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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is a set of three categories for Ralston College, an educational institution that has been chartered, but does not yet actually exist. Other than the article about the college itself, the only contents are the articles for the notable people who have been recruited as patrons of the institution. Their endorsement of this institution does not constitute a defining characteristic that is a valid basis for categorization. Note: Related to this proposal is an AFD for the article about the institution's founder: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen J. Blackwood. Orlady (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – being a Member of the Board of Visitors of, or a Patron of, an educational institution, is entirely laudable but does not amount to a defining characteristic of a person. Oculi (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This wholse set of categories looks like an attempt to promote and pad an institution that not only does not exist, but has not as of yet taken any applications. While I guess it may pass the rules for having an article, creating a category now is a step too far.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Oculi. Category:Ralston College consists solely of the head article and the 2 sub-cats. There subcats should go because there is no way that being a patron or visitor of an educational institution is a defining characteristic of a person; it rarely merits even a passing mention in a biography. And without the sub-cats, we're left with a pointless 1-article category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- patrons and board members certainly. I might have voted to keep Category:Ralston College, but it will be too small until it has notable faculty and alumni. I do not regard being a patron or board member as notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:27, 9 March 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.
Categories related to The Swedish War of Secession[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:Move. I have changed the name of the main article from Swedish War of Liberation to the standard English name Swedish War of Secession. Therefore the 3 categories should be renamed accordingly.--Orakologen (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could you include standard links to their current names please like all other nominations have?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Whether it is a war of libewration or of secession depends on whther you look at it from a Swedish or Danish POV. The matter needs to be decided on the basis of what English books on European history usually call it - not English books on Swedish or Danish history, which will probably follow the differing usage of those two countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- To Peter: War of Secession is not the Danish POV its the term used by Encyclopaedia Britannica and the equivalent Danish term "Løsrivelseskrig" is never used by Danish historians. Danish historians traditionally use The rebelion of Gustav Vasa or The Dalcarlian rebellion or something like that. To Brown Eyed Girl:-- I assumed the move was uncontroversial because - like I said - Swedes are generally a non-nationalist people (I would never have dared to move the title of a Serbian war ;-) ). The huge difference you get in your Google book comparison is because your search includes "a Swedish war of liberation" which is purely a description. If you type "The Swedish War of Liberation" vs. "The Swedish War of Secession you get 10 to 6. Still a majority, but Encyclopaedia Britannica has Swedish War of Secession. To me EB sets the standard. Most of the "SW of L" titles are popular books and Liberation sounds cooler, so they prefer that.--Orakologen (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThat "War of Liberation" is not neutral should be self evident IMO. It implies that Gustav Vasa liberated an oppressed people, which is in line with the POV of traditional Swedish history, but obviously not neutral. Secession on the other hand simply describes what actually happened. Sweden seceeded from the Kalmar Union.--Orakologen (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom the current names are clearly POV-pushing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't decide that the common name used in sources is POV-pushing and therefore should not be used, that way lies WP:OR. - The BushrangerOne ping only 20:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed name is used by the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Anyway, in many cases the most common name for things will be extremely not neutral. We need to consider the position and neutrality of the sources involved. Since Brittanica uses the neutral name this is clearly not a wikipedia invention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since there was no consensus for moving the article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:38, 22 March 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:Canadian people of First Nations descent[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 have no idea why these are different to begin with. There is nothing stated on Category:First Nations people that it only includes people recognised by a First Nations community, for example. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"By nation", maybe (although I'd still argue that as not really necessary), but "tribe" is an absolute non-starter. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Many early settlers on the Canadian prairies married native wives, so that having some native blood is not unusual, but that does not make them First Nations People, which should be reserved for members of tribes and possibly mixed race people assimilated by the tribes. However the target ought to be renamed to Category:Canadian First Nations people or Category:First Nations people of Canada. It may be that this usage is peculiarly Canadian, but many people will not recognise it as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if they're neither status nor non-status, but still descended from First Nations, they cannot fit into the other category. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per most respondents above. To take a few examples of people in this category, Fefe Dobson and Jenna Talackova both have some First Nations descent but are not properly considered as being First Nations (nor even Métis, because they don't have the correct type of mixed ethnicity to fit under that label either) — and Shania Twain is First Nations by adoption, but belongs here rather than in the proposed merge target as she's not primarily First Nations by blood. It may seem weird to outsiders, but it is a necessary and relevant distinction that do we need to maintain. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well we also have Category:Canadian people of Métis descent because to be Métis is not to have mixed descent, but to be a member of an ethnic group that identifies and embraces this mixed descent. Simon Fraser Tolmie without question had ancestors who were Métis but he himself did not so identify. People who clearly have First Nations ancestry but do not identify as being First Nations can no more be classified as First Nations than people who have Jewish ancestry but are not Jews can be identified as being Jews (note I did not say "not religious Jews", there are people who are Jews but not by religion, but at the same time not all people who have Jewish ancestry would ever identify as Jews, I would challenge any attempt to classyfy Felix Mendelsohn as a Jew, but he without question had Jewish ancestry.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 11 March 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:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Superficial classification to put Philadelphia and Eros into one basket. This way is good for wiktionary, not for wikipeda. - Altenmann >t 07:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete putting an article on a city into this category just shows how off base it is. We do not categorize things by the root meaning of their name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge -- This is potentially a legitimate (though very small) category: see The Four Loves. Philadelphia and pederasty ought not to be in it, I think. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you link to is a book by C.S. Lewis that is a philosophical/religious text, and has no real relation to Greek at all, he just happens to use Greek words to distinguish ideas not covered in English with such precesion. I see no basis from this for making such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listed are articles on places, etc., not words Mayumashu (talk) 16:24, 10 March 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. – FayenaticLondon 09:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The accepted term for these people is "German Bohemian". There is a reason this differentiates from expressions like "Sudeten Germans" and "Volga Germans". That is because those terms refer to geographic features as their determining factor. German Bohemians, on the other hand, directly refers to the fact the these people were ethnic German citizens of the Bohemian state. This is similar to expressions like "Italian American". The ethnicity comes first, then the nationality. Also, in German, the expression is Deutschböhmen. Compare to Wolgadeutsche (Volga Germans). Examples of the use of the proper term follow. The hyphen is used in some sources, and not in others. I propose that it is omitted, per similar articles like Italian Americans. This radio broadcast from the BBC by Sir Ralph Murray, at the time of the Munich Agreement (at 8 minutes). This book.
Rename per JPL. The usual solution of "Booian people of Fooian descent" will not work here, because Bohemia was under Austrian rule for so long that they ceased to be an immigrant group. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The name proposed by the editors above me makes absolutely no sense. They are not "Germans of Bohemia". They are German Bohemians. That is to say, they are not "foreign" to Bohemia. They were there since the 13th century (before Germans even ruled Bohemia. They were invited by the Přemyslids). "Germans of Bohemia" implies that they are merely Germans in Bohemia, and not Bohemians. Furthermore, that is isn’t even a remotely natural title for the category. Peterkingiron appears to have misinterpreted the scope of this category. This not a category similar to "American people of Italian descent". It is the category of an ethnic group that lived in Bohemia. It is not the same as the category Czech people of German descent, which is refers to an entirely different population. RGloucester (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are no more implying they are foriegn to Bohemia. If we proposed Category:Germans in Bohemia maybe we would be, but we are using "of" which implies a connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are say they are "of Bohemia", but you are saying that they are not "Bohemian". That isn't right. There were Bohemian, and should be labeled as such by everyone involved. RGloucester (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about Category:Ethnic-German Bohemian people? "German Bohemian people" could mean either people of Germany who are ethnic Bohemian or people of Bohemia who are ethnic German, couldn't it? Mayumashu (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is just too complexed. It also has too many strung modefiers. Maybe Category:Ethnic German people of Bohemia would be better than my proposal above. However I think we need the of, having both German and Boehmian in the same name is too confusing, that is why we have in most cases for such things abopted x people of y descent, but here it is an ethnicity with a location so I thin y people of x works, and if people prefer "ethnic Germans" to just "Germans" that works for me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support Category:Ethnic German people of Bohemia. I think stating that what is described are 'ethnic Germans' (and not citizens of Germany or of jurisdictions that became Germany) is important. 'of' is better than 'from' for the intended meaning. But one more thing (that I just realized, with checking) - the correspnding article is at Sudeten Germans, so to perhaps this category should be Category:Sudeten-German people? Interesting, apparently "Sudeten Germans" and "Bohemian Germans" refer to different groups but they share an article and in it the distinction doesn't seem to be clear??Mayumashu (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a separate category for "Sudeten German people". The location of the article at "Sudeten Germans" was a compromise me and some other editors came up with (common name for the title, but make it clear in the article that it is not NPOV). There is a great distinction. The term "Sudeten German" was only used after the First World War. Prior to that, there was no such thing as a "Sudeten German". The term "Sudeten German" is laden with nationalist POV problems, and most Germans today avoid the term and use only the traditional names. I could go into this more, if you'd like, but I'll just say that the "Sudeten German" category is for ethnic Germans born in Bohemia and Moravia during the interwar period, who went along with the term. The traditional terms are used for anyone not from that period, generally before the First World War.
I suppose I could support Ethnic German Bohemian people (not "Ethnic German people of Bohemia"). I don't really think it is that much of an issue though, as you all are making it out to be. Category:Volga Germans exists just fine, and no one would confuse that. It is fairly obvious that they are not from Germany, as the word-order makes that clear (don't confuse this with Volga Germans, which refers to geography and not a state). As I said below "The word-order of "German Bohemian" implies that they are Germans from Bohemia, the same as "African American" implies Africans from America. That’s why I want to change the present title (Bohemian German), which implies that they are "Bohemians from Germany", which entirely incorrect". American Africans (probably referring to Americo-Liberians) would mean something entirely different than African Americans. There is no reason the category should not be at German Bohemians. The confusion can't properly exist, and even if it did, that could be resolved by a description on the category page (there already is one). The other titles are all contrived, and might confuse people even further. RGloucester (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Bohemian" is usually understood to be a multi-ethnic identity. It does not generally just mean "Czech". Bohemia was not dominated by any one race during its history as a state. But, no that would not be a problem anyway. The word-order of "German Bohemian" implies that they are Germans from Bohemia, the same as "African American" implies Africans from America. That’s why I want to change the present title (Bohemian German), which implies that they are "Bohemians from Germany", which entirely incorrect. RGloucester (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The goal here is to get a clear name. The "of" is not meant to answer whether they are or are not Bohemian, but to make it clear this is for ethnic Germans in Bohemia, not Bohemian people who emigrated and became Germans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand what is making it unclear. If it were people who emigrated and became German citizens, that category would be "German people of Bohemian descent". That’s not what we are doing here. German Bohemians, it means just that, Germans from Bohemia. What exactly is unclear? Can someone explain? RGloucester (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You assume people understand categories too well. We are best off assuming that the average reader and the average editor will minsunderstand and misuse categories unless we name them with precision. Of is a perfectly accetpable way to say people are connected with a place. As it is some categories for ethnic gtroups in Russia, who are clearly nationals of Russia, use "in", which I suspect you would object to even more than you do to of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is with certain nationalist elements that try to de-Bohemianise the many Germans who used to live there. I know that is not happening in this discussion at all, but it is that confusion that I am worried about. It is more grave than the confusion you mention. How about "Ethnic German Bohemian people"? Does that solve the issue you think has arisen? RGloucester (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another reason why these sorts of categories are bizarre; shouldn't it be "Austrian" rather than Germany, as Bohemia was part of Austria during nearly all the time that the folks you want to categorize lived. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Up until the 1840s the general view of Germans was that Bohemia was just as much part of Germany as Brandenburg or Bavaria. The Czech nationalists of the 1840s had a different view, but the notion that Austria is a distinct and seperate area from "germany" really only works starting in the 1860s. It is the policies of Bismark and the failure of the aunschluss under Hitler that lead us to think of Austria as distinct from Germany. The people in Bohemia were ethnic Germans, as were the people in Vienna. Bohemia was a historical and integral part of the Holy Roman Empire. You have to bear in mind that Germany before the 1860s is a cultural much more than a political identity. The German Confederation of 1815 included Bohemia in its boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Austrian would be entirely wrong. At this point in time, "Austrian" was a political identity that could be applied to anyway in Austrian Empire (including ethnic Czechs). People were differentiated on ethnicity. The rise of a "German Austrian" identity only occurred with the fall of the empire. Germany only gained monopoly on the term "German" after WWII, when Austrian distanced themselves from their German ethnicity, and instead claimed their own new one "Austrian". German, for the longest time, did not refer to a state. Because there was no German state, and because Germans were everywhere. These are ethnic Germans. RGloucester (talk) 13:50, 13 March 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.
