Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Cambrai[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: Consistency with all 22 other French "Archbishops of city" categories. In France there is no need to add Roman Catholic in the name an archbishop category because the Roman Catholic Church is the only denomination in France with archbishops. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually would go the other direction and add "Roman Catholic" to all of them to avoid confusion with the also poorly named Orthodox Category:Archbishops of Western Europe and to match the clear naming convention of this category tree, Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese. But, that would require a broader nomination and I'm not going to oppose your attempt to create consistency within France. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeFor good or ill, every other RC archbishop in the wiki world has the RC prefix. For consistency sake, retain this. I see no compelling reason why France should be an exception. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I would also be okay if all categories would have the RC suffix. Fact is that here on Wikipedia, if you look at all countries together, a small majority is without suffix. In some countries it's really a mix of both, so France is at least a positive example of consistency within the country except for this one Cambrai category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It is not true to say that the RC prefix is only required for those locations where other branches of Christianity have bishops. See Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of São Salvador da Bahia where São Salvador da Bahia has no protestant equivalent. While the category is a mixture, the overwhelming majority use the RC prefix. Some that don't are titular bishoprics (e.g. the ones with the Latin prefix) that pre-date the Great Schism. There is no compelling argument for a French exception. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep to facts: of the dioceses that aren't clustered by country it's 37 without RC prefix against 22 with RC prefix (ignoring the Latin ones). In the country child categories, not only the French dioceses but also a large amount of USA dioceses don't have a prefix. For the Brazilian one, the point is not that all locations without archbishops of other nominations don't have the prefix, the point is that they don't need it. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RC prefix is in the majority in Italy, India and Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the "I" in the country name :-) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: To say it's only required in countries with non-RC bishops really assumes you're navigating through the categories. (I'm a category person so I understand that viewpoint.) But, if you're clicking on a category from an article to find related content or adding a category with Hotcat, I think it's helpful to have the denomination be clear. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor would nominate all current categories without RC to be renamed to with RC, I would not object as I also understand your point of view (I would be neutral). But for as long as such a nomination doesn't actually happen it's fair to have at least the French categories consistent with each other, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- No one but the RC church has ever had an Archbishop of Cambrai, so that there is no need to give his denomination. The parent should however keep the prefix RC. A good parallel would be the Category:Archbishops of Canterbury, who are Anglican or of the pre-reformation Catholic church. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 13 October 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: I do not think categorizing villages by ethnicity is a good idea, and none of the three articles currently so categorized have a reliable source supporting the current scheme. Geographic categorization by district seems preferable. If this category were to be kept, it should at the very least be renamed to Category:Adi villages. Huon (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without prejudice as none of the articles verifies this information. We do have some ethnic-based categories (e.g. Category:Aromanian settlements so a standard is somewhat set. SFB 20:48, 30 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: This is a small category tree with one ultimate article (Francis Tam). Tam actually attended the University of East Asia (a British private university that was the forebear to the modern state-governed institution). This tree seems excessive for this minor categorisation at this time. SFB 14:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Populate I was able to locate several bio articles to add. I can't read most of the original documentation because it's in Chinese or Portuguese, but it looks like the history section of the article indicates there is a straight line between University of East Asia and University of Macau. No objection to getting rid of Category:People by educational institution in Macau and Category:People by university or college in Macau though. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the specific one, and upmerge the others into suitable parents so that the kept category does not drop out of relevant hiearchies. – FayenaticLondon 14:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first; upmerge the rest. It looks as if there is one university in the Special Admin Region, so the parents are redundant. If Tam attended a predecessor institution, he still belongs in the category, becasue (by convention) alumni of predecessors go in the category for successors. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:16, 13 October 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 all; the last 2 are being listed at CFDS because they weren't tagged. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Category:Macanese people is used to refer to an ethnic group from Macau. The occupation tree is widely used on a national basis, rather than strictly ethnic one. To prevent ambiguity, I propose all non-ethnic based Macanese categories be moved to "Macau x-ers" instead, in line with the parent Category:Macau people. SFB 14:01, 28 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge and create category redirect. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Since it is near India, my guess is that English orthography is more appropriate than American. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 13 October 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:speedy merge. – FayenaticLondon 14:33, 3 October 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: This is a small and inexact subcategory. It contains both players in the country's leagues and players from South Korea. The national category is a poor fit in this name, especially given its child Category:South Korean expatriate basketball people in the United States, which is at odds with this parent naming. Category is not part of a wider tree and sits very well with the content in Category:Basketball in South Korea. SFB 10:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree There are hundreds of similar categories across various sports similar to this. Category contains basketball players of all nationalities who have played in South Korea past or present, simple whats the confusion. DjlnDjln (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Djln: On that basis would you support the exclusion of Category:South Korean basketball players from the category on the grounds that the league categories should already contain all of the relevant articles from that category (and not ones where a South Korean national has never played in South Korea)? SFB 20:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What ! I think you are overthinking this way too much . I am positive that the number of South Korean nationals who have never played in South Korea is minimal at best Djln --Djln (talk) 11:25, 1 October 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:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category holds articles and subcategories related to the company Škoda Auto. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the basis the company is commonly known as Skoda and the category also includes people from other parts of Skoda, such as Skoda Works. Sionk (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think you're confusing the brand name Škoda with the company. Two different things. See the dab page Škoda. Either these categories move, or the article, whichever is the best. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Category:Škoda is not really acceptable since Škoda is ambiguous. Not sure what the best choice is right now, but a split could be better. If renamed, a split as part of the rename probably will be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, all the Škoda companies, and one of the two Škoda people are linked to the widely known Škoda company. It's only the obscure alternative name of a polka which is not linked. There's only a tiny chance of ambiguity. Sionk (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That ignores the fact that there are multiple companies using the name. So there is ambiguity. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match lead article, Škoda Auto. No objection to a speedy switch back though if article is renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Category holds both articles related to Škoda Works and Škoda Auto. My proposal is to set up Škoda Works as main article of the category and create new Category:Škoda Auto, that will include Škoda Auto related categories and articles. --Jklamo (talk) 02:26, 3 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:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category holds articles on people (founders, other key people) related to what eventually became the company Škoda Auto. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the basis the company is commonly known as Skoda and the category also includes people (well, at least one person) from other parts of Skoda, such as Skoda Works. Sionk (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think you're confusing the brand name Škoda with the company. Two different things. See the dab page Škoda. Either these categories move, or the article, whichever is the best. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match lead article, Škoda Auto. No objection to a speedy switch back though if article is renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:16, 28 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: Category contains buildings by architect William Bidlake. Conventionally such categories seem to be suffixed "buildings", for example as in the contents of Category:Buildings and structures by British architects. Sionk (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such content should be gathered in a "works by" type category, not just the person's name. SFB 20:37, 28 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. – FayenaticLondon 23:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:SMALLCAT. No conceptual objection to a category based on a work, but this lacks enough content. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:21, 28 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:Dominican Republic people of French Santo Domingo 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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion: This newly created category presents a problem. According to the reference found on the Saint-Domingue article, (the name of present-day Haiti from 1697-1804) it refers only to the western portion of the island to differentiate it with the "Santo Domingo" that was Spanish. It is not in reference to the French acquisition of Santo Domingo (eastern portion of island; modern-day Dominican Republic between 1795-1809; a mere fourteen-year span), which became part of Saint-Domingue with the entire island being under French rule (one name). Hence, this category is very misleading. (In this case it would be Spanish Saint-Domingue!). Furthermore, upon the Haitian Revolution, the former colony merely changed its country's name after its independence. These creoles that were born in Saint-Domingue or in the "French Santo Domingo" are Haitian. If French is in their lineage, then they are Haitian of French descent. In contrast, there wasn't a significant name change for the Dominican Republic as Dominican is a English variant word for Domingo, thus descendants of people born in the colonial Santo Domingo, were just called Dominicans of Spanish descent, not the stretched categories of Dominican people of Spanish Santo Domingo descent or Dominican people of Santo Domingo descent, which would all be redundant. So, this category denotes the fact that these people born on this colony were Haitian. Also, any person born away from France during this time were not called French but instead creole or French Creole (as broad terms for all born in colonies), but since this is too vague of a term for a category because it is specifically describing the people of Saint-Domingue; they are just Haitian Creoles or simply Haitian. (These creoles could also be from Louisiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe , French Guiana etc.) Please be careful. Thank you kindly. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fact the whole of the "descent" tree should go as the nationality/ethnicity of someone's great^n-grandparents is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Saint-Domingue was never a nationality nor an ethnicity and simply specifying Haitian is a better choice. Agree with DexDor that this messy tree needs sorting (dividing the ethnic from the national elements would improve distinction for a start). SFB 20:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (rename if necessary). There weren’t "Haitians" before 1804 since the name 'Haiti' was not in use (it was Saint-Domingue), also, the people that left the western side of the island for the eastern (from 1795 to 1809) were legally banned by the Haitian law to be Haitian citizen, so how their descendants could be of "Haitian descent" if they weren’t at first Haitians by themselves. ★ Nacho ★ ★ 06:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is about the categorisation of a single article. Firstly this is a triple ethnic intersection, which we do not usally allow. Secondly, the article already has a Corsican descent category. Corsica was once a possession of Genoa, not France, so that it may be best not to enquire what the ancestor's nationality was when he left. If her ancestors were in what is now Haiti, she can also have a Haitian descent category. However, I do not think we should generally allow categories by former names of countries; there may be exceptions. The predecent on this is alumni categories where alumni of merged or renamed colleges are deemed to have attneded the successor. Hence even if the ancesotr left Haiti in 1750, we could still have a Haitian descetn category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- ★ Nacho ★ , the legal name wasn't even the French Santo Domingo. It was just Saint-Domingue. Also by including the word French, implies that these people were French citizens, which they weren't; they were Creoles. I could also counter-argue and say that the Dominicans born between 1822-1844, were of Haitian decent as the Haitian government ruled the entire island (in similar fashion as to how Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens). So, Sully Bonnelly's (the lone person categorized under this wording) family fleeing to the eastern side of island the was rather in vain because being under Haitian rule was inevitable for them as they have stayed there until this present-day, but at this time Haiti's government wasn't split anymore between the north and south and under the Republic of Boyer, whites, "mulattos" were all safe. Also, during the time of the fleeing, contrary to belief, not all of the whites fled or were killed by Dessalines. People useful for the country were to be kept to help the country grow (doctors, teachers, etc. see documentary: Forgotten faces of Haiti). Foreign whites (aka: Europeans, as Haiti did not want to potentially be reconquered) were also not allowed to own land unless they were "naturalized Haitian citizens". [1] To note, the name Haiti (Ayiti) itself was also what the Tainos (natives) had called the island pre-Columbus as the country was returned back to its former name by Dessalines. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To say French Santo Domingo is a disambiguation like to say French Guiana, when the land is called Guyane in France; and its inhabitants were as French just as Martinicans and French Guianese are French (first as subdits, and then as citizens), Creole wasn’t a demonym but a characteristic.
On the other hand, all Puerto Ricans are not considered of American descent because of their American/U.S. citizenship, therefore there is no similarity in your analogy.
Also, Sully Bonnelly’s ancestors did not leave their home during or right after the Revolution just because they did not wanted to be Haitian citizens, but because of the antislavery sentiment that became -in the course of the Revolution- in an anti-colonist sentiment, particularly after the arrival of the fleet commanded by Leclerc, Napoleon’s brother-in-law. For the few hundred petit-blancs that served for the independence movement and survived the war, it was granted to them the Haitian citizenship but for those who fled, it wasn’t, and any person who wanted to naturalize as citizen was requested to have African or Amerindian blood (even marriages between Haitian citizens and non-Haitians were banned for a couple of decades until it was abolished). After the American invasion the limitations were loosen, allowing "pure" white people to naturalize as Haitians, but even as recent as 2010 (before the constitutional revision of 2011) the citizenship by jus solis was limited to people descended from the "black race" (sic), a sort of "one-drop (rule) of African blood makes you Haitian by origin", so if a person was born in Haiti to non-black descended parents they had to naturalize after becoming legal adults to become Haitian. ★ Nacho ★ ★ 09:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- SFB, DexDor, Peterkingiron, has a formal consensus been reached? Wondering if we can close, before it gets forgotten. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't close it; an uninvolved editor (preferably an admin) should close it. This discussion shouldn't be forgotten as this page will be listed at WP:CFD until all the discussions on it are closed (or relisted). Note: There are many much older CFD discussions that have not yet been closed. DexDor (talk) 06:32, 31 October 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.
★ 06:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)