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) 23:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge. In quite a big sample of this category I didn't find "Roman Catholic" to be a defining characteristic. Apparently these are mostly "general Christian" saints from Anatolia. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The population is pre-schism and so RC/EO differentiation is pointless. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2015 (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) 23:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per x of y, to match parent categories. It is my understanding that all private colleges in Canada require some sort of provincial licence to operate, making the qualification that they have such a licence unnecessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as common sense extension to Category:Private schools in Ontario. There is no need to specify where the college is under license or not in the category. SFB 22:02, 2 March 2015 (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 in order to disambiguate between saints of the Russian Orthodox Church and saints from Russian Orthodox nationality, thus scoping this category to the latter. This is C2C to Category:Eastern Orthodox saints from Greece. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The latter four nominations and the alternative rename added 28 February.Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Would also go for "Russian saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church" or less favourably, "Russian Eastern Orthodox Church saints". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed, per my previous arguments about differentiation between nationalities of people and nationality of the church. SFB 22:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As proposed. I do not see the difference in the two proposed categories. They both seem to be saying the people are Eastern Orthodox Saints of Russian nationality/from Russia. Are we trying to divide out ethnic Russians from Russian nationals of non-Russian ethnicity. That is the only possible result of this rename, but since in most other categories we use Russian to mean people who are nationals of Russia no matter what ethnicity they identify as, this would mess up categorization. This needs to be rethought.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: This may be a matter of misunderstanding, I'm not sure. The idea is to rename to only one of the two alternative renames, whereas I'm neutral in the choice between either one of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2015 (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. MER-C 13:08, 5 April 2015 (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) 23:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename per actual content, all 4 articles are bishops. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Moldovan Orthodox Christians tree needs to get it's act together. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2015 (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:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Moldova[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: deletewith no prejudice against restarting the category from scratch. The number of articles in this category is huge in comparison to any other category in Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by nationality and it seems like every Moldavian biography in WP has been added to this category. Based on a sample, most articles do not contain any information about the person being Eastern Orthodox Christian. Thus WP:NONDEF and WP:OVERLAPCAT apply. The best way to proceed is probably to delete this category and to start it all over again. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Seems a bit drastic. Cannot remember seeing such a proposal ever before. But may be necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2015 (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. – FayenaticLondon 14:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, trivial intersection between the larger part of Russian history and religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Orthodox rabbis sounds like rabbis who are Russian Orthodox Christians, as we have a whole category tree of "Russian Orthodox foos", including monks, clergy. Can't we come up with a better title than Russian Orthodox rabbis - perhaps just Russian rabbis? because it's not clear that Orthodoxy vs. non-Orthodoxy for Judaism in Russia is defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Initially I had the same concern. But then I thought, how can anyone ever imagine that rabbis are Russian Orthodox Christians? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still sounds odd - and is whether a rabbi is orthodox or not defining? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to discuss this aspect, then please nominate Category:Orthodox rabbis for upmerging. It's a bit off-topic for this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the "Imperial Russian" categorization is obviously a national one, while "Russian" implies an ethnic scope; i would even propose to create "Federate Russian" categories to describe the ethno-religious groups in modern Russia, who are not ethnic Russians.GreyShark (dibra) 06:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is common to categorize biographies by the intersection of religious conviction and nationality or ethnicity - but not by the intersection of religious conviction and country. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We categorize by the intersection of religion and country subject to. We very, very, very rarely categorize by the intersection of religion and ethnicity. For example Category:Native American Latter Day Saints was deleted. It was not a size issue, since there were more articles in it that many religion by country people are nationals of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 10 ethnicities so categorized. There are over 100 categorizations of religion by country. This shows the primary intersection is between religion and country, not religion and ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a categorization of people by the nation they were subjects to. The Russian Empire was very different than modern Russia, and we should not conflate the two in the same category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this reasoning a step further, it would imply that we would also need to categorize people by religion separately if they are from England (kingdom<=17th century) or Scotland (kingdom<=17th century) or Great Britain (kingdom 18th century) or United Kingdom (kingdom 19th-20th century). That's not the way we do it currently and I would also not really favor going this way. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since Russian Empire embraced a much wider area than Russia today, the merger will probably cause unnecessary controversies. E.g. Category:Bessarabian Jews is included in Category:Imperial Russian Jews, however Bessarabia corresponds to modern Moldova. Furthermore, Category:Moldovan Jews is included in Category:Bessarabian Jews, since Moldova lies within the historical Bessarabia area. Hence, by the proposed merging the Moldovan Jews (also the contemporary ones which may have nothing to do with Russia) will appear to be a subsubcategory of Russian Jews. I think this shows the general limitations of an hierarchical categorisation. Either one needs very many very narrow categories or one agrees to accept inconsistencies. --Off-shell (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Marcopelle you are ignoring the fact that the Russian Empire was a very different entity by borders than modern Russia. Not only did it stretch much further in some areas than modern Russia, but there are also parts of modern Russia that were never in the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but it's also true that Russia by international law is the successor state of the Russian Empire. The Soviet Union was the legal successor of the Russian Empire, and the Russian Federation is the legal successor of the Russian Empire. Thus, legally speaking—the Russian Empire and the Russian Federation are the same entity. Of course there are differences, but the legal status is also relevant here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the legal status is not relevant here. We are not a legal body, and we are not bound by international law which is designed to perpetuate the power of the winners in history. We should respect the facts at hand. The Jews in the Russian Empire for example were not at all considered Russian, they were classed as a seperate ethnicity. We probably should rename that category to Category:Jews in the Russian Empire to be similar to Category:Jews in Mandatory Palestine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imperial Russia (which included Ukraine, the Baltic States etc) and Russia are not the same country. Classing someone born in Kiev in 1890 as "Russian" rather than "Imperial Russian" looks wrong. Number57 16:50, 11 May 2015 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete. "Figure" is not a defining characteristic and there is no tree for "figures". No need to upmerge this category, because the 6 articles are already in one or more appropriate religious categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Trinity is the only known Russian religious figure (3). Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2015 (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 problem here is one of ambiguity. As constituted, this was intended for people who write non-fiction work about film and cinema, such as film historians or film critics, but I suspect it won't surprise anyone that I just had to clean it up for a sizable contingent of misfiled screenwriters. The usage note is thus ineffective at ensuring that the category doesn't get misused — so we should rename it to something more unambiguously descriptive of its intended use and less likely to be confused with Category:Screenwriters. (For the record, the most seemingly parallel category to this, Category:Television writers, is used for writers of television programming rather than writers of non-fiction work about television.) Bearcat (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who works in this area here, I've always found the category title ambiguous and I welcome Bearcat's nomination. Just one question, though. While "about" is indeed the clearest, there is no sibling category in Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area that uses it. Several do use "on," though. Any support at all for a rename to "Category:Writers on film" so as to match sibling cats? (yes, I know film is a surface that can be writ upon, but I don't think anyone's going to reasonably think it's a category for drawn-on-film animators). thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to that proposal either, if it's more consistent with the way parallel "writers by subject" categories are named. I'm not wedded to the specific wording that I proposed, as long as we do something to fix the ambiguity. That said, it's not entirely true that we have no "writers by subject" categories that are using the "about" wording, as we do have Category:Writers about activism and social change and Category:Writers about communism — but you are correct that "on" is used more often in that tree than "about" is. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right I did miss that. Well, I'll register a support for a rename, to either of the alternatives preferred by consensus, or lacking any consensus, to the initial nomination using "about". Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the issue of "on" versus " about". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support either option as far less confusing than the current title. SFB 22:04, 2 March 2015 (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:Minor planets formerly to be visited by spacecraft[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. (If anyone is interested in listifying, you can contact me to find out what the contents of the category were.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That some "minor planets have been proposed as potential targets for space probes" is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of a planet - as well as being (out of date) speculation. This may be suitable for a list, but few/none of the articles in the category mention this characteristic in the article text. DexDor (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a list, but this is not an appropriately WP:DEFINING basis for a category. Listify and delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2015 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against reestablishing the category when more content will become available. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an erroneous addition to Category:Water by continent. The North Pole is not a continent, it is a geographical point somewhere over the Arctic Ocean. I'm also having trouble imagining how "more content will become available." The North Pole is not the Arctic. It is a point on the globe -- over the Arctic Ocean, which is composed of water in liquid or solid form -- but it contains nothing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that the category creator may have mixed up "North Pole" with "Arctic." If so, I'd point out that we do have Category:Environment of the Arctic, which contains many climate change-related articles and no doubt will contain more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, while South Pole is in a continent, North Pole is located in the middle of the Arctic and is not a continent. So must be replaced in Category:Water in the Arctic. There is a difference between the sweet and the salt water in the Artic and this category can be centered in this sweet water (soon disappearing). --Lagoset (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the North Pole is not a continent. kennethaw88 • talk 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
North Pole is not a continent, it is an intercontinental and a polar region. Antarctica is a continent and also a polar region. The Arctic is defined as the area near the North Pole. It is an intercountry land, because there joins Russia, Canada, European Union (Denmark, Sweden and Finland), Norway, Iceland and USA. Because of global warming there is a dispute between Canada and the EU and a problem with petroleum exploration in the Arctic and reclaming longer protected areas. Now, knowing more about the Arctic and North Pole, water is important as reflects the main problems in this polar region. But category can be included in a polar water or similar category, because Arctic is not effectively a continent, compared with Antarctica, but yes a polar region.--Lagoset (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This whole discussion is pointless since there aren't any articles in this category specifically about water. And if articles about water are going to be added, they can initially go into Category:Environment of the Arctic as Shawn pointed out already. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2015 (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.
