Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 18

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< September 17 September 19 >

September 18

edit

Category:Encounter killings by police

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Isn't just about any killing of a subject by a member of law enforcement technically an "encounter killing by police"? In my opinion, establishing such a category on Wikipedia doesn't accomplish anything in terms of properly sorting articles. StrikerforceTalk 21:03, 18 September 2018 (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:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty pages

edit
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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created when the original category was speedily renamed from "pages" to "articles," and then this parent category was created for articles, categories, and portals (Old revision of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy). But the criteria for speedy deletion for "empty" articles (which include, for example, articles with no content other than external links, etc.), empty categories (meaning no pages within the category, regardless of whether the category page itself has content), and empty portals (concerning the number of pages listed in the portal) are all separate and nuanced. None of the three could really be described as simply blank pages. Accordingly, the three subcategories in this category really have very little in common. Indeed, all three subcategories are already members of this category's parent category too, Category:Speedy deletion. No other candidates for speedy deletion categories are members of intermediate fully-diffused categories like this one. This category should be deleted. Bsherr (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2018 (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.

Foo in fiction

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 18#Foo in films --> Films about foo, better to make it clear that categories of this nature are to be applied when a subject is the primary focus of a work of fiction, not an incidental element. DonIago (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2018 (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:Resident Evil composers

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 11:47, 18 September 2018 (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:Unreal (video game series) composers

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 11:25, 18 September 2018 (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:Ubuntu (operating system)

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The page was moved to get rid of the disambiguation. This category and all relevant subcategories should have the same move. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:34, 18 September 2018 (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:Lists of Marvel Comics

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not for lists of comics publications (there is a sub-cat for that, Category:Lists of comics by Marvel Comics); this is category for all lists related to Marvel Comics. The proposed name would be standard, and similar to its sibling Category:DC Comics-related lists. – Fayenatic London 09:19, 18 September 2018 (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:Thematic weeks in the United States

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of these events talk about awareness. Hardly any of them use the word theme. In the rest of the English speaking world they are usually called awareness weeks, but this might be an American usage, so I'm nominating it separately, as it could be treated differently. It does appear that in the USA some of these weeks are more official and more political than in other places.Rathfelder (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2018 (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:Thematic weeks

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match awareness days. Most of these articles talk about awareness, not themes. Rathfelder (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2018 (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:Awareness weeks

edit
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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: no real distinction between the two Rathfelder (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2018 (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:Queer

edit
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 2018 OCT 5 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This needs a review and purge. It's not an inherently invalid category, but the problem is that the word "queer" has two obviously related but not identical and not equally defining usages: it can convey a highly politicized and WP:DEFINING form of LGBT identity, as in Queer Nation or Queer theory, or it can just be a non-defining attempt to drain the LGBTTQQIAAPFABGLITTEROMGWTFBBQ alphabet soup by finding the shortest possible alternative that isn't excluding anybody. But the problem with this category in its current form is that it has a really unfortunate habit of getting misused as a WP:SHAREDNAME catchall for practically anything that uses the word Queer in its name or mission statement at all, such as LGBT culture in New York City or Queer Arts Festival or Queer Notions or Buddies in Bad Times or Out On Screen — many of which are queer in the latter sense rather than the former. For example, NYC's LGBTQ scene most certainly does not have any uniquely towering claim to being defined by "queerness" that San Francisco's and Los Angeles's and Chicago's and Toronto's and Vancouver's and London's and Seattle's and Berlin's and Montreal's LGBTQ scenes can't match — and there's nothing uniquely political-queer about Vancouver's LGBTQ film festival that's somehow unmatched by Inside Out or Frameline or BFI Flare (the difference between those film festivals and the VQFF isn't that they're inherently less queer-oriented than VQFF is, it's just that they don't happen to have Q's in their names.) So there are certainly things that belong here, like Queer Nation and queer theory and heteropatriarchy — but there are also many things here that aren't defined by queerness just because they happen to have the word "queer" in their names: VQFF is not more inherently "political queer" than every other LGBTQ film festival just because it has a Q in its name and the others don't, New York City's LGBTQ scene is not more inherently "political queer" than anywhere else's, Romania's Radio Q is not more inherently "political queer" than Canada's Proud FM just because the Canadian station doesn't have a Q in its call sign, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is problematic because the category was intended for a particular usage of an ambiguous word. If kept at all, more description or a disambiguator is needed in the category name. But what? For example, what exactly is queer about Queer Nation, apart from that the fact that it is an LGBT political advocacy group? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a mess; other than many of the categorized articles having "queer" in their name it's hard to gather what this category is attempting to capture (other than perhaps a synonym for LGBT which we have categorized to the nines). Obviously just having "queer" in your name is an insufficient basis on which to categorize (WP:SHAREDNAME), but without going through all these articles; which, I'm disinclined to do, it may be best to containerize the cat, keep the subcats without prejudice to further deletions/prunings, place any of the articles categorized in a subcat if able, and purge the remainder. (WP:TNT) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat has provided a good summary of the problem. Some of the articles may specifically refer to gay radicalism, while other articles have nothing to do with homosexuality or gay people at all, creating a shared-name problem that, if not addressed, will demand repeated purging in order to maintain focus. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It's possible that some kind of parenthetical renaming could narrow the focus, but I don't know what we would be deciding the category was "really" about. I could be convinced otherwise but at the moment I lean towards delete. Would also delete Category:Queer magazines, which unlike some of the other subcats doesn't seem to have a meaningful function. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2018 (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:Bangladeshi medical academics

edit
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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the articles are about medical researchers, and that category tree is better populated. There is almost total overlap. You dont get to be a medical academic unless you are a researcher. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only 4 similar categories, all very poorly populated. Medical academic is not a term widely used. Medical researchers clearly includes people who are not doctors. Medical academics is not well defined. Staff of medical schools who are doctors generally also practice as doctors and few of them are seen primarily as academics. If we were serious about populating medical academic categories they would be enormous, as they would include a large majority of eminent doctors. Rathfelder (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The American and Indian sibling are well populated so I am not convinced yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The numbers of academics listed for the USA - total 169. There are 56 subcategories of American physicians, many with a couple of hundred articles and often subcats too, and many of them could be described as academics. But the real question is are medical academics usefully separated from medical researchers. There are more than 1100 articles about American medical researchers - and that does not include most of the researchers who are also practicing doctors. On a random sample those characterised as academics dont seem very different from those characterised as researchers, although more of them are professors, chairs of department etc. Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is clear and please note that I am not planning to answer the question. This is just a procedural oppose. I would expect a better participation in the discussion, and possibly new arguments either pro or con, when the siblings are nominated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2018 (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:Films by Usama Mukwaya

edit
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 to Category:Usama Mukwaya. At the time of the close, the category contained only subcategories: Category:Films directed by Usama Mukwaya, Category:Films produced by Usama Mukwaya, and Category:Screenplays by Usama Mukwaya.
Nominator's rationale: These are redundant categories and "directed by" is the more common format for such categories on Wikipedia. --Nicholas0 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2018 (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:Districts of Hertfordshire

edit
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: reverse merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category, all 10 of Hertfordshire's districts are non-metropolitan, unlike the others in Category:Local government districts of England by county which have UAs (like North Yorkshire) or don't have any that aren't UAs like Berkshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2018 (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:Lists of Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops in X

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D: List of oldest Catholic bishops, List of Catholic bishops in the United States, List of Catholic bishops and archbishops of Atlanta, List of Catholic bishops of Texas, List of New Zealand Catholic bishops, Historical list of the Catholic bishops of Puerto Rico, Historical list of the Catholic bishops of the United States, List of Catholic bishops of India, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and furthermore, in many if not all of the cases above, Eastern Catholic hierarchies are not really motivated to be listed separately. All particular churches sui iuris should fit into one full "Catholic" list for convenient overview. Hard time seeing any reason to separate here. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The exact opposite argument can be made: when the lists and hierarchies are already separate, hard time seeing any reason to merge them. Especially when your proposal, in fact, would only rename Roman/Latin hierarchies without merging the affected articles with coexisting Eastern Catholic hierarchies. Place Clichy (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Of course dioceses are part of the Latin Church as a particular Church sui juris! What makes you think otherwise? Place Clichy (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are, but it is not a defining characteristic. The criterion of defining characteristics is, among others, meant to make sure that Wikipedia categorization remains aligned with the real world and does not create its own world. In the real world the concept of Latin Church is virtually unknown and these bishops are regarded simply as Catholic bishops. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: When a Latin bishop and an Eastern Catholic bishop are present in the same town or on the same territory (which must be more frequent than the opposite), then it is a defining characteristic for the Latin to be the Roman Catholic bishop of XXX. Calling him the Catholic (arch)bishop of XXX could imply that the Eastern Catholic bishop is subordinate to him, which is not the case, at this level. Same for the diocese. Place Clichy (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: the various Eastern Catholic churches are each on their own bound to a particular home territory. Outside of their home territory (e.g. in the United States) there are a few Eastern Catholic bishops who each cover completely different territories than the (Roman) Catholic bishops. For example, Maronite Catholic Eparchy of Our Lady of Lebanon of Los Angeles covers 3/4 of the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: In territories that are "native" to one of the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches, you would indeed need to mention "Roman Catholic" (or, occasionally, "Latin", as in Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem) to avoid confusion. It seems quite a no-brainer to me, even if many such articles and categories of Latin scope have been unfortunately renamed from "Roman Catholic" to just "Catholic". See for instance how the official site of the (global) Catholic Church in Romania devides its topic between "Roman Catholic Church" for the Latin organisation, "Greek Catholic Church" for the Romanian Greek Catholic Church and "Catholic Church" for common topics, such as the Bishop's Conference. They also use "Roman Catholic bishops" and "Greek Catholic bishops", under the "bishops" link.
In "diaspora" territories, the situation is pretty much the same. For instance, there are two Catholic Archbishops of Winnipeg, a Roman Catholic one, and a Ukrainian one. In both cases cited, the fact that the Latin hierarch is a Latin bishop or a Roman Catholic bishop is very much defining, both terms being in use in my opinion. The same goes for the diocese, except that I think the term Roman Catholic diocese is quite more prevalent than Latin diocese, if this latter term is ever used much.
Also, the largest Eastern Catholic Churches have organisations spreading all over the world, such as the Maronite, Melkite or Ukrainian Catholic Churches. The Ruthenian Catholic Church even has its home in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. It is therefore hard to speak of a real "home territory" for them, which in any case would be quite extended: Eastern Europe, the entire Middle East, North-Eastern Africa, India and, in the case of the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Catholic churches, the US and Canada. Place Clichy (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the regard that "these bishops are regarded simply as Catholic bishops": this is not untrue. However, this term is ambiguous and we ought to to better if we can. This pretty much comes down to the problem of self-definition. Byzantines consistently referred to themselves as "Romans" during a millenium, and yet we call them Byzantines for the sake of clarity. Evangelical Christians usually refer to themselves as just "Christians" and yet we call them Evangelicals, our of clarity. Lutherans in Germany call themselves "Evangelicals" and yet we call them Lutherans. In my experience, every time they interact with Eastern Catholics, clergymen always bring out the "Roman" or "Latin" qualifier even when they call themselves just "Catholic" the rest of the time. Place Clichy (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a problem for categorisation anyway. We do not have to create subcategories when people also perfectly fit in a parent category. WP:OCMISC is the most extreme case of that principle. There are Romanian Catholic bishops, and some of them are Greek Catholic in particular. Besides if there are lists of Catholic bishops in countries with a mixed Catholic population, they will supposedly contain a section with Latin and a section with Eastern bishops, but the article will be about Catholic bishops. List of Catholic bishops in the United States is a good example of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, unlike the US example, many List of Roman Catholic dioceses/bishops in XXX actually are only about the Latin Church, as the name would suggest. An example of the mess created by these inconsiderate renamings is List of Catholic dioceses in Europe, which was renamed from "Roman Catholic" in July 2018 after request by Chicbyaccident and 3 opinions expressed, and does not include the Eastern Catholic jurisdictions, neither before nor after the move.
A gem is List of Catholic bishops of Lviv, moved from "Roman Catholic" in August 2018 after request by Chicbyaccident and 2 opinions. Lviv is a major center of Greek Catholicism, being the seat of the UGCC, yet not a word about its bishops in the "List of Catholic bishops of Lviv". The term "Roman Catholic(ism)" appears 7 times in the article. The scope of this article is clearly Latin only. Therefore the current title is, clearly, misleading. Once again, there was no effort to alter the article in a way that would more or less correspond to its new name in a way the US example does. These renamings can be sometimes justified (especially when "Roman Catholic" is used to refer to the global Catholic Church, not the Latin one), but applying them blindly accross the board brings disruption which amounts to a crusade. We could maybe talk about Alternative rename to Lists of Latin dioceses/bishops... which at least would not change the scope of these lists, categories and articles. Place Clichy (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good points from both Place Clichy and Marcocapelle in a much needed discussion, as it has turned out. Despite the good points of Place Clichy, the arguments of Marcocapelle seem more convincing on the general level. Conider the Eastern Catholic category tree. I mean, how meaningful would it be to divide that category tree even further into Eastern Catholic entries that can be considered "Gree Catholic" (in essence pertain to Byzantine liturgy) and those Eastern entities (incouding denominations) that don't? In analogy, as Marcocapelle pointed out, it seems like "Catholic" parent category suffices in many cases despite pertainig to the Latin Church. May I ask both of you users to bring your key points to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Catholicism) to add to the possible centralised WP:CONSENSUS reference there for future use? Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, as you are the nominator of this discussion (and many others) it is not really for you to judge which arguments are "more convincing on the general level". I expressed a long time ago my opinion at your invitation at this page and you have not answered it. In short: While it is perfectly correct to rename "Roman Catholic(ism)..." to "Catholic(sim)..." when referring to the global Catholic Church, the usage of using "Roman Catholic" to refer to Latin Church and/or Roman-rite Catholic topics is prevalent and should be respected and not renamed to just "Catholic". There may of course be a few exceptions like Latin Patriarchates which are, I believe, never called Roman Catholic Patriarchates or even less Catholic Patriarchates. Place Clichy (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still hesitating how prevalent that is. What bugs me is that even when there is no "Catholic" prevalence for entries, you seem to hold on to "Roman Catholic" despite that it should be obivous that if there is for instance only one category, then by general tendence this should be catch-all named "Catholic" rather than "Roman Catholic". But I'll follow the arguments for a centralised convention, yes indeed preferably located on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Catholicism). Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2018 (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:Lists of Roman Catholics

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D: Lists of Catholics, and List of former Catholics. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well actually yes, in the practice of wikipedia categories, "Roman Catholics" and "Roman Catholicism" very much equate with Roman-rite/Latin Church/Western Catholicism. If you would like to suggest an alternate wording which uses "Latin", feel free to suggest it. However, Latin is seldom used in adjectival form to refer to individual Christians, with maybe the exception of the Latin patriarchs. Place Clichy (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are more synonyms than that. Though, how does it help readers to maintain the multitude of synonyms rather than keeping to a consistent naming, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even while we have separate Eastern Catholic categories, this does not automatically imply that there should be a sibling for the other 98.5% of Catholics, they can simply remain in the parent category. Furthermore, membership of the Latin Church is not a defining characteristic of these Catholics and assigning biographies of Catholic people to a Latin Church category will largely be a matter of WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As the nomnator well knows, not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. Yes, in article space the term "Catholic" has been judged to be primarily used to mean "Roman Catholic", but it is not exclusively so. Remoiving the orecision from category names serves only to cause confusion and miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt know that. Actually, there's quite some conflicting assertions of those connotations around. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2018 (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.

Establishments in the Gaza Strip

edit
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/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The above hierarchy is not useful for navigation; it contains only three articles on Hamas governments, and the page Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip. The top level also contains Category:Establishments in All-Palestine (Gaza) and Category:Disestablishments in All-Palestine (Gaza) which should be retained; they and their sub-cats are already in other suitable parents, so no mergers will be necessary there. – Fayenatic London 21:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The Gaza strip is a well-defined polity, which for a period was de facto ruled by Hamas, not Fatah. I am however happy to see the list substantially pruned. 1948-1967, it was de facto part of Egypt; before then of Mandatory Palestine. It has thus only really been an entity for at most just over 50 years. If there is scope to populate them, we might have allowed Category:Establishments in the Gaza Strip; Category:Disestablishments in the Gaza Strip. I would support merging (not deleting as nom) 2007 2012 and 2016. The rest will be a hindrance to navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: In your nomination in a few instances where you meant "merge" you wrote "delete". I have taken the liberty to correct this. With this correction, presumably, the oppose of User:Peterkingiron turns into support. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, an establishments tree and a disestablishments tree are premature with the current content. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We can either consider this hierarchy as geography or history. As geography, it would be legitimate to diffuse Palestine/State of Palestine on a geography basis, but Gaza Strip is the only attempt at such a diffusion (there is no West Bank equivalent) and the mother categories are poor enough yet not to be diffused. As history, noone can argue that "Gaza Strip" was a state or polity at any point in time (except maybe the Egyptian period, which is under found elsewhere in the category tree under "All-Palestine (Gaza)"). The rebel Hamas government never claimed that Gaza Strip was a state of any kind, as they claim the entire Palestine, or at the very least to be the legitimate government of the whole Oslo-defined Palestinian area. We do not maintain chronology hierarchies for rebel governments holding part of a territory with no claim of independence (exemples of LTEE Sri Lanka, post-1979 Red Khmer Cambodia, SPLA Sudan, UNITA Angola come to mind). Somaliland, Transnistria and the like are "unrecognized states", which Gaza Strip is not and never was. Under both counts, these categories can be upmerged. Place Clichy (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what the Hamas claim, it matters what they actually control. Cyprus claims all the island, but control only half of it; North Korea claim the whole peninsula, but control only the north; China claims Taiwan, but do not control it and vice-versa.GreyShark (dibra) 05:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It very much matters what they claim, according to the declarative theory of statehood. Hamas took control by force of a part of the State of Palestine, while they considered to be the legitimate government of the lot. This clearly does the make "Gaza Strip" a polity of any kind. Cyprus, North Korea and Taiwan are states widely recognised internationally, a whole different category. "Gaza Strip" is a geographical definition for an area which was formed by the borders of the 1949 cease-fire. Place Clichy (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Hamas took over a part of the Palestinian Authority (State of Palestine was merely a declarational entity in 2007). The comparison with Cyprus is in regard to Northern Cyprus which is of course largely unrecognized. Just note that North Korea and South Korea both claim rule over whole Korea and both had not been UN members until 1990s .GreyShark (dibra) 05:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Category:Disestablishments in All-Palestine (Gaza) has just been removed from the Gaza Strip parent as "anachronism" (but the Establishments category has not been removed, nor the years categories). Whether or not these (dis)estab categories are to be deleted, can we also seek consensus here on whether the Gaza Strip categories should include the "All-Palestine (Gaza)" categories, which cover 1948–1967? – Fayenatic London 09:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In the understanding of most people, "Gaza Strip" means the tract of land located between Egypt and Israel. Therefore, I think that all articles and categories relative to this tract of land and its history should be subcategories of the Gaza Strip categories. "Gaza Strip" categories should not start or end in 2007 or any other date (if any date would make sense, it would be 1948 or 1967). If you wish to create categories and articles specific to the Hamas government of Gaza Strip, it should probably be called something like "Hamas government of Gaza Strip", or at the very least mention "Hamas", because "Gaza Strip" means something else. Place Clichy (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the confusion - currently Gaza Strip article contains both material on the geographical strip of land and the current Hamas-led administration. In case we split Hamas-ruled Gaza from Gaza Strip - this would warrant rename of all Gaza Strip categories to Hamas-ruled Gaza categories (referring to post-2007 period). There should indeed be a parallel between West Bank->State of Palestine->Palestinian government and Gaza Strip->Hamas-ruled Gaza->Hamas government in Gaza. Would you agree?GreyShark (dibra) 05:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a place called Gaza. It is ruled by Hamas. That does not make either of the two a state or polity of any kind. You could talk just the same about CSU-ruled Munich. Neither Gaza nor Hamas are secessionist. Politically and geographically speaking, the Gaza Strip is part of the same set with the West Bank, forming together the former Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories usually referred to in Wikipedia as "State of Palestine" (a geographical designation) because it is what the UN and most international organisations call them. Gaza is physically separated from the rest of the country, but it is not the only such case in the word, think of Alaska, Hawaii, Sabah & Sarawak, Cabinda, French Overseas departments, Northern Ireland etc. It is ruled by a rebel (not secessionist) government, but it is, again, not the only such case where you would not consider this to create a new country, per previous examples given: LTEE Sri Lanka, post-1979 Red Khmer Cambodia, SPLA Sudan, UNITA Angola, FARC Colombia, ELAS-controlled Northern Greece in 1945-49, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan post-2001 etc.
    Also, for the sake of simplicity, we usually keep history and chronology of modern countries as sub-categories of the current country, including past political regimes that show an undeniable continuity. E.g. it would not make sense to keep Weimar Republic categories outside of German history categories, or Thirteen Colonies history out of United States history categories, or British Cyprus out of Cyprus history categories, or Vichy France and French Second Empire out of French history categories etc. Therefore, I believe that chronology and (dis)establishment categories of the Palestinian territories, the Israeli Civil Administration, the Israeli Military Governorate, the Jordanian West Bank Governorate and the Egyptian All-Palestine Government all belong as subcategories of the main categories for the extant country, the State of Palestine. Therefore, I believe that these reverts, citing "anachronism", are wrong: [1] [2] [3] [4]. This is the usual conflict between the simultanous geographical and historical logic of our category system, which unfortunately cannot easily be solved.
    As en axample of how to deal with name/regime changes of a country, I suggest to get ideas from Category:Years of the 20th century in Burkina Faso: Year categories are all gathered in a single mother category, but named 19XX in French Upper Volta until 1957, 19XX in Upper Volta until 1983 and 19XX in Burkina Faso aftwerwards. Place Clichy (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with User:Place Clichy. We should not treat a new phase in the history of a country (possibly with a new name as well) as if it were an entirely different country. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In case this is an example for continuity for the Palestinian state, others would argue that there is a continuity from Ancient Israel (Iron Age) to the Hasmonean Israel (140 BCE-37 BCE) and Herodian polities all the way to modern Israel (1948-present). Same place and same national ideas.GreyShark (dibra) 12:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2018 (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:Wallonia stubs

edit
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 and diffuse contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All child categories and templates are -geo- types; parent cat should reflect the same type. Her Pegship (speak) 20:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that diffusion and deletion is the best bet. Her Pegship (speak) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_18&oldid=871688387"