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.
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: Before a semi-related CFD for documentary films is complete, I must ask: do we really need "topics"? No sibling in Category:LGBT has it. If successful, I'd speedily rename the subcategories for each individual faith. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (although there are two other LGBT subcats that use "topics" -- but I'm fine with renaming those also) Aristophanes68(talk) 20:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, my mistake: there are two categories that end with "LGBT topics," and I didn't note those. BTW, I'm of the opinion that "LGBT and foo" should be the construction, as it makes sense to me that the human subject and not the topic should come first, as the "x." Does that make sense to people and do we agree? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem firmly opposed to this nom at that talk page discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to "LGBT and foo" should be the construction, (1) as long as no better solution can be agreed upon, (2) as long as it isn't recognized this affects more than two categories, and (3) as long as it isn't recognized that for many of the categories that use "LGBT topics" in their name this is far from an acceptable solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, feel free to suggest, here is the full list of the non-people cats afaik:
It might also be useful to consult the WP:AND policy regarding the "LGBT and foo" should be the construction proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the people categories (the ones I'm currently most interested in), they don't have the "and" flaw, still I'm looking for improvement if any is possible (inserting "and" in the name would be a deterioration, not an improvement, same for omitting "topics" imho):
WP:AND (which becomes somewhat more acute with the proposed new name)
WP:SEPARATE the proposed new name doesn't make clear whether or not the category belongs to the "people" category tree. The qualifier "topics" would indicate a no-people category, but when that isn't made clear by omitting "topics":
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.
That's a linguistic issue. Europeans have used 'Persia' and the adjective 'Persian' for a long time, so I wouldn't propose to change the names of these historically known wars. But it did involve Iranian dynasties and Iranian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the common English usage is "Persian", then "Persian" is should remain. It's also difficult to say that these wars "involve Iranian dynasties and Iranian people" but not "involve Persian dynasties and Persian people", if that's the basis of your point. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not as difficult as it seems, since Category:Wars involving the Parthian Empire (i.e. Parthian, not Persian) is also a childcat in this category. While Parthian and for example Sasanian are both considered to be Iranian. Quote from Sasanian Empire: The Sasanian Empire (...) is the last Iranian empire before the rise of IslamMarcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Iran has been the long-standing name for the country as used by its residents, and it eventually came to be used world-wide, but there is no political change connected with this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale:: Most military content has already been upmerged previously, these are some final entries yet to follow. In accordance with Category:History of Iran tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the Persian empire was much more than modern-day Iran. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exonyms are perfectly fine if they are the English one and appropriate to the period. Your argument to the contrary is weak: go and try and change all the Germany categories to Deutschland to see how well that progresses and note we have Category:Wars involving the Holy Roman Empire to distinguish that polity from what followed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the example relates. Iran is a common English country name, while Deutschland isn't. In addition Category:History of Germany contains childcats like Category:Franks and Category:Habsburg Monarchy, apparently a History of ..country category is allowed to contain the history of the geographical area of a current country. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2014 (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:Sieges involving the Sassanid Empire[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator....William 17:06, 23 August 2014 (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) 17:53, 7 November 2014 (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:Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Smallcat (lead article + 1 person's article). Eran Spahbed is one specific type of the more common Spahbed (Persian general). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Editor2020 15:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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) 17:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename, since views is a very broad term which could eventually also include dogmatic views etc. By renaming, the purpose of the category becomes more specific. Also, it will be consistently named with parent Category:Religion and society. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2014 (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) 17:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename, since views is a very broad term which could eventually also include dogmatic views etc. By renaming, the purpose of the category becomes more specific. Also, it will be consistently named with parent Category:Religion and society. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have planned so, if not for Category:Muslim views which exactly suffers from the problem of a category grown too big because of lack of clear inclusion criteria. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename, the current name is confusing, as it suggests that all states are being classified by their religious status, which is really not what this category is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only Stefanomione would think this a good idea. I expect 'states by paradigm' is on his to-do list, just after 'parameters by philosophy'. Delete it. 'States' has about 20 possible meanings. (I suspect Stefanomione is a computer script, designed to produce random phrases.) Oculi (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I've no idea about Stefanomione's intentions, but I think the category can stay as is, only the title should be improved. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to improve on 'States'. Category:States is about something else (and should itself be renamed), so 'States by xxx' or 'xxx of States' don't work. What are the inclusion criteria for this category? How is Category:Theocracies improved by adding this to its parents? Or Christian republic? Oculi (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Rename to Category:Theocracy. This is really about types of theocracy and even has a main article, not about the relationship between church and state in general. The subcategory Category:Theocracies would then include the specific examples of theocracies. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, because there are quite a few articles here that don't fit with theocracy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Religion and government? That seems to be what the articles included are about. Editor2020 03:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment The only current Jewish state is not a theocracy, and has been controled for much of its history by secularists, some of whom were basically Buddhists. It is actually Jewish more by ethnicity than religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2014 (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:Baseball players from Syracuse, New York[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: First few if any of these players are from Syracuse. Consensus is that a person isn't from Foo if there only connection to Foo is that they played for one of Foo's sports teams. Also per numerous CSDs we don't subcategorize athletes this way. All these categories should be merged into Baseball in Syracuse, New York ...William 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there's no need to merge as it only has subcats each of which is already in the sub-tree for Category:Baseball in Syracuse, New York. It will certainly tempt editors to start adding individuals so delete seems a good idea. Is Beckham from Los Angeles? I think he's from East London. Oculi (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is a new category, still needing further population. Even a cursory review would find quite a few baseball players from Syracuse. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Further population isn't the point- All these categories[1] were populated at the time a CSD was started but ended up getting deleted just a few days ago, and what you did was overcategorization because all those players you moved were already categorized 'Sportspeople from Syracuse, New York'. This is at least the 6th CSD on this topic- Categorization of athletes by city, 4 resulted in the city categories being deleted, the last two CSDs, this and here[2]- a almost guaranteed merge and delete- are the others....William 14:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Thanks for this further information and references; helps me see the broader context and issue. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Rikster2 given the precedents at CfDs. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2014 (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.
