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.
Delete, it doesn't seem to make sense to categorize redirects in a maintenance category, and I don't expect a further clarification from the creator of the category as they have been close to inactive for the past 3 years. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention that the naming of these categories is often used in the coding of the rcat templates that populate them. Care should be taken when attempting to rename any and all redirect categories. Paine Ellsworthput'r there01:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that it's not just singular "category", but plural "categories", so far to the tune of nearly twenty just to monitor the "fictional elements" of different works. Also monitored are the fictional characters and soon to be expanded are the places/locations that are associated with fictional works. A fictional element could be an object such as a Galaxy class starship (Star Trek). An element can also be a "concept" or a type of embedded idea in a work of fiction. An example would be the Riddle of Steel, an aphorism on the importance of the metal used to make swords to the Cimmerians of the Conan works. The three aspects of fictional works for which editors have created tracking categories are "characters", "places" and "elements". So their purpose is to sort and monitor the redirects to fictional works that fall into those three aspects. Please keep in mind that I just try to help keep these categorized correctly with the existing rcats. I am not an expert on the study of fictional works. So if I'm not doing a good job explaining it, that's why. However I do hope I've been able to help in a small way. Paine Ellsworthput'r there16:46, 11 March 2017 (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
Comment How does MOS:ENGVAR apply to categories, and in particular MOS:RETAIN? (Your argument could be seen as a variation of MOS:ARTCON, except that strictly speaking isn't relevant here, since the name of a category is not consistency "within a given article"–unless we argue that the relevant article for MOS:ARTCON is the parent category, but that position is problematic given a single category can have multiple parent categories whose names may be based on different varieties of English, and applying that rule recursively starting at some very high up the tree categories could force almost all category names into the same variety of English) So, I'm leaning towards !vote oppose on the basis of MOS:RETAIN, but want to hear some response to this issue before actually doing so. SJK (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really applying article policies. As far as I know, WP:CATNAME doesn't say anything on this. So my argument is just consistency with its parent and child categories. I don't prefer one or the other, but this one sticks out in Category:Color. I don't know what the precedent of consistency in context of spelling variation is, if any. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK20:30, 12 February 2017 (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.
Do with have another category of the kind of ":category:xxth-century <foo ethnic group> people" ? I'm familiar only with national categories of this structure.GreyShark (dibra) 05:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Kievan Rus'. This is categorizing people by polity, which in most cases is the best historical practice. Jews are an ethno-religious group who experienced a period of diaspora that lasted on the order of 2500 years, with full diaspora mainly for 1900+ years, who are a special case. Prior to the coming of the Roma the Jews were essentially the only ethnic minority group in much of Europe. Most other groups, at least in the medieval era, are better identified with polities. The Ancient Greeks are another group that has no clear connection to a specific polity, but in the Kievan Rus' case we are better off declaring the polity and not trying to parse ethnicity, especially since that issue is so closely connected to competing modern nationalistic claims between Russia and Ukraine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm weakly disagreeing with this. Most importantly, Rus' and Kievan Rus' are both better than the current Ruthenian. But Kievan Rus' was hardly a polity in the modern sense, most of the time it was merely a set of smaller states of which the parallel rulers were close or distant family members, of the Rurik dynasty. The Rus' people and the dynasty were more defining than the Kievan Rus' polity. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2017 (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: delete/upmerge, we don't normally diffuse an ethnicity by nationality descent (we don't have Category:Jewish people of German descent, for example) and this tree is a bad place to start such a diffusion because it merely leads to minuscule categories. Except for one Albanian, one Greek (Isidore of Kiev) and one Moldovan we don't have to merge because the others are adequately categorized in a Rus' princes or Rus' princesses category already. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge suggested deletions, but keep suggested mergers -- Most of these relate to royal spouses, who are probably best categorised with their original and final nationality. However, the Greek subcat is worth having, covering a Greek missionary and the son of an abducted Greek nun. I am not sure what to do about the Moldovan case: possibly also upmerge. The Albanian one relates to a Bishop of Lviv, a Polish city (now in Belorus), whose article does not actually state his origin: probably delete as OR, unless the article is changed to justify the category. Whatever the outcome, it should match the outcome of the Ruthenian/Rus' debate also today. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't relate to royal spouses but to royal mothers. I can't imagine that we categorize monarchs by their mothers' country of birth anywhere else in the category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll purge the article in the Albanian descent category, German WP refers to a more elaborate source than English WP but that doesn't mention anything about Albanian either. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete all per nom. We should only have descent categories where there is a clear indication that the people involved see this as some bond. There is no indication that the two Princes of Rus' who had mothers who were in some fashion Greek saw themselves as in any way Greek. We are imposing modern notions of ethnicity and descent in a pre-modern era in a way that just does not make sense to that time and place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Marcocapelle: a weakness of this nomination is that other Ruthenian categories have been merged or renamed to Rus' or Kievan Rus' (e..g the nomination above, and Peterkingiron suggested that this group should follow the outcome of that one. If that were to happen to the remainder of Category:Ruthenian people including these categories, the first rationale falls away, because these would then be diffusing a nationality by nationality descent, which is widely accepted. Also, is there anything against merger to parents like Category:People of Greek descent? That one holds articles directly, not only via sub-cats, e.g. Princess Aka II of Commagene has been in it for 4 years without challenge. – FayenaticLondon21:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After removing the Albanian one (see previous part of discussion) we have three 'issues' left: article Isidore of Kiev in the Greek category, article Danylo Apostol in the Moldovan category and a couple of articles about Kievan Rus' princes in several subcategories.
Then finally about the articles about Kievan Rus' princes (who are already in the Kievan Rus' category tree and don't belong in this Ruthenian tree). I think it's not correct to categorize kings and princes in a descent category based on their mother's nationality, and User:Johnpacklambert earlier in the discussed phrased very well why it's not, so I'm not going to change the nomination in this respect. (If however these categories are kept they should at least be renamed and reparented from Ruthenian to Kievan Rus'.)
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.
Support, to avoid ambiguity and we primarily categorize by country. Apparently (while reading the speedy discussion) there are quite some more categories that need to be renamed from Palestine or Palestinian Territories to State of Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support most -- I am not sure about ethnic groups: the same groups were probably present in earlier polities, so that there may be a case for keeping that. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As requested by yourself in previous discussions on this topic - i took a careful look to include only those pages which are relevant to the modern Palestinian polity, while moving others to appropriate periods/states. Currently, charities includes 3 functional organizations - two in the West Bank controlled areas of Ramallah administration (State of Palestine) and one in Gaza, which is at least de-jure belonging to the State of Palestine. In case of ethnicities, this refers to the current demographics of the Palestinian polity (those with Palestinian IDs) - there are Arabs (farmer Fellakhin, nomad Bedouin & city-dwelling Madani'in), minority Christians (Christian Arabs), and few Samaritans and Jews with Palestinian IDs; less known subgroups are Afro-Arabs; do not see any out-of-place article there.GreyShark (dibra) 21:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as of now, there is no State of Palestine so we should not categorize anything that hasn't happened yet. It should be Palestinian Territories, or Palestinian Authority, etc. Sir Joseph(talk)16:33, 14 February 2017 (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.
Support. Agree current category name is unsatisfactorily ambiguous and that given the category content the proposed name is appropriate. SJK (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2017 (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: According to description on category page, this category should only contain software which relates to Classic Mac OS, not software exclusive to macOS / Mac OS X, but including software which is available for both Classic Mac OS and also other platforms including macOS / Mac OS X. Given that, I think the current title is likely to confuse the uninitiated and people will mistakenly put macOS software in here. Putting the word "Classic" in the name will make things clearer. Note this has already been done for some (but not all) of the subcategories. SJK (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2017 (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.
