Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 16 May 18 >

May 17

[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit]

Category:LGBT architects

[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) 09:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-relevant, non-defining intersection of categories, which only adds to the ever increasing spam in architecture articles. ELEKHHT 23:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LGBT categories exist for actors, writers, etc. Somebody's sexual identity is relevant!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep my first instinct was, irrelevant intersection. But then I started to add a few folks to the category, and do some reading, and I think there may be a case to keep. A few things:
  • There is (or was) an organization, called OLGAD: Organization of Lesbian + Gay architects and designers (there is also a Boston version called B-GLAD :) )
  • From a book I found, "Just as architectural history texts have traditionally ignored women, they have also overlooked other actors on the architectural stage. Homophobia, racism, classism, and the star system kept gays, lesbians, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos/Latinas and other ethnic groups out of the profession. But in fact, members of these underrepresented groups have long been instrumental in reshaping our American landscape. They have played essential roles as clients, consumer, creators and critics of the built environment." Kathryn H. Anthony (2001). Designing for Diversity: Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in the Architectural Profession. University of Illinois Press. p. 73.
  • This article gives a good overview of the issues around gay/lesbian architects - there is apparently some scholarship around this, and even around how their sexuality may have influenced their design. Now this is perhaps scholars twiddling their thumbs with silly theories, but hey, I'm not an architect so what do I know.
  • There are several very famous architects who also happen to be gay, such as Philip Johnson and Paul Rudolph (architect)- but I suppose it remains to be seen whether that matters - e.g. is this defining for this career? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's hard to imagine why this intersection is any less relevant or "defining" than the 110 intersections found within Category:Architects by nationality. Like nationality, sexual orientation is an inherently defining characteristic of individuals. As Obi-Wan suggests in quoting the Anthony book, the intersection between minority status and this highly notable profession is a significant one, worthy of encyclopedic attention. Rivertorch (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is less defining - Wikipedia articles, newspapers etc normally mention nationality when introducing a person (e.g. "Foo is a Fooian postmodernist architect whose work includes ..."). A newspaper orbituary (for example) typically summarises the subjects personal life in the last paragraph. DexDor (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but introducing a person isn't the same thing as defining him or her; the former is about providing a rough context so that the rest of the lede makes sense, while the latter should happen over the entire course of the article. The sentences opening our articles aren't quite analogous to the lead sentences of newspapers, and newspapers should rarely play more than a subsidiary role in sourcing articles about people such as architects, anyway. It's also worth considering that there are newspapers (and magazines, books, and RS-meeting web sites) written principally for a gay audience that defy the premise. Rivertorch (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is just such an article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And quoting from that article: Looking into the sexual orientation of architects and designers can lead readers to make assumptions about its impact on design decisions, which must perforce remain speculative. Some architectural critics and historians caution against forming conclusions about such matters, for too little is known about the effect of sexuality on creativity. Moreover, the process of identification and speculation can close down readings of ambiguous work. --ELEKHHT 12:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - there isn't evidence that being gay makes you a different kind of architect - but this group is nonetheless studied as such - because of endogenous factors not having to do with architecture but broader societal issues. Again, it is not just about performance of the job. Do people think African-Americans design different buildings, or do different types of surgery? No, but cats for those slices probably exist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the later see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --ELEKHHT 23:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge back to parent) -- In some fields gender and sexuality are highly relevant, particularly acting. I doubt that a LGBT architect performs professioinally much different from a straight one. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hi Peter - I don't think this is the standard - for example, I don't think gay journalists write fundamentally different stories than straight ones - so I think it's not just about performance of the job but whether outside sources look at this and study it as a group. I gave an example above of a book written on the subject of gender and sexuality in architecture, and note that many sources for example for Philip Roth highlight the fact that he was gay. We don't have Category:Gay architecture which wouldn't make sense but I think this one does - take a look at the sources I provided. Many quite famous architects - some of the most famous architects - were gay at a time this wasn't really acceptable, and some suffered in their careers because of it, in spite of their skill.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But they are notable not because they suffered or were gay, but because of their architecture is notable. That's what makes the category intersection trivial and distracting. What's next? Category: Architects wearing black, a topic much covered by media, including a book? --ELEKHHT 23:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -none of the above seems to demonstrate that gender/sexuality of architect and resulting architecture reflect on each other - the existence of the one book that OWK has discovered can scarcely be regarded as crucial - if the existence of a book on a topic is justification for a category, we are really opening up a can of worms. Moreover, if one rephrases his sentences -"Many sources for X highlight that he was gay".... "Many famous FOOists... were gay at a time when this wasn't really acceptable, and some suffered in their careers because of it" - these arguments are Trojan horses that could allow almost any category LBGT FOOists. I see no evidence that the category in question is truly defining something specific.--Smerus (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hyperdimensional physics

[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) 02:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-scientific grouping. The only thing on WP I can find is Richard C. Hoagland#Hyperdimensional physics which says it's fringe/pseudoscience. The members are a mix of physics, maths and philosophy, but most are in Category:Multi-dimensional geometry which makes sense as a topic and grouping. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The topic implied by the title is very interesting, but it's probably too specialized to include enough articles. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 20:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[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: split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. Current name is non-standard, and I think a 3-way split will add clarity. – Fayenatic London 20:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cultural lists by country

[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 option (A). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to a consistent format. One set of parents are "Fooian culture" so I think that (A) would be a better pattern than (B) "Foo culture". There is a mixture within each country-related lists category. – Fayenatic London 19:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Byzantine Latin loanwords in Greek

[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: listify and delete. Added to the listifying list at WP:CFDWM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete. Another loanwords category that was missed in previous discussions, see May 15. – Fayenatic London 18:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Naturalized citizens of 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: delete (I would add that issues of naturalization are probably taken care of by the "FOOian emigrants to BAR" and "BARian people of FOOian descent" categories). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. I clicked on several bios, and none of them mentioned the fact that they were naturalized citizens. This search [1] returns 21 results. In news articles about these people, whether they became naturalized citizens, are here on a long-term H1B visa, or have a green card is not really DEFINING. Not that it doesn't impact their lives, or represent a decision - obviously it does - but more that we have plenty of ethnic descent categories which capture that X came from Y, but the particulars of which path to immigration they chose and their current legal status in terms of immigration, I'm just not seeing this as defining.
  • This is a test nomination, if it passes I will nominate the rest of the tree. -Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The ethnic heritage categories aren't really the same as immigration, since they might reflect one's parents' or ancestors' immigrations. ... I'm not a big fan of the national categories at all, to be honest, but it seems like since we consider national status, then how one gets that status might be relevant. --Lquilter (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a naturalized citizen is not going to be defining for many of these people. Unless they are politicians, it is not going to be easy to determine. There are a few people like Alex Boye who it is clearly known about, but considering that Boye has been losely connected at times with Glen Beck, he may actually be a quasi-politician. More notable are the people like George Romney, Ted Cruz and Denise Possi-Blanco Lindbergh who are not in it despite being born outside the United States in a place not at all under US jurisdiction, who are a constant focus of questions of if they can be president (although I may be the only person to have yet broached such a subject for Possi-Blanco Lindberg).John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Naturalized != natural born, and I think you have to be natural born to be president. I think, but not sure. Anyway, its a bit off-topic... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- OWKO is wrong. Naturalised refers to people who take citizenship. It is the reverse of "natural born". However, it is far too common to be worth a category, save perhaps as a container for a lot of more specific subcats. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps you misunderstood != means not equal. Sorry that's geek speak...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
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:Teeside Bombers players

[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. Several options were discussed with no consensus. So if anyone thinks one of these could gain consensus, feel free to renominate. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the fact that there was also a misspelling in the name. So which the no consensus holds, the spelling can be fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name is spelled wrongly, as the place is called Teesside. There is no corresponding article Teeside Bombers or Teesside Bombers. Only two members, plus a subcategory also now nominated for deletion. Deletion suggested, but some sort of rename or merge an alternative. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cleveland Bombers players

[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. Several options were discussed with no consensus. So if anyone thinks one of these could gain consensus, feel free to renominate. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no "Cleveland Bombers" article under that name, and the category has only three members, which is unlikely to increase. Deletion suggested, but some sort of rename or merge might be appropriate SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And looking at the league category. All are already there already so might as well just Delete. I would not upmerge to the Billingham category because its standard to keep sports teams alumni separate when they play for different incarnations of a team. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Linguapax Prize winners

[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) 02:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete (already listified). This is overcategorization by a non-defining attribute, winning an award. The four members of the category who have received this prize are already listed on Linguapax Prize, along with all the other folks who won the award, their year, affiliation, and country; this is a much more helpful list than an incomplete category that can't be sorted by anything except alphabetically by name. Lquilter (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Circus Hall of Fame inductees

[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) 02:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Listify and Delete. This category for a Hall of Fame is overcategorization by non-defining attributes like awards. The Circus Hall of Fame was established sometime in the last few decades and honors "important figures in circus history". While it's no doubt an honor, it is not a defining honor like the Nobel. As with most "Halls of Fame", it recognizes people who have already achieved fame/notoriety; but it doesn't pluck dead circus celebrities like P.T. Barnum and Annie Oakley from obscurity and confer fame/notoriety on them. The best way to handle this award is by listing honorees in the article page -- that way users can see when someone was awarded, why, and get a comprehensive list of all those so recognized even if they don't have wikipedia entries. Lquilter (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Monchy y Alexandra albums

[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) 02:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per discussion here to rename main article (Monchy & Alexandra) from Monchy y Alexandra. DivaKnockouts 14:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former place names

[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) 02:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category's inclusion criteria ("articles about places in which the articles' titles refer to the places by their former names") is one of the weirdest I've seen. We simply shouldn't be categorizing things based on what title has been chosen for the aticle as (1) it breaks the rule that it should be possible to rename an article to an alternative name without it affecting what categories it belongs in and (2) this category isn't, IMO, useful either to readers or editors. It's conceivable that there's a reason for a hidden admin category for this, but I can't see it. DexDor (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Beyond this, many of these articles are on places that used to exist and specifically about how they functioned when they existed, not about the place that used to be so named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Is it just me or is there a veritable bestiary of odd cats being created (or found) these days. I can see no valid reason for retaining this category, per the reasons esposed by nom (e.g. a rename would eliminate qualification for membership in the catogory). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a very peculiar category. Places do not disappear, so that we seem to be dealing with places that have been renamed, or occasionally merged with a larger place. I think there might be a valid category in terms of "Obsolete names for places", but the whole thing is such a hotchpotch that a lot would need to be purged out nto make it fit that. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, some places do disappear, like St. Thomas, Nevada, which was flooded out of existence by Lake Mead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Places connected with Jainism

[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) 02:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being "connected with" something is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Categories of this type could cause some articles to be in many categories. This is the only "Places connected with ..." category. The Category:Jain temples and tirthas subcat is in another Jainism category. DexDor (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's renamed like that then it should also be purged of articles like Belgaum leaving just those articles for which Jainism is a defining characteristic (i.e. sites that wouldn't exist without Jainism). DexDor (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Football clubs in Czechoslovakia

[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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneccessary category. The clubs are not "in Czechoslovakia" according to the current geographical landscape. If we are adding historical countries, clubs like Slavia Prague should also be added to "Football clubs in the Austrian Empire", "Football clubs in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" - and a club like FC Slovan Liberec to "Football clubs in Nazi Germany". I don't think this is appropriate. C679 04:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what about football clubs which went defunct before 1993, like Polonia Karwina? (I'm not convinced that should be in "Category:Football Clubs in Poland"). We could keep this category and populate it only with those, and not those which live(d) on past the velvet divorce. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 06:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Neither Slovakia nor Czech Republic were part of Nazi Germany. And I think it is very appropriate to mention that Slavia Prague was a club of the Austrian Empire if it is a fact. I think it would be redundant a special category for the Slovak Republic (1939-1945) that existed in the World War II. And the category for the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia could be included as a subcategory for Czech Republic. All historical political entities that today are subregions of contemporary nations could subcategorized as part of those countries. As far as I know the Austria-Hungary was not conducting nationwide competition, while Czechoslovakia was in fact a united league. In continental competitions Czech and Slovakian clubs were representing the united league of Czechoslovakia rather than their own national league that in past were regional competitions. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think you will find that the Munich Agreement changed the borders of Czechoslovakia and resultantly some of modern-day Czech Republic, for example Liberec, along with 38% of the territories of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia, was part of Nazi Germany during WWII. Pre-1925, there was a Bohemian competition which Slavia Prague won in 1918 and 1924, however I don't think this justifies a "Football clubs in Bohemia" category. C679 15:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Once again Bohemia in contemporary political science is considered to be a subregion of the Czech nation, therefore such category as Football clubs in Bohemia could be sub-categorized under Football clubs in the Czech Republic. I dont believe that along with Bohemian competitions there existed also football competitions of Czech Republic. Were there? On the other hand if you will take a look at the football league system of Czechoslovakia you will see there during the period of Czechoslovakia, both contemporary nations had their own competitions as regional competition of Czechoslovakia. I do not see why we need to bring politics and history into sport in such details. Were there a unified German League for the whole Nazi Germany? I think the competitions were conducting on provincial level. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Are we going to deny the existence of such competition as the Czechoslovak First League that was recognized world wide in the past? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Gauligas of Sudetenland and Böhmen und Mähren were German competitions. Therefore any clubs that were created or existed during that period also were the ones that participated in those competitions, usually. The article List of German football champions clearly states about how competitions were organized. I think it is worth of creating a special category for the Nazi Germany competitions that did exist and existed for quite some time. Just because of the Nuremberg Trials, it is not tabooed to study the German culture of the World War II period, is it? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Now, if we will take for comparison purposes the cultural transformation of the East Prussia after the World War II, we notice that there major changes took place. It is truly difficult to connect Baltika Kaliningrad as a Football club of Germany, yet it is a football club from a historic area of the East Prussia and Konigsberg. The same goes for the Polish football club of Pogon Lwow that was dissolved during the World War II. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Look at DFC Prag. It states that it was a champion of Czechoslovak competitions, but in categories there is mentioned anything except for Czechoslovak. How is that possible? Is Czechoslovak competitions were some sort of international competitions? Of course, not. It is simply too bulky and since 1993 does not exist. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Football clubs are public sports organization and regulated by governments of nation of which they are part. Each government has its own regulations for various organizations. Therefore it is important to mention to which governed political entity any organizations belonged. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, we do not have categories for historical locations of football clubs. GiantSnowman 12:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the world is always changing, just few years ago we had united countries of Yugoslavia and Sudan, separate countries of Germany and Yemen. What is considered a historical locations? Any locations that were under different jurisdiction since yesterday? How do you define a historical location? How much time should elapse before a certain location is considered to be historical? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it necessary always to keep reformatting categories when political status of a region changes? How is that efficient? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about regions with questionable status such Kosovo, Abkhazia, Palestine, Northern Cyprus? From what country is FC Dinamo Sukhumi, Abkhazia or Georgia? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_17&oldid=1138398400"