Category:Terrorist attacks on places of worship[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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I acknowledge that the nominated category could be somewhat narrower in scope than the target, but merging these categories would resolve the problematic issue of whether any specific attack on a place of worship was "terrorism" or not. Depending on the definition that is used, any attack on a place of worship could potentially be called "terrorism". (Even a military attack by a state on a place of worship during a war could in most cases legitimately be called unlawful "state terrorism" that violates the Geneva Conventions, which all states are party to.) For schools and markets, we've avoided this problem by just having Category:Attacks on schools and Category:Attacks on marketplaces and then included them in Category:Terrorist incidents by target for ease of navigation. I suggest the same approach be adopted here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom - tricky issues of defining what counts as 'terrorism' are best avoided in categories. Robofish (talk) 12:00, 13 June 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least three dioceses, which all should have articles, so this can and should be expanded. The issue is not its current size but its potential size.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPL. This is a denomination, not a congregation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 17 June 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Allied" is unnecessarily vague in the case of Romania, because the only post-WWII occupying power were the Soviets. The category was created by an editor who is probably not very familiar with the history in this case, because he hasn't edited anything substantial about Romania. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 19:06, 11 June 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by province[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.
Nominator's rationale: The entities listed in these categories were not Ottoman provinces in the sense of administrative divisions, but only geographical regions. eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support In general these categories are imposing later geo-political realities on the past, especially the Saudi Arabia category. There may be justifiable reasons for doing this, but these categories are clearly not being developed on the lines of political boundaries that the Ottoman Empire itself used, so we should use the more neutral "region" term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 14 June 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:American members of Reformed Christian churches[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.
Oppose: One could be a member of such a denomination without necessarily identifying with its official theology. If this category is useful, it is for making a weaker claim than "so and so is a Calvinist." For instance, a notable politician, not known for his theological views, may be a member of a Reformed church but not necessarily a self-identified Calvinist. (Barack Obama would have fallen into this category before he jettisoned Rev. Wright and distanced himself from church in general.) I'm fine with a renaming, however. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that being a member of a Reformed church is enough of a public identification with the religious tradition (not necessarily the official theology, but we shouldn't be categorizing on beliefs anyway) to make one a Reformed Christian, just as joining a Catholic church makes one a Catholic. If there are cases where someone should not be categorized as a Reformed Christian who are members of a Reformed church, I don't really think that's a WP:DEFINING characteristic. --JFH (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—membership of a Reformed church <> Calvinism. My brother and his family currently attend a Presbyterian church because there is a better provision for youth at that church, but he is by no means a Calvinist and is not likely to remain there when either the minister moves on or the boys grow out of the youth group. The comment that we shouldn't be categorising on beliefs is odd, given the whole theological position tree is based on belief. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that there are members of Reformed churches who are not Calvinists (by not cating by belief, I'm just saying these religious cats are for members of a religious tradition, not holders of a belief set, but I can see that there are members of Reformed churches that do not see themselves as members of the tradition). But is church membership a defining characteristic if one doesn't even want to identify with the religious tradition? Furthermore, for now this cat is a subcat of Category:Reformed Christians, so we are assuming that all of these people are Reformed anyway. --JFH (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if merged to Calvanist and reformed Christians cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The parent category has been renamed to Category:American Calvinist and Reformed Christians. Because most of the above comments were made prior to that renaming, it is not clear what the commenters would say now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Orlady (talk) 02:21, 4 August 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.
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. In other words, do not delete at this time. That does not mean nothing needs to be done. There are issues which clearly are not resolved for a few years around this time. More discussion is needed, but I'm not sure where. I'm concerned that the discussion is complicated by restoring a deleted category without a discussion knowing that this would be contentious and maybe even WP:POINTy. I'm also bothered that the editor who did this did not mention it in their first comment here. Maybe the split solution is the best, but I suspect that there will be objections to anyone doing that. If all else fails, this needs to be brought back here for the discussion again. Maybe that nomination could take into consideration the points raised here and find a workable compromise? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale I would generally recommend we rename this category to Category:1939 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, since that is the only thing that could be "Moldova in 1939". We actually do have that category at present, but it is up for deletion, because no one has found any article to put in it, although it is vaguely possible that there might be. In this case especially, we should use the 1939 boundaries, and we have nothing that when it was formed in 1939 was in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. This is tellingly the only category using this form that pre-dates 1990. Actually, if we had any workable content I would still probably advocate upmerging to Category:1939 in the Soviet Union, because it is not clear that this is a permanently workable tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You could have mentioned that you first emptied the category, and then nominated it for deletion. Or you could of course have left the article that was there, so that people could judge for themselves what the purpose was. As with the categories for Germany, MExico, Turkey, ... before they officially existed like they do today, they have a purpose, i.e. giving information on subjects relevant to the current country. The National Museum of Fine Arts, Chişinău is relevant for people interested in Moldova. It was established in 1939. You can add historically correct cats to the article as well, if you want to, but that doesn't mean that you have to remove it from other cats with a logical structure and interest for the readers, nor that you should delete these cats. Your insistence to remove informational categories because they don't match your purely historical point of view is getting tiresome. Anyway, I have added a few more articles to the cat (Radio Moldova seems relevant to Moldova...), and have created a few parallel cats so that it is no longer "tellingly" the only cat using this form. Fram (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claims here ignore the fact that Moldova did exist in 1939 as the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, so contrary to Fram's claim this is not "before they officially existed", Moldova did exist, but it did not at that time include any of the things Fram has but in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fram. JPL has been making a number of pre-CFD edits lately that seem to pre-suppose the outcome of the discussion, and it's starting to become borderline disruptive since it often confuses the very issues to be discussed. Anyway, I generally have no problem with keeping categories such as this that use current boundaries and/or names to group establishments by year. As Fram says, it's fine to have the "historically correct" boundary/name categories added in parallel, but there is no reason that I can understand that we need to delete this type which group establishments by year with reference to modern borders and names. Categories of this type can be quite useful for people who want to read about or research things that were established in a particular area during a particular era or timespan and they reflect quite well a fairly common practice in modern historical research and writing. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These accusations ignore the fact that there was a Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in 1939 and none of the things so involved existed in said Republic. To call things established within the country of Romania in 1938 establishments in Moldova is to ignore the borders that actually existed at that time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, I have not ignored that. If you read my comment carefully, you will see why I suggest the nominated category is useful and should be kept despite the historical situation. I certainly do understand your reasoning for proposing what you propose, but I disagree with that approach. And I have even suggested that having both types of categories would be useful and appropriate. I'm starting to wonder why you cannot acknowledge that there is at least a plausible alternative position, even if you disagree with it. Are you not "getting" (ie, understanding) the position I have put forwards, or are you just choosing not to get it? Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An actually look at the history of the one article that was in this category shows that up until 10 June 2010 it was in Category:1939 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic which was just plain wrong. It was not established there, but in Romania, so my placement of it in the Romania category was the only possibly logical move. Then this category was recreated, although it had been essentially if not actually renamed to the MASSR category, and the article was placed back in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can tell this category was officially renamed to that other one, it was moved by the bot that generally renames things following decisions to rename.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12:49, 10 June 2013 Fram (talk | contribs | block) restored page Category:1939 establishments in Moldova (2 revisions restored: Restore, apparently incorrect CFD)
16:42, 15 January 2013 Cydebot (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Category:1939 establishments in Moldova (Robot - Speedily moving category 1939 establishments in Moldova to Category:1939 establishments in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic per CFDS.) (view/restore)
Reversing a speedy should probably be done through a CFD nomination. Tim! (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Romania before WWII (December 1918 - June 1940
Keep. In 1939 Moldova was part of Romania. It was occupied by the Soviets in 1940. The tiny Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, which did exist in 1939, should not to be confused with the much larger Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic that began in 1940. The pre-1940 Soviet Republic did not include Chişinău (the current capital), which is what this category is mostly concerned with. All the articles currently in this category were entities established in Chişinău, so all were in Romania's Moldova in 1939. I don't know what is the standard Wikipedia solution for this type of situation, but Fram's solution of including the articles in all relevant categories (both the country at the time of establishment and in the different country they are now in) seems the most useful. The territory of the present-day country (Moldova) changed hands quite few times in the past 200 years (as you can read in the lead of Bessarabia, which has a good historical summary) so it would be hard to deal with establishments within it by before 1990 otherwise. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that would solve the cases in point here, namely 1939 establishments in Chisinau which was outside the Moldavian ASSR. – FayenaticLondon 18:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bad proposal to have a central discussion, but I'm not sure one discussion could capture all the nuance that may come out in case-by-case discussions. For instance, I typically have no problem with renaming categories to the "historical names" when there have been no boundary changes between the historical state and the modern state and there is a smooth continuity between the old state and current state. But when there are boundary changes or multiple transfers of sovereignty for the area, I would prefer to at least retain the categories that use current names. In other words, I would be concerned that a central discussion would be seeking for an all-or-none approach—let's always do it this way, or let's always do it the other way—when sometimes one or either (not always the same one) may be more appropriate in a given circumstance. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did try to start a discussion at the village pump, but no one participated in it while it was there. The only way this draws any attention is by making CfD nominations. Even these get way to little attention. On the other hand, the issues here are complexed. We have the Moldavian ASSR that barely overlaps with modern Moldova, but would have been referred to with that name. The overlap area is not even fully under the control of modern Moldova, but is a de facto independent break away region. To make things even more fun there is also Moldavia which mainly was to the west of modern Moldova. A possibly related issue is, what should we class as Romania in 1905. There we have the fact that there was clearly a Romania, but it did not control much of what is now Romania.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1939 establishments and Category:Establishments in Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and Category:Establishments in Moldova would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split -- This is complicated because USSR annexed part of the Romanian province of Moldavia in 1940, perhaps adding it to its 1924 Moldavian ASSR to form Moldavian SSR. If the entity was in Romania in 1939, it should be in a Romanian category, not a Soviet one. We shopuld categorise according to contemporary boundaries. If we are goiing to have a category for the SSR, I woiuld suggest it should be Moldavian SSR, not the full expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be helpful if people kept in mind we are here categorizing the things as established in a place in 1939. Some of the things so established will later actually move where they are. I can find examples of musical groups founded in Hungary in the 1930s that now operate in the United States. Not all things established stay where they are founded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So? What's the relevance for this discussion? Fram (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Radio Moldova was established in Bucharest, but Bucharest is not in Moldova, so I don't think that they are still an establishment in Bucharest (it seems they are now in Chişinău), it was 'later actually move[d] where they are'., that was 1928. --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance is that we are really categorizing things by where they were established. In some cases things function throughout the entirety of a country as it existed at the time. Or we have some that function in parts of a country, or are parts of a country, and may have transcended modern national boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if users have a different interpretation of what is meant by "categorizing things by where they were established"? That can mean at least two different things, as the competing views in this conversation has outlined. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is the ambiguity that I meant in other discussions, and which I tried to address about a year ago as well. What this category means to be is '1939 establishments in what is currently Moldavia', and what then should be added is '1939 establisments established in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic' ... and I wonder what we have to do with what country name the place was in between (Russia, Romania, was this occupied by the Germans in the second world war ..). For some subjects, that results in a list of easily up to 10 categories, only for the establishment. Add then a handful for disestablishments, and the ones for location (of which these categories in the end are a child already anyway) ...
We should never expect readers to use CatScan, how are they supposed to know about that or do that? We can expect them to use the cat tree, but your splits invalidate that tree. And of course, Category:Publicly funded radio stations established in 1939 would be a subcat of Category:Radio stations established in 1939, so that one wouldn't add any further catsegories to the page. In general, there will only be one or two country-year establishment categories on any article: one for the current country, and one for the contemporary one (if that differs from the current one). There is no reason to add every country it was in inbetween, as that would be of much less interest to most people. Fram (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should only expect the reader to want to find '1939 establishments in <whatever country>' .. they should just not want to find 'Radio stations established in Moldavia in the 1930s', and your split makes that a lot of work now: if a reader wants to find publicly funded radio stations established in 1939, they still need to use CatScan, and set the level to 4 to get through to the final fine-grain of this scheme where the pages are, or the editors need to create every other possible cross-section that a reader might need (and even only the per-country-per-year results in some old subjects who have been in many different countries (due to country name changes, occupations, etc.) in their lifetime get a humongous number of categories at the bottom .. --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. My split? What is it that I am supposed to have split? Is the categorisation system perfect? Far from it. Will removong this category help? No. Start a general discussion if you want a total overhaul of the system, don't attack it at every Cfd you enter. Fram (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to put it on the person, Fram. There were also CfDs where this system was questioned where I did not comment, still the basis of the problem is the same. With split I meant the subdivision of cats into subcats (with sometimes their own subcats). I agree that this needs to be discussed wider, a suggestion that I have been giving since the beginning of my commenting in the current set of open CfDs. --Dirk BeetstraTC 11:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the category is retained it should be called “1939 in Moldova” and “1939 establishments in Moldova”; not “1939 in the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic” etc. We do not have “2010 in the Republic of India” or “2010 in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. Exceptionally there is “2010 in the Republic of the Congo” and “2010 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo” because there are two countries with Congo in their title. And Palestine is a special case. This is a separate question to that about contemporary and modern boundaries. Hugo999 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we do use the fuller names for other Modovian categories, in part because the different names represent such different entities. WE do have Category:1849 establishments in the Austrian Empire, even though it was normally just called Austria, because Austria alone brings to mind something very different. At present it can be argued that nothing that was in the Moldavian ASSR is part of the defacto present nation of Moldova, because the only overlapping area is part of a non-recognize breakaway nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification Put this sole 1939 establishment into two "establishment in" categories as subcategories of “1939 in Moldova” and “1939 in Romania”. From the above discussion the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic only existed for two or three years and does not even have a separate overall category, so I do not think a single seperate “years in” category is warranted. The Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic existed from 1940 to 1991; categories for “Years in the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic” may not be warranted, but that is a separate question. Hugo999 (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Moldavian ASSR existed from 1924-1940, that is not "only two or three years".John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 3 July 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.
