Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 31 April 2 >

April 1[edit]

Categories: Actors by ethnicity[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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. - I'm really scratching my head over this one. No idea why it was created, since it is entirely redundant to Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent. (Looking into the history, I see that this category was originally called Category:Actors by ethnic group, but was later renamed. Not sure when it was created or by whom, perhaps it predated the category that it's redundant to.) Cgingold (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Delete. It serves no present purpose. Hmains (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as redundant intersection; potentially confusing and misunderstood category, subject to personal opinion, objectionable adjectivization, and political wording. Quis separabit? 12:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on a similar topic here we should also delete Category:Actors of European descent; it has a population of one and makes no sense. Noticed while perusing general category (Category:Actors by ethnic or national descent), and thought I could piggy back it; see 4 April CFD. Quis separabit? 23:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That is an entirely separate question, and should not be shoehorned into this discussion. Cgingold (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COLLOQUY BETWEEN TWO EDITORS OVER UNFOUNDED ACCUSATION
  • AHEM - Listen up, User:Rms125a, AKA Quis separabit. DO NOT EVER REMOVE ANOTHER EDITOR'S COMMENT -- as you did with my comment, immediately above (which I have restored). That is a serious violation. I cut you some slack for your initial mistake of adding a separate issue to the CFD, which I chalked up to your not being familiar with proper CFD protocol. But there is no excuse for removing another editor's posted comment, and it doesn't require an advanced degree to know that. As for any other categories that you wish to deal with, you will need to create a separate CFD to discuss them. Cgingold (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • AHEM -- While we are clearing our throats, could Cgingold tell me what comment I deleted. I certainly would not be foolish enough to intentionally delete another editor's comments on a public forum like a CFD or AFD. These ([1], [2], [3], [4]) are the diffs surrounding my last edit, which should show that. I studied them and have no idea what you are talking about. I did not intentionally (or otherwise as far as I know) delete your little "That is an entirely separate question, and should not be shoehorned into this discussion" comment. Why would I? Please explain why you think I did. Quis separabit? 15:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, you might want to have a look at your FIRST edit following my comment/response, which you somehow managed to skip over in your list. As to Why? you would remove my comment, I think that's for you to answer. Cgingold (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... I just noticed that while you were at it, you also removed the following comment by another editor (which I am now restoring) )Cgingold (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how it happened. Obviously it was unintentional, either through a mistake editing or maybe using a wrong version. Whatever, I don't know. You should have realized that. And if you felt that strongly you should have raised the point on my talk page (AGF) rather than adopting an obnoxious and threatening tone here. If I did delete Obi-Wan Kenobi's comment, I apologize to him directly. And the answer to my (rhetorical) question is that I would have had no reason and would not have intentionally deleted your little comment or Obi-Wan's delete vote. I restored the comments chronologically. Quis separabit? 16:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but it's quite absurd for you to now declare, "Obviously it was unintentional" and "You should have realized that." My "little comment" went suddenly missing smack in the middle of your out-of-protocol attempt to modify the scope of this CFD. (You inserted a new category, to be deleted for entirely different reasons, and while you were at it, you also changed the section heading.) Under the circumstances, why would I assume that it was anything but intentional? However, since you insist that it was in fact entirely UN-intentional, I will take your word for it. That said, it was frightfully sloppy editing on your part. And your oversight in somehow missing that edit -- followed by your insistence that you hadn't done it -- was pretty darn sloppy, too. Cgingold (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I have seen instances in the past in which a related article is added to an existing AFD or CFD action, which I colloquially call "piggybacking", so I do not consider it "out of protocol". I don't know how common or uncommon a practice it is. I checked and have found no rules prohibiting such usually innocuous actions, either. So I had no reason to remove your little comment unless you are employing synthesis to imply that your objection to the piggybacking somehow was sufficiently important for me to try to delete it, which is absurd. And I deleted Obi-Wan's vote too, because, despite editing since 2005, I somehow thought that these deletions on an active CFD thread would go unnoticed. You didn't even notice yourself until a few minutes ago about the Obi-Wan vote being deleted also, two full days ago, which I had no reason to do since I support deletion in this case, although obviously even if I didn't I would never delete anything on an AFD or CFD thread, or almost anywhere else, except perhaps my own talk page, as Wikipedia is transparent. And again, "... if you felt that strongly you should have raised the point on my talk page (AGF) rather than adopting an obnoxious and threatening tone here", because I am guilty of, at most, carelessness in this case, to which I am willing to man up. I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. Quis separabit? 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really have nothing further to say, other than to note one last bit of appalling sloppiness on your part, which I was forced to clean up. This took place when you "restored the comments chronologically" by inserting them smack in the midst of our back-and-forth comments. I had to remove those two comments and place them in a more appropriate location (below). Cgingold (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological means chronological. And Obi-Wan Kenobi's comment/vote necessarily precedes your first comment to me, which means I placed it exactly where it belongs. Quis separabit? 21:30, 6 April 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:Fulbright Scholars[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: Keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unnecessary capitalization Greg Bard (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - The term "Fulbright Scholar" is actually a proper name, from which the term "Fulbright Scholarship" is derived. A quick look around on the internet reveals that both words are always capitalized. Cgingold (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Cgingold. See also other subcats of Category:Scholarship recipients. --BDD (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- it is a proper name. I was doubtful as to whether this (as an award winner type) category should be allowed, but with nearly 800 members, I do not feel able to vote against it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 6 April 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:Niccolò Cusano University of Rome[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 to Category:Università degli Studi Niccolò Cusano. The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only content is one subcategory for faculty. That can probably also be deleted, unless we have an article for the school. I could not find it. Maybe someone with knowledge of Italy can figure it out. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion as per Vegaswikian's rationale. Quis separabit? 00:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Vegaswikian. I expcet that there will be other things to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 April 2014
  • Rename to match article name. No need to delete, as it's part of WP:SMALLCAT's exception of an established categorization scheme. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 8 April 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:Marconi University of Rome[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 to Category:Marconi University. The Bushranger One ping only 05:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Found doing cleanup from February. Appears to be an incomplete nomination for deletion. Only has the main article and one for faculty, so probably deletion was as a small category. If kept, rename to Category:Marconi University. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename This is "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme," isn't it? If we delete, we might as well delete the subcat Category:Marconi University faculty as well, since it only has one page. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is basically a circular redirect. Quis separabit? 00:45, 2 April 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:Computer magazine disambiguations[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation pages are not encyclopedia content (articles), they are just a navigation aid to articles. As such they shouldn't be in topic-based categories. CAT:DABP#Notes says such dab page categories (populated by category tags rather than by a dab template) should not be used. DexDor (talk) 21:00, 1 April 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.

4th and 6th centuries in Israel[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: No consensus. To rather loosely paraphrase/summarise - there were decent points made both for (" mass cleanup is in process") and against ("...that may be, but quite a bit of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and there is less-than-clarity in naming (presumably due to Wikipedia's usage of COMMONNAME, among other things) when differentiating between a political entity and a region"). All that said, I'd like to suggest all commenters should read Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement. What I read below could very well have resulted in warnings/sanctions per that (not to mention existing Wikipedia policy). I strongly suggest that we not see any repeat of this at CfD. - jc37 23:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 05:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - upmerge both per John Pack Lambert; parallel to the case of Syrian categories, discussed here last year.GreyShark (dibra) 16:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Greyshark: Not to like the name Israel and clearly favor a Byzantine POV is not a good enough reason to destroy categories that have functioned perfectly for a long time and that do not cause confusion. Also note that WP:NOTPAPER. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Much as I personally prefer keeping cats to the current nation state, even if anachronistic, if we've renamed the others we've got to rename this one. fair is fair. I'm not a historian but I think JPL has it right here - this area was indeed under the Byzantine empire, and that's not a POV. We seem to side with the winners here, and in the case, the Byzantine empire had dominion over what is currently Israel at that time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not certain - Everybody seems to have a different name for that region. No matter what name you pick, someone will call it POV.Evildoer187 (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we need to apply the actual political name for that period (Byzantine Empire - Diocese of the East) and avoid "region" disputes (for which we have a dozen of POV names).GreyShark (dibra) 15:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - every single country in the world has a category on Wikipedia for centuries in it even before they were created, as Category:Centuries by country proves. There is not and should not be an exception for the State of Israel. To 'Obi-Wan Kenobi', many empires, not just the Byzantine one, ruled over geographic areas which have since become countries, though they still have their own centuries category as that template shows. Shalom11111 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those who are ignorant of the meaning of terms should not try to impose their ignorance as a rule. Some of the nominations here seem to be motivated by a desire to have Wikipedia reflect a Jewish view of history, over a period of time when the Jews had no political power in the area. They really seem to be pushing a revision to a Zionist view of the categorization of the history of Palestine. I know I am going to get attacked for calling them out, but that is the only way to understand attempts to use "Israel" for things happening in this time period. The listing of this on a Jewish discussion area and nowhere else, when there was no political power for Jews in this area at the time is suspect. I have consistently taken this postion, against Category:1903 establishments in Ukraine, against pre-1922 establishments in Turkey categories, against anachronistic establishments by current name in parts of Africa, and so on. Over and over again the agreement has been we should apply contemporary and not present names and boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi there johnpacklambert: You are right, smearing fellow-editors as "pushing a revision to a Zionist view of the categorization of the history of Palestine" is both an uncalled for provocation and attack by you not to mention a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. How do you know for sure if any editor is a Zionist or not just based on discussions in CfDs? No one is pushing anything, go ahead make WP into a pro-PLO encyclopedia, will you be happy then? Cut out all mention of Israel and Jews you will find a lot of support for that, will you speak out as strongly then when that happens? If anything, for all anyone knows the nominator may be pushing a stealth pro-PLO POV but no one is accusing him of that, hey why not violate WP:AGF and attack the nominator as you do others here to be an equal opportunity critic? Since the fall of Judea to the Romans about 2000 years ago, Jews, Christians and Biblical scholars have never ceased to refer to their original homeland as Land of Israel or Israel for short. Just open a Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and Jewish prayer books and Christian writings about the land and see for yourself. Not everything is based on "political power" or contemporary politics, some things are more durable and meaningful than even that. Finally, the "contemporary" names changed often and various powers have always laid claim to the same territory so there can be simultaneous categories over-laying each other. WP is not a monochrome one-dimensional work, it can handle complexity, diversity and even paradoxes that may elude otherwise seemingly smart people. IZAK (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Izak. He makes some quite convincing and cogent points above.Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. We categorise historic events accoring to the contemporary polity, not the present one. I spent a singificnat time some months ago eliminating (mainly by merger) a lot of Turkish categories relating to a period before there was any such place, the target being a Byzantine or Ottoman one according to period. Though a Christian, I am not enamored with the term "Holy Land" and would prefer us to be using a contemporary provincial name. My Turkish example is not the only one: we have made a lot of changes to eliminate anachronistic names. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed so. We can often get to ridiculous examples with anachronistic applications, such as 19th century in Pakistan, whereas Pakistan obviously hadn't existed until the split of India in 1940s (not even the name "Pakistan"). With the case of Turkey it is also rather amusing, and if applying retro-actively, someone might have said that Turkmen invaded into "15th century Turkey" and defeated Byzantium...GreyShark (dibra) 17:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the wikipedians who participated in such discussions, and who don't care for only one spot on the globe, can attest that previous moves have usually been in the right direction, this makes the case. trespassers william (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. trespassers william (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and consistent with the treatment of every other country on the planet. Israel is no exception. There should be no "Nth Century in Fooland" for any century preceding the independence of Fooland that is recognized internationally (so no centuries at all in Sealand, Biafra, the Conferdate States of America, or other unrecognized places). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have decided some of my previous comments were too strong. However, it has been clearly agreed that Israel is the name of the modern nation-state, and can not be used to refer to the area before that state is created. I have consistently shown my oppistion to anachronistic use of modern country names, and have a current proposal against the 4th-century Guatemala category, which is equally problematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Shalom11111 and IZAK. Wow, how wrong is this encyclopedia getting? Singling out Israel to claim there was no Israelite or Jewish settlement in those centuries is not encyclopedic and indeed pushing a Byzantine POV, no matter how 'funny' that sounds. There does not seem to be a consensus about this on WP, and in fact many examples to show otherwise just a random search of other regions that were inhabited during times predating the recent establishment of the modern state - Category:Centuries in Romania, Serbia, Morocco, England, and many more, etc... If anything, it is legitimate to have an additional parallel categories but certainly not to make this exclusive of the other. For instance, someone using the cats searching for pre-1776 USA history, or pre-927 England, or Ireland (whose article talks about "Prehistoric Ireland") would definitely want a convenient way to know what was in the land-mass of any current state. Relegating the history of Israel to the 20th century when it was formely established is pushing extreme revisionism. --Shuki (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- I fully agree with the user Shuki. 46.19.86.80 (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per John Pack Lambert, Greyshark etc. The objections here are all ideological.Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for those objecting since this is picking on a single country. If Israel is being singled out, then why have many of these categories for the United States, which is a tad larger, already been merged in a similar way to this proposal? I will note that there are currently several discussions on other states currently open at this time. So I fail to see how the claim has any merit. If there is merit can someone point to facts that actually support that position? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a few other categories of centuries in other countries have been merged is simply not a reason to merge this one as well. Look at some current examples at Category:Centuries by country. So unless all of these X-century in X-country categories (of centuries before the countries' independence) are merged into other related categories properly, this one should remain as is. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. We don't catergorise by-period for an entity that did not exist in said period. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Given the fact that no country is being singled out and this is receiving the same treatment as every other country. Since no one has offered any proof to support that accusation, I hope that the closing admin will weigh that in their close decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Oppose per Shuki. Evildoer187 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Vegaswikian supported the move. Do you?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to say Shuki. Brain fart.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:40, 11 April 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:Football at the 2011 Military World Games[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: deleted by RHaworth. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty unused category JMHamo (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:35, 1 April 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:National military association football teams[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: deleted by RHaworth. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category JMHamo (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant to what? I've tagged it as empty. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - empty, therefore redundant. GiantSnowman 12:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - empty cat. Fenix down (talk) 13:02, 4 April 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:Nair's in Indian Police Service[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The value of categorisation by caste has been questioned before (see, for example, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 10#Category:Rajput people). This particular category is a narrow intersection of caste and occupation. Its use seems difficult to justify considering that the parent, Category:Nair people, has been deleted. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 19:31, 1 April 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:British companies established in 2008[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: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, we don't categorize at the triple intersection of type of entity (company), place (British), and year of establishment (2008/2007). I recommend deleting these and upmerging to Category:Companies established in 2008 and Category:2008 establishments in the United Kingdom. If they are kept, this is a categorization scheme we'll want to expand instead. BDD (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Companies established in 2007 by country has 45 sub-cats. While this type of category only seems to exist for 2007 and 2008, it extends far beyond the British categories. We should probably make a unified decision on all of the company by country established in given year cats, not just consider them for one particular country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good find, Category:Companies established in 2007 by country and Category:Companies established in 2008 by country exist, though again, not for any other year as far as I can see. Perhaps I should start a new discussion for those two. I do hope I wouldn't have to tag all of the subcats. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you would need to tag all the subcats to be deleted/upmerged. If you need help, ping me, as I can probably do it using WP:AWB. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I had initially written out that the 2007 category should be upmerged to the appropriate 2007 category, but I thought that obvious. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why are deletions here decided by a small group of wp:CfD insiders and not brought to the attention of WikiProjects such as wp:WikiProject Years and wp:WikiProject United Kingdom? Seems to me that it should be up to those who are involved in the deletion industry at wikipeia to make sure that proper conensus is arrived at before the work of fellow editors is wiped out for no good reason. Oh yes, I am the creator of these (and many other) categories. xOttawahitech (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawa, I and I'm sure the vast majority here would welcome more informed participation here. If you have ideas on how to get more editors to vote here id welcome it. Secondly, did you get consensus from those projects before starting this new scheme, which would lead to hundreds of more categories to create and maintain? If not, why should we ask them if they want to keep, as they weren't consulted before creation? Feel free to notify them but projects are expected to tag and monitor alerts for articles and cats of interest and it's only rarely that projects are informed, it's totally optional and if you see a discussion that you feel would benefit from contribs by a project please notify them - no need to ask permission here nor complain about it - just fix it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Yes they are small categories, but companies of this period have so far only had a few years to grow inot notability. I am not fond of these annual categories, but we do have them. In this case I suspect there is room for populating this from parents. If not kept, then upmerge to relevant parents, possibly including one for British companies established in the 2000s. The equivalent American category has 205 article for 2007, 17 for 2008 and one for 1922. The 2007 category there is big enough to be worthwhile, and I suspect that the others are merely awaiting being better populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As part of an existing scheme by country/year. And keep per WP:DEFINING which states "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". Most of the articles I looked at in the 2007 category state in the lead "X is a British company founded in 2007" or words to that affect. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:03, 7 April 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:Holy Land during Byzantine rule[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: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 05:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a general perception by many users that Holy Land may be a very religiously sensitive and geographically non-precise. However, the previous rename proposal into "Palestine during Byzantine rule" didn't get majority support. To resolve the issue i propose to refer to "Holy Land" during Byzantine rule for its encompassing administrative region - Diocese of the East, which is the most correct term for that area at the time, not going into too much details with borders of subprovinces Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda, Palaestina Salutaris, Arabia Petraea and Phoenice (Roman province) (all comprising Holy Land in some way).GreyShark (dibra) 17:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Diocese of the East was significantly larger than the area usually called the Holy Land. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diocese was indeed larger than Holy Land alone, but during Byzantine times there was no "Holy Land" unit - the region was a part of the Oriens diocese, and included a number of subprovinces as described above. This is the best descriptive concept for that period for that area - similar to Ottoman Syria in Ottoman period.GreyShark (dibra) 19:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I categorically oppose replacing something which is not ideal but at least very clear, by something is definitely not correct, and is in addition not readily understandable for the average reader. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The average reader should be inclined to use an encyclopedia. They have mice for that... trespassers william (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These categories should reflect the reality of the time. They need to align to the political subunits as they then existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the proposed category is not a correct description of that area, as the nominator admitted himself in his reply to me above. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support. Better than my proposal. l believe the Diocese covers the Holy Land even when most widely construed, and of course it is a more solid historical concept that should take precedence.
One question: If it was disestablished on 535, and the area changed hands early in the7th C, will the cat be relevant for the decades in between? trespassers william (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - actually when reading the J.B.Bury [5] source, there is no indication of abolishment of the diocese in 535 CE. It says that "The Count of the East was deprived of his jurisdiction over the Orient diocese and, retaining his title, rank, and emoluments, became the civil governor of the province of Syria Prima." Thus there was a rotation of military and civil governors, but it doesn't say the diocese was abolished.GreyShark (dibra) 04:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this ridiculous suggestion, because it would change the meaning of the category entirely to a solely Christian one of the Eastern Orthodox Church since a "Diocese" (look it up!) is 100% a Christian notion while this category is about the History of the Holy Land (look it up!) during the historical era of the Byzantine Empire that is not just a church history, but includes many other subjects, as a wider notion that has always referred to that area that is/was covered by overlays from Canaan, Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of Judah, Judea, Land of Israel, Greater Israel, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and the various peoples that lived there over the millennia that it would include. ALL of which contain far more history than the very narrow one proposed by the nominator. If anything the nominator should create his new category's name, fill it with Eastern Orthodox Church diocese-related articles, and then make that a sub-category of the one he wishes to change. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are confused - Diocese of the East (Oriens) was a super-province, or Roman diocese, within Byzantine Empire, covering the Levant. This administrative region doesn't have much to do with Christian concept of Diocese, which only distantly refers to administrative organizations of the Byzantine Empire. Furthermore, actually Holy Land is a typical Christian-associated term, which is rarely used in Jewish or Muslim lexicons.GreyShark (dibra) 16:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Greyshark, sorry to say but you are the one creating the confusion by using the ambiguous unclear term "Diocese". If you wish to create a category that will focus on your hobby horse then feel free to create Category:Diocese of the East (Byzantine Empire) that focuses on a Byzantine POV feel free to do so, otherwise we must assume that the current name is a far better general name because it creates no confusion. Merely not to like the well-known and widely-used name Holy Land and replace it with an obscure name that causes confusion (Christian versus Byzantine/Roman) and that only you know about is not a good enough reason for this nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confusion, because Diocese of the East was a Byzantine super-province and we should refer to its border at the time. There is no modern "diocese of the East" in politics or in Christian Churches. If you want to discuss borders of current entities in the Levant, please refer to Template:Location map Israel (which has recently been heavily POV-edited indeed), Module:Location map/data/Syria, template:Location map Lebanon and Template:Location map Palestine.GreyShark (dibra) 15:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If renaming to Category:Diocese of the East (Byzantine Empire) will solve it in your opinion, i would agree.GreyShark (dibra) 15:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- well, I couldn't have said it better than IZAK. Shalom11111 (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When Diocese of the East is an article that requires no disambiguation, there is no reason to disambiguate this category. We should reflect the contemporary political reality in categories. That is why things established in what is now Texas in 1825 are in Category:1825 establishments in Mexico.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnpacklambert: So then that would again mean that there was no "Holy Land" in the time of the Byzantines, which would be an absurd assertion. You claim that: "We should reflect the contemporary political reality in categories" but beg your pardon, where does WP have such an official rule??? "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" could also be a policy to never make up rules about the "order" of things that can inherently be interpreted in dual ways, i.e. that there was a Holy Land before the Byzantines got there, there was a Holy Land during the time the Byzantines occupied the land, and there was a Holy Land there after the Byzantines were kicked out of it. The Holy Land is not "Texas"! This is because the notion of a Holy Land is far deeper in meaning it's linked to the religions of Judaism (the Children of Israel settled it and built their two temples there and much more, and it was always the Holy Land to them, they never disconnected from it ever in history) and Christianity (Jesus was born and died in the Holy Land, Crusaders went to fight for it) and it's a constant given and axiomatic presence in the Bible and the religious writings of Judaism and Christianity, holy and meaningful to millions of Jews and billions of Christian for millennia until the present day. IZAK (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Debresser, and Izak as well ... I'm actually surprised this would even be a nomination given the points they make.Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom -- I am unhappy with "Holy Land" which expresses a medieval/modern Christian POV of the area. I voted above to upmerge Israel in 4th century here, expressing that reservation. The consensus is that categories such as this should reflect contemporary polities. Some contributors may be misled by the term "diocese": this refers to a late Roman administrive unit Roman diocese, not the area {diocese subject to a bishop. Province was the level below. I doubt we have enough content to need to split by province. Possibly the target should be Category:Roman Diocese of the East or Category:Byzantine Diocese of the East. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Diocese of the East is well beyond the Holy Land (regardless of which side of its disputed definition one takes). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what are the exact borders of Holy Land in Byzantine times if i may ask? Do we include Acre in the Holy Land? How about Tyre (now in Lebanon)? St. Katarina in the Sinai peninsula?GreyShark (dibra) 19:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's another discussion, that is irrelevant to this AfD, but is discussed at other articles/images such as Holy Land and File:1759 map Holy Land and 12 Tribes.jpg. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is that another discussion? A category like this is used as an anchor, it helps editors to agree where certain information should be sought for or be placed, where a certain mistake might have snuck in, where coverage is lacking. Moreover, it tells readers where a question might be answered, what they might want to compare, and so work to streamline expectations.
If we first pick the term by which to delineate the scope of a category, and then go to define what this term means, all parties are at loss. Each will seek their own guide. Those imagined lands like Holy Land, have neither definite borders or physical reality, nor a definite body of scholarly work. If you hope to find a definition in the articles, please look at them; Islam has five definitions, Christianity has all these maps, but for other purposes focus on the travels of Jesus, and Judasim talks about Promised land, with two wide ranging versions, and Land of Israel, with its many ancient shifts and halakhic and academic interpretations. BTW, it is transparent that some editors here wish to keep Holy Land because this is their best chance to imagine that the entire history of the land is about the biblical Land of Israel in its fuzzy widest.
The map you linked is from 1759 and like many parallel ones is, errgh a little speculative. At any rate the land of the twelve tribes is far form trivial definition of Holy Land under Byzantine Rule, None of them purports to show any reality of that time. trespassers william (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this specific move request, as the Diocese of the East encompassed territory all the way to the Tigris, and even Egypt for a few decades. While there is a need to move the "Holy Land" category to a more neutral name ("Palestine" would to me be the most obvious and appropriate for the particular context, but the word has become so tangled up in modern politics that it is unusable), the current proposal is definitely not a good solution. Constantine ✍ 08:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In the early period, as Debresser hints, the 'diocese of the east' overwrote in ecclesiastical terms the Roman prefecture, which included Iran. No English speaker thinks of the Holy Land in that unfocused and immensely generic sense. trespasser william's comments are spot-on, also, except for the remark re the fuzziness of 'Holy Land'. In the literature, Palestine means the Holy Land, and the Holy Land Palestine. Historians use Palestine because it is not sectarian and over time administrative divisions change, but an area has an historical and cultural continuity There are too many category disputes in this area, caused by ephemeral political problems over perceived implications that the world of historians has no problems with. The Holy Land is unnecessary as a cat, just as the Land of Israel is unncessary. Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 9 April 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:Wainwrights[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "A Wainwright is a fell in the English Lake District given a chapter by Alfred Wainwright in his Pictorial Guides to the Lakeland Fells. See list of Wainwrights." Poor basis for a category and redundant with the list. Tim! (talk) 05:52, 1 April 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:Recreational mathematics experts[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A much more common way of describing these folks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with renaming. Also, that way we can include people who made notable contributions to recreational mathematics without having to decide whether they are really experts or not. (We still have to decide what is recreational mathematics, not always easy, of course.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, it could be a bit fuzzy, but I would say it's math that is described as such, or mathematical content which is principally produced for consumption by the general public or requiring no advanced training in mathematics. If someone does this for their friends at the dinner table they're not a "recreational mathematician", but if they regularly publish such works, videos, etc that are mentioned in RS, or if they are paid for the creation of such content/puzzles/etc (eg. Marvin Gardner), then they are RMs. Remember, categories are not intended to cover every job a person has done, it's really intended to cover things that are WP:DEFINING about them. i'm gonna have to go read some of your rec math pages it looks fun! :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I think are recreational are listed here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with renaming. Professor Eppstein is one of these "experts" and he agrees. What can I say! I actually vacillated between these two names when creating the category because I feel that neither sounds exactly right.--Foobarnix (talk) 14:00, 1 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_1&oldid=1138398903"