Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 11

June 11

Category:The Killing (U.S. TV series)

• Propose deleting Category:The Killing (U.S. TV series) - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: All are intelinked with a footer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. A navbox does not make a category irrelevant. Both can exist. --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by province

• Propose renaming Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by province to Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by region

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)

Category:American members of Reformed Christian churches

• Propose merging Category:American members of Reformed Christian churches to Category:American Calvinists (which I have proposed renaming to Category:American Calvinist and Reformed Christians).

Nominator's rationale: This is related to this CfD, but probably should not be rolled into it. This category is overly specific, as almost all notable Reformed Christians will be members of Reformed churches. Renaming to Category:American Calvinist and Reformed Christians by denomination and making it a subcat of Category:American Calvinists is another option. JFH (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note: 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 Calvinist. (Barack Obama would have fallen into this category before he jettisoned Rev. Wright and distanced himself from church in general.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:1939 establishments in Moldova

• Delete Category:1939 establishments in Moldova
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)