclopedic despite not being charged for anything.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
11:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I was only referring to people who are directly in this category. The subcat with lists hasn't been nominated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Some of them were charged with different offenses, or were convicted murderers who were suspected of being involved in the Ripper crimes. George Chapman for example meets the criteria for a serial killer, but he poisoned his victims instead of strangulating them or severing their throats. Dr. Thomas Neill Cream was also a serial killer, but he was a poisoner. (And had the misfortune of tipping off the police that there was a murder, even in cases where no foul play was suspected. He could have gotten away with murder if he kept his mouth shut.) Frederick Bailey Deeming was a killer, but he only killed his two wives and all of his known children. A more curious case is Francis Tumblety, a quack doctor and arrested on charges of "gross indecency" (homosexuality). He was a known misogynist, possible abortionist, and reportedly had a collection of human body parts, but there is no evidence that he killed anyone intentionally (he was suspected of killing at least one patient due to medical malpractice). Dimadick ( talk) 15:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- A cursory look at the category would show that not to be the case, for example,
List of Jack the Ripper suspects is a historically notable example of suspects being encyclopedic despite not being charged for anything.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
11:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - "Suspected" automatically means they aren't already a criminal. And since it doesn't say "Suspected former criminals", then it implies the person is suspected of committing a crime. I think most people are smart enough to figure this out. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 11:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete This category is a BLP violation waiting to happen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:03, 26 December 2017 (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:Video games about cats
- 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. -- Tavix ( talk) 05:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The majority of video games listed are not in fact about cats, but just have catlike characters, mostly anthropomorphic ones who would hardly be considered normal cats, or feature multiple animals besides cats. If those were removed, the category would be virtually nonexistent, so I don't think it merits creation. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 23:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CATDEF. -- Izno ( talk) 16:02, 9 December 2017 (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:Gender and Bible
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to
Category:Gender in the Bible. –
Fayenatic
London
16:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Gender and Bible to Category:Gender and the Bible
- Nominator's rationale: Usual way of naming Bible-related categories. St Anselm ( talk) 22:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support, may be speedied per consent of creator WP:C2E. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. "And" means that there are two separate things that are joined. This is not the case here. There is one thing (gender) that is found in another thing ( Bible). Would support an alternative of Category:Gender in the Bible per other categories in Bible topics. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- While most gender categories are named Category:Gender and _____, I don't think this is a big deal and thus I would be equally okay with the alternative. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:33, 2 December 2017 (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:Filipino physicians
- 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, without consensus on the merge direction. For now, the articles can be kept on Category:Filipino medical doctors being the older category and I will leave a cat-redirect on Category:Filipino physicians. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap with Filipino medical doctors, into which I have transferred its contents Rathfelder ( talk) 21:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect, as most of the worldwide hierarchy uses "physicians", see Category:Physicians by nationality. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- reverse merge per Fayanetic. @ Rathfelder: Please note that you do not remove a category's contents until a discussion is complete (see the third paragraph here). Grutness... wha? 03:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Filipino medical doctors was established in 2009 and is well populated. It appears Category:Filipino physicians was created last year by accident. I don't care what it's called, but there should only be one category. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There is no consensus against 'medical doctors' or agreement on physicians, and Category:Filipino medical doctors takes precedence having been created first by several years. Oculi ( talk) 18:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge (or reverse merge), leaving a cat-redirect. We do not need both. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:08, 3 December 2017 (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:Old Testament apocrypha 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: rename. --
Tavix (
talk)
05:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Old Testament apocrypha places to Category:Places in the Deuterocanonical books
- Nominator's rationale: rename to a more accurate name, since the articles in this category refer to the Books of the Maccabees and Book of Judith. Though poorly populated I would suggest keeping the category anyway - otherwise it should be upmerged to Category:Old Testament places which will probably lead to POV objections. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per nom Only Protestants consider the Deuterocanonical books to be apocrypha. Dimadick ( talk) 20:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support, as creator of this category in 2007. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Query What about the Battle of Raphia which is mentioned in 3 Maccabees? That's not one the Deuterocanonical books but for the Georgian Church it's part of the Anagignoskomena. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, nothing in the storyline of 3 Maccabees is related to the place Rafah. The battle is just background information. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Background information on a topic should still be categorized because of its relationship to the topic. Allowing protestants to search for the same content under terms more familiar to them is reasonable. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:30, 28 December 2017 (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.
Years and decades in Austria (up to 1700)
- 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 and delete according to the nomination. There is no consensus to also delete the 11th-17th centuries in Austria categories. --
Tavix (
talk)
05:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:1091 establishments in Austria to Category:1091 establishments in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:11th-century establishments in Austria
- Propose merging Category:1155 establishments in Austria to Category:1155 establishments in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:12th-century establishments in Austria
- Propose merging Category:1283 in Austria to Category:1283 in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:13th century in Austria
- Propose merging Category:1313 in Austria to Category:1313 in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:14th century in Austria
- Propose merging Category:1315 in Austria to Category:1315 in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:14th century in Austria
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly one article per category. This nomination only goes until 1700, because there are many more articles about Austria in the 18th century due to the political situation of the time. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete to Holy Roman Empire only; no need for 11-17 centuries in Austria due to anachronism (Austrian Republic exists since 20th century). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 ( talk • contribs)
- Not very anachronistic though, Austria has been a duchy since 1156, and before it was a margraviate. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- We already have articles on the Margraviate of Austria (976-1156), the Duchy of Austria (1156-1453), and the Archduchy of Austria (1453-1806). We also have a List of rulers of Austria from 976 to 1918, though most of them seem to be members of the House of Habsburg. Dimadick ( talk) 20:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete to Holy Roman Empire only; no need for 11-17 centuries in Austria due to anachronism. If new categories for the Archduchy of Austria are created, am happy for them to go there, but not to Austria. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that every country category must contain the country's type of regime in the category name. We don't have categories like 14th century in the Kingdom of France either. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- But Austria wasn't a country at that time and neither was the Archduchy a country as it was just a constituent part of the Empire. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Then what is a country? I suppose the definition of a country should primarily mention something about the level of self-governance. And if it comes to that point, the current EU countries are less self-governing than the duchies of the Holy Roman Empire were. The Holy Roman Empire did not have overarching laws, nor political institutions, nor an army of its own, there was really nothing in common but a titular head of state. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to take the view that powerful regions within the Empire were de facto states, then I'm OK with that. But you'll have to create categories for them in order of their creation (i.e the Margraviate, the Duchy and the Archduchy) and merge the articles to the proper state. And if you then want to take the view that the modern republic is also a successor state, then that's probably OK too. But let's not perpetrate an anachronism by saying that Austria has been in existence for millennia as an unchanging, unitary state. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Certainly I wouldn't suggest that Austria has been in existence for millennia as an unchanging, unitary state. Nor is France, where the medieval feudal kingdom was entirely different from the absolute monarchy in the 17th century or the empire under Napoleon. Nevertheless we have one category tree for the centuries of France, and I would suggest we do the same for Austria. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would actually suggest exactly the opposite - to make the distinction between Kingdom of France until the revolution and the later Empire and Republic, due to significant shift of the borders and governance. GreyShark ( dibra) 23:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Austria is NOT an anachronism. There have been some differences in boundaries between what the Margraves, Dukes, and Archdukes successively ruled, but essentially it is the same country. Before the post WWI peace treaties, the Austro-Hungarian Empire consisted of the Kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary and what had been the Archduchy of Austria, latterly Empire of Austria, perhaps with a few more territories. There may be a question as to which German states are large enough to be allowed a century category, but Austria, Bavaria, Brandenburg/Prussia, and Saxony are certainly big enough. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment What about Gurk Abbey, established in 1043? Today it is in Austria, but at it's foundation it was not part of the Margraviate of Austria. How can it be an Austrian establishment today if it was not Austrian at its establishment? If we tolerate this, then the Altstadt Town Hall will have to be linked to Category:1520s establishments in Russia as Königsberg is now part of Kaliningrad. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is not part of the nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:01, 30 December 2017 (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:Articles containing Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)-language text
- 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.
I'm assuming we can implement this by editing Module:Language/data/iana languages and Module:Language/data/ISO 639-3. – Fayenatic London 16:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC) - Nominator's rationale: Category:Articles containing Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)-language text should be merged into Category:Articles containing Jewish Babylonian Aramaic-language text; but the 9 pages currently found in the origin category will somehow have to be moved into the destination category; and I don't know how to do that. Thanks for your help, -- -- -- 06:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merge -- I cannot believe we need both, particularly as there appears to be no post-1200 CE category. I note that one has a do not delete even if empty tag, which implies an administrative purpose. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment, I'm not entirely sure but I think the template script, and thus the name of the category, depends on an external source, namely [1]. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:25, 9 December 2017 (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.
The remedy prescribed above was incorrect. The content of Module:Language/data/iana languages and Module:Language/data/ISO 639-3 derive directly from the international standards and so should not be modified. This is stated in the module's documentation. The correct remedy is to add an entry to the override table in Module:Lang/data. I have done this and null edited the listed articles to properly categorize them. ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Articles containing Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)-language text should probably be deleted. Someone else can worry about how that is accomplished.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category:Articles containing Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)-language text was deleted by
User:RHaworth. Thanks to all of you,
--
--
--
21:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for your timely help, Trappist the monk. – Fayenatic London 11:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
But, then, on 19:22, 12 January, User:Trappist the monk undid the override, and two minutes later, recreated the deleted category page; so now, we're stuck again with two category pages while we only need one. Why? -- -- -- 09:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- I did what I did because, for whatever reason, IANA/ISO 639-2/-3 language names sometimes contain parenthetical disambiguators or qualifiers (about 300 of them). Rather than maintain 'special-case' code to individually handle those language names, I have opted to have
Module:lang use the whole name as specified by the standards when it adds categorization. Preservation of the standards-supplied name appears to be the path of least-future-maintenance. I could have had the code simply strip all parenthetical disambiguators/qualifiers (it already does this for the
{{lang-??}}template display names) but that is not necessarily a good idea because of languages that share an unqualified name (aib→ Ainu (China) vsain→ Ainu (Japan), for example). The whole of the language categorization structure / documentation needs review and modernization as do the{{ISO 639 name ??}}templates which are and, for a long time have been, interlocked with the{{lang}}and{{lang-??}}templates. - —
Trappist the monk (
talk)
12:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks,
Trappist the monk, for responding, but I'm not sure I understand:
- The page
Category:Articles containing Jewish Babylonian Aramaic-language text states that
This category is indirectly triggered by... Template:ISO 639 name tmr
. Is that statement true or false? - The page
Template:ISO 639 name tmr states that
It is used by the template {{ Lang}} with language code tmr to include articles in Category:Articles containing Jewish Babylonian Aramaic-language text
. Should that be changed into:It is used by the template {{ Lang}} with language code tmr to include articles in Category:Articles containing Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)-language text
? If yes, how can this change be implemented? - Perhaps, the empty category page Category:Articles containing Jewish Babylonian Aramaic-language text should be a redirect to Category:Articles containing Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)-language text? -- -- -- 04:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Answers:
- false.
{{ lang}}and most of the{{lang-??}}templates do not use the{{ISO 639 name ???}}templates. At present, there are no mainspace uses of{{ISO 639 name tmr}}so there is little urgency in doing anything about the template and its documentation.- redirection for now, deletion later seems a viable path forward.
- I did write:
The whole of the language categorization structure / documentation needs review and modernization as do the
That statement remains true. I haven't got there yet.{{ISO 639 name ??}}templates... - —
Trappist the monk (
talk)
10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. I redirected the page. -- -- -- 21:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- The page
Category:Articles containing Jewish Babylonian Aramaic-language text states that
- Thanks,
Trappist the monk, for responding, but I'm not sure I understand: