Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 2

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:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:News-Press & Gazette Company brands to Category:News-Press & Gazette Company

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The use of subcategories is extraneous as the parent category, News Press and Gazette Company, only has one entry (for the company), and two subcategories for its properties and people. This is prcatically needless overcategorisation. azumanga (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is the well-developed Category:Brands in which this sits. Occuli (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:News-Press & Gazette Company people to Category:News-Press & Gazette Company

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Same reason as above. azumanga (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is the well-developed Category:People in which this sits. I expect someone can add a suitable 'people' parent. (The category which is perhaps superfluous is the eponymous Category:News-Press & Gazette Company.) Occuli (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of a well-developed parent structure and as an aid to navigation for this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of a series of similar categories. The appropriate parent category seems to be Category:Newspaper people, to which I have just added it, although there may be a more appropriate sub-category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy close. No proposed action (deletion, merger, or renaming), and no rationale. If the fucking nominator can't be arsed to explain what the perceived issue is with the category, then fucking wikipeida processes have nothing to discuss. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• category:Black and white birds
• no i can't be arsed to do this correctly if the fucking wikipeida: articals don't provide lcearity and are unnavigable. if you have a problem with it, please feel free to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lygophile (talk • contribs)

• Comment – the lack of lcearity in Wikipedia is indeed deplorable. Occuli (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in Canada to Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Convertion of Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per #4. Debresser (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• REverse merge and also merge in Category:Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada cathedrals and a few more. A church is not just a building but the people who worship in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Eastern Orthodox congregations in Canada. Alas for the over-hasty, ill-considered, and half-conversion of "churches" to "church buildings." Some articles, like Church of Saint Bridget, Liverpool, are indeed almost entirely about the building, but others, like St. Clement of Ohrid Macedonian Orthodox Church, Toronto, are primarily about the local congregation, with little discussion of the building. The usual pattern is for the congregation to be established first, and once established they are able to raise funds to erect a structure; St. Adalbert's in Chicago was founded in 1874 but its building not consecrated until 1914. Many congregations have occupied multiple buildings, while many have never occupied any building permanently. No cleanup was undertaken after the mass renames, which have led to incorrect characterizations (like Congregation of Saint Michael the Archangel falling into Category:Church buildings established in the 20th century) and awkward workarounds (like Category:Protestant church buildings and congregations by century established). Consensus was that "churches" was unsuitable because it could be confused with the Church universal and or theological traditions and denominations identified as Churches, but let's not compound the mess. I propose two parallel branches: "congregations" for the religious organizations (parish being unsuitable to many denominations, and "congregations" being broad enough to include other kinds of religious communities such as monastic communities), and "church buildings" for the buildings. Thus, Shrine of the Sacred Heart would be in 19th-century congregations but 20th-century church buildings. What say ye? - choster (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the concepts of a congregation and a church building have been sadly blurred on WP. However, in most cases there is much more imformation about buildings than there is about congregations. This is because churches are usually prominant pieces of architecture, and are often found on heritage registers and included in architectural history books and tourism guides. Therefore we should continue from the assumption that most articles on "churches" primarily deal with a building rather than a congregation, until proven otherwise. Therefore my proposal would stand. If we later create a parallel categorization branch for congragations I would support that. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the situtation with articles like Robertson-Wesley United Church which is categorized as 1913 architecture and a 1971 establishment? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This name will allow it to be both kept as a sub-cat Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in Canada and made a sub-cat of others such a Category:Eastern Orthodox congregations in Canada or maybe other subsets Category:Religious organizations based in Canada, should they arise. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. If you look at the articles included they are also included in various building and structures categories. So these are clearly about the buildings. If the congregations are also notable, then those articles can be created and the new congregation categories if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. In the overwhelming majority of cases, there is no point in creating separate articles on a church congregation and its building, and all the articles I have seen cover at leasts some of both aspects. I agree with Kevlar67 that most articles focus more on the buildings, but that is not sufficient reason to create a category structure which appears designed for articles that are solely about the buildings, or to clutter up the category structure with parallel paths for the building and the congregation, which in most cases will be simply duplication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 9 February 2010 (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: administrative close: as noted, this change is in the process of being implemented via this CfD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Filipino films to Category:Philippine films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. Sunuraju (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This has already been done following this CfD. Lugnuts (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Effects of the 2010 Haiti earthquake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:2010 Haiti earthquake (sole supercategory). This is an unneeded level of categorization, all of its contents can be safely stored in its single parent, which is not excessively populated. The sole article populating the category used to be categorized in the parent, and there are only 3 subcategories aside from the sole article populating the category.70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (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. The consensus here seems to be that "Soviet immigrants" and "Russian immigrants" are more appropriate categorizations than the proposed "Russian and Soviet immigrants" or "Russian or Soviet immigrants". Miscategorization is a problem, and working with volunteer resources often presents the problem of who will be the one to fix all the articles. This proposal does not have sufficient support, though. Jafeluv (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian immigrants to the United States to Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to the United States

Suggest merging Category:Soviet immigrants to the United States to Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to the United States

Propose renaming Category:Russian immigrants to Canada to Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to Canada

Suggest merging Category:Soviet immigrants to Canada to Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to Canada

Propose renaming Category:Russian immigrants to Israel to Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to Israel

Suggest merging Category:Soviet immigrants to Israel to Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to Israel

Nominator's rationale: Rename and Merge, as indicated. Currently there are only three categories of Soviet immigrants to a particular country (those listed above) and each list only between four and six individuals. (There are a further nine individuals listed in the parent category Category:Soviet emigrants.) The categories of Russian immigrants to these three countries list 103 (for United States), 18 (for Canada) and 100 (for Israel) individuals. I propose the merging/renaming of the listed categories for the following reasons

• Many (possibly a majority) of the individuals in the three “Russian immigrant” categories listed above (including some placed by me) relate wholly, or partly, to the Soviet era. After reviewing a large number of the articles on the individuals in such categories, it is difficult, if not impossible, to correctly allocate many of them between “Russian” and “Soviet” because the date of immigration is not specified, or such immigrant emigrated close to the beginning or end of the Soviet regime.
• A number of the individuals listed in the “Russian immigrants” categories were from Soviet Republics of the Soviet Union other than the Russian Republic. Accordingly, the characterization of them as “Russian” is nor strictly correct, although if such individuals spanned the Soviet era, the new categories “Russian and Soviet..” will be appropriate.
• The merger will enable a measure of additional tidying up to take place. For example, the parent category Category:Immigrants :to Israel (which ideally should solely a be container category) currently contains nine individuals, nearly all of whom were recently moved back there from Category:Russian immigrants to Israel by a user who considers they did not correctly belong to the latter category. These entries will, however, clearly fit in Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to Israel. It will also enable the {{parentcat}} banner to be replaced at the heading of the category (which had been removed when the nine articles on individuals were moved to the parent category).
• The parent categories and subcategories of the merging categories will remain parent categories and subcategories of the merged category, except in cases where they have be merged into the merged category. Davshul (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, I propose a number of ancillary renaming of categories, as set out below Davshul (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category: Russian immigrants to Argentina to Category: Russian and Soviet immigrants to Argentina

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category contains just one entry, which spans both Russian (Imperial) and Soviet periods Also suggest renaming for the sake of consistency and to avoid future problems of allocation. Davshul (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category: Russian immigrants to Australia to Category: Russian and Soviet immigrants to Australia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category currently contains just two entries, one of which spans both Russian (Imperial) and Soviet periods and the other is post Soviet. Also suggest renaming for the sake of consistency and to avoid future problems of allocation. Davshul (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category: Russian immigrants to Austria to Category: Russian and Soviet immigrants to Austria

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category currently contains just one entry, who within the post-Soviet period. Suggest renaming for sake of consistency and to avoid future problems of allocation. Davshul (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category: Russian immigrants to France to Category: Russian and Soviet immigrants to France

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category currently contains 13 entries, three of which spans both Russian (Imperial) and five others are without dates of immigrations and could well span the Soviet perod as well as the earlier Imperial priod of post-Soviet period. Also suggest renaming to avoid problems of allocation and for the sake of consistency. Davshul (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category: Russian immigrants to Germany to Category: Russian and Soviet immigrants to Germany

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category currently contains just one entry, who falls within the post-Soviet period. Suggest renaming for sake of consistency and to avoid future problems of allocation. Davshul (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category: Russian immigrants to Norway to Category: Russian and Soviet immigrants to Norway

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category currently contains just three entries, two of whom are Russian (Imperial) immigrants and the third relates to the Soviet period. Suggest renaming to avoid problems of allocation and for the sake of consistency. Davshul (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Later:

Propose renaming Category: Russian immigrants to the United Kingdom to Category: Russian and Soviet immigrants to the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category currently contains 14 entries, six of which fall within the Russian (Imperial) or early Soviet era, six are predominately post-Soviet, one is Soviet era and another is without any helpful dates. Also suggest renaming to avoid problems of allocation and for the sake of consistency. Davshul (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - regarding all of these, remember that "Soviet" and "Imperial Russian" are terms of citizenship, whereas "Russian" is a term of ethnicity. Many people who fled the Russian Empire and Soviet Union were non-Russian. Also durign the Soviet era, a Russia was a sub-unit of a larger state (like California to the US). Any proposal must consider that. I dislike the idea that people fleeing Russianization end up categorized as "Russian" if at all possible. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevlar, I too share your concern about about inaccurately categorizing people as "Russian". As mentioned above, this is one of the primary reasons I am suggesting the renaming/merging of the various categories, since currently many of the individuals in the "Russian immigrants" categories do not belong there, and the additional reference to "Soviet" will, I believe, solve this problem. As regards the question of ethnicity, "Russian" can be construed as a term of ethnicity and (pre and post Soviet era) citizenship. In the context of the categories listed above and the other various "immigrant" categories, the categorization is generally, and should be, according to the national state. It is the sub-categories of Category:People by ethnic or national origin that tends to relate to ethnicity. Davshul (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate that you are trying to act with care. However, as you said, emigrants are categorized by state. The Soviet Union was undoubtedly a different state than the Tsarist Empire. Soviet categories are well developed in WP, why start blending them now? If we can distinguish Category:Soviet ice hockey players and Category:Soviet politicians from others in Category:People by country, why do have to change this convention for emigrants? A few of them may have poor sources on the date of immigration, but that just implies the articles need work, not that the category is faulty. I suspect that clear inclusion guidlines are needed to keep them from overlapping, but that it is not impossible to figure out who goes where. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 23:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevlar, I would really like to bring you on board on this one. You ask why start blending Soviet and Russian in this class of categories and not others. I believe that the difference lies in the fact that in this category, unlike other similar categories, including the examples mentioned by you, the Russian/Soviet aspect is, in most cases, very much secondary. In the example given by you, these relate to hockey players and politicians that were IN the Soviet Union. However, the immigrant categories relate to individuals who had lived in Russia or the Soviet Union, in most cases prior to their attaining notability, and became residents/citizens of another country with which they generally identified. It is probably for this reason that in many instances (especially the immigrants to the US), that there is no indication whatsoever as to the date of immigration, since it is not necessarily such an inherent part as to whom the individual was or is.

The decision to propose the changes of name/mergers was not the result of a passing whim of mine. In fact, initially I tried (as suggested in your comment) to allocate the various immigrants (at such time, immigrants to Israel) into their respective subcategories. (I am currently working on creating articles for recipients of the Israel Prize, many of whom were immigrants from eastern Europe.) Partly because of the existence of the two (Russian/Soviet) categories, I found it an almost impossible task, having to “take a view” in certain instances. My actions were followed by another user reverting a number of my edits and placing the individuals in the parent category Category:Immigrants to Israel, stating that for immigrants whose nationality at the time of emigrating was unclear, it is original research to denote someone's nationality in many of these cases. He also urged me to revert other similar edits that I had made. I then realised (and advised him) that a merged category would, in many instances, solve this problem. Furthermore, when I looked into the categories of Soviet/Russian immigrants to other countries, I became even more convinced of the need to merge. For example, a stated above, the Category:Soviet immigrants to the United States is practically unpopulated, whereas there are over 100 individuals in Category:Russian immigrants to the United States, many of whom fall within the Soviet era or there is insufficient information to classify them and they have merely been placed under Russia by default (which, I believe, was among your primary concerns when initially commenting on these proposals). Equally, when looking at the smaller categories, the present situation is similarly unsatisfactory, for example, with regard to Norway, a separation between Soviet and Russian would probably result in the creation of two categories for just three individuals.

There are quite a number of other examples and points I could give and make, but I believe that this comment has already gone on too long. Having spent many hours on reviewing the various categories and preparing the subject proposal and comments, in the non-Wikipediaworld, I still have a living to make. I hope I have now managed to convince you to support the proposals. Davshul (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, people are already being mis-categorized as "Russian", and his would help prevent it, then I am for the proposal. However, it may then be necessary to ask whether or how we would deal with people who are ambiguously "Soviet" and something else, other than Russian. For example people who fled the Baltic states or Eastern Poland during the Soviet Invasions of 1939 or shortly thereafter. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would take a sample of those categorized under Category:Russian immigrants to the United States, you will see that many are mis-categorized. (The fact that there are only 6 individuals in the Soviet category is an indication of this.) Even if an attempt was made to review each of the over 200 individuals in the various “Russian” categories to allocate them between Russian and Soviet (and I’m not volunteering!), there would still be many incapable of definite or correct allocation, and, even thereafter, the matter would need constant policing.

Regarding your second point, this is a good question and it would be be helpful to establish WP guidelines in dealing with the same, but it really it is a separate issue from the Soviet/Russian mergers. The whole question of the appropriate category or categories to use with regard to emigrants from Baltic States (depending on the relevant dates) and, for later periods, the other successor states to the Soviet Union, is often a quandary, and sometimes contentious, but at least, if the proposed change of names/mergers are approved, it is a two facet discussion rather than three. Similar, though not identical, are problems that arise with regard to emigrants from other dismembered multi-national empires (in particular, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire) and other transfers of territory (for example, between Poland and the Soviet Union). I would be happy to join with you in trying to establish such guideline. I have one or two ideas in this respect. Davshul (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevlar, I note that your edit comment stated "Support", when submitting your comment on 5 February 2010. Davshul (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - with regard to the names of the new proposed categories, is it preferable to refer to "Russian and Soviet immigrants", as indicated, or "Russian or Soviet immigrants"? Davshul (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Russian was only one of many ethnicities in the Soviet Union, and Russia was only one of its republics. It would be much better to redistribute all the Soviet people according to their actual ethncicity, thus emptying the categories, which canb then either be deleted or left as parent-only catgories. Note that all Soviet citizens had an internal passport which clearly identified their ethicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As discussed above, these categories and their sister categories have nothing to do with ethnicity. Indeed, articles placed in any of these categories purely on ethnic ground would, and should, be removed. (By the way, one of the “ethnic” groups recognized by the Soviets was Jewish, and to place an individual in a category of, say, “Jewish immigrants to Israel” would give no indication of his origins.) The categories are subcategories of Russian or Soviet emigrants and relate to the emigration of Russian and Soviet citizens. Soviet citizens may well have had internal passports, but only a handful of the approximate 250 articles on Russian/Soviet emigrants would reveal with any certainty their ethnicity according to their internal passport. Basically what is at issue is not the ethnicity of the individuals but, based upon known information, whether it is possible or practical to categorize such individual between Soviet and Russian citizens (irrespective of their ethnicity). As I believe I have demonstrated in the long discussion above, it is well neigh impossible accurately to make the allocation between the two categories and that they should be merged. Davshul (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There needs to be a statement of intent here: are these categories "X immigrants to Y" intended to identify X as the sovereign state from which they emigrated, in which the cats should be left alone, or the part of the world from which they emigrated? In the latter case Peterkingiron and others above are correct and the Soviet category should be emptied and people moved to Russian, Armenian, Latvian, whatever. I notice that there exists Category:Ottoman Empire immigrants to the United States and Category:Austro-Hungarian Empire immigrants to the United States but no East German, West German, Prussian, etc, so the current situation is inconsistent. Sussexonian (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to the first part of your comment, and as stated in the earlier discussion, the "X" in your example is intended to identify sovereign state from which the immigrant emigrated. The arguement is not that "Soviet immigrants" categories are not justifiable categories, they are. However, as has been demonstated above, it is well nigh impossible, based upon the information in the relevent articles and the, at times, hazzy distinction between categories (in the transition of one regime to another), to accurately allocate the individuals among "Russsian", "Soviet", "Imperial Russian" and, as raised in the previous comment "White Russian" immigrants. For example, at present, there are over 250 individuals placed in the various "Russian" immigrants categories. Strictly speaking, based upon the present prolification of categories, these should only include persons who emigrated from the Russian Federation after the fall of the Soviet Union, which probably accounts for just a handful of the individuals. Accordingly. what is being proposed is a merger of the categories that would result in the all the individuals being correctly categories. The alternative is to leave things as they are (which means over 200 articles are clearly incorrectly categories), or for someone (who?) to go through each of the hundreds of articles to try and correctly categories them, only to find that in many instances it is impossible (see the discussion above). As regards the second part of your comment, I agree that it is inconsistent, but my recommendation is (based upon bitter experience) that it is best left alone, and let the present German immigrants categories encompass the earlier German entities. Davshul (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary of Comments. As it has been over a week since the last comment, I feel it might be helpful to summarize the position to date with regard to both this topic and the following topic (regarding "Imperial Russian emigrants").

There was a full and wide discussion of the relevant issues of this topic with Kevlar, who in his final comment of February 5, confirmed that he was “for the proposal”, his comment summary stating "Support"

Subsequently, comments were raised by Peterkingiron and Sussexonian, both of whom registered an initial “oppose”. However, Peterkingiron's only comment regarding this topic was that it “would be much better to redistribute all the Soviet people according to their actual ethnicity, thus emptying the categories” and it was pointed out that, apart from the impractically of doing this, the categories in this group do not relate to ethnicity (as discussed with Kevlar), but relate to emigrants from a sovereign state. Sussexonian also raised the issue of ethnicity, as well as issues outside the scope of the proposal (e.g. relating to immigrants to the various German predecessor states). However, he added that if these categories are to reflect (as they do) emigrants from a particular sovereign state, then “the cats should be left alone”, which was similar to the view taken by Peterkingiron in his comment below regarding "Imperial Russian immigrants". As pointed out to Peterkingiron and Sussexonian, they did not to take note of the extensive comments that had already taken place. The argument is not that the "Soviet immigrants" and ‘Imperial Russian” categories are not justifiable categories, they are. The fact is that it is neither possible nor practical accurately to allocate many (possibly a majority) of the emigrants between the relevant categories. Following the explanations given to Peterkingiron and Sussexonian, neither has responded further.

It should be emphasized that, if approval is not given to the various changes of name/mergers proposed, then, for the reasons discussed at length above, well over 200 of the approximately 250 articles currently in these categories will clearly have been incorrectly categorized, a situation that can be averted by approving the proposals. In addition, non-approval would result in the creation of a whole host of new categories (many containing only one or two entries) to reflect, for each country receiving the immigrants, a categorizing of the immigrants among four separate categories ("Russian", "Soviet", "Imperial Russian" and, as discussed, "White Russian" immigrants), not to mention the allocation of many immigrants to the parent category due to the inability to accurately identify to which of the categories they belong, or the placing of immigrants in two or more categories. I accordingly urge approval of the proposals. Davshul (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Russian and Soviet em/immigrants should be separatedly categorized with some individuals thereby inevitably catted twice - no big deal Mayumashu (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2010 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancillary to the previous topic, the following actions are also proposed regarding the four categories of Imperial Russian immigrants to specific countries.

Suggest merging Category:Imperial Russian immigrants to Canada to Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to Canada

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category contains 11 entries, six of whom fled to Canada at the beginning of, or well into the Soviet era, and in two other cases no dates of immigration are given. Furthermore the current category Category:Russian immigrants to Canada includes some immigrants that could be termed as falling within the Imperial period. There appears to be no justification for this separate category and, in addition, the difficulties of allocation between the Russian (in this case Imperial Russian) and the Soviet periods (as discussed above) also apply here. Davshul (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Russian immigrants to Turkey to Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to Turkey

Suggest merging Category:Imperial Russian immigrants to Turkey to Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to Turkey

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Each of the existing categories contains just one entry, and even the “Russian immigrants” entry could possibly be termed as “Imperial Russian” or “Soviet”. Davshul (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Imperial Russian immigrants to the United States to Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category contains just 13 entries, most of whom do fall within the Imperial period, although at least a couple fled to the US during the Soviet era. However, the current category Category:Russian immigrants to the United States includes many immigrants that could possibly be termed as falling within the Imperial period or where it is unclear whether they fall within the Imperial or Soviet era. There appears to be no justification for this separate category. Davshul (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Imperial Russian immigrants to Romania to Category:Russian and Soviet immigrants to Romania

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category contains just four entries, one of which is clearly more attributable to the Soviet era. Davshul (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- This category refers to a clear period - pre-1917. While all concerned would have eben Russian citizens before 1917, they would not necessarily afterwards, as the Soviet Union classified its citzens into many ethnicities. As I am opposing the renaming propsoed above, I must also oppose this one. Perhaps I am wrong in saying "1917" as the category might properly include White Russians who left at the end of the Red v White civil war after the October Revolution. White Russians are clearly a disticnt group who were effectively stateless after WWI. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As pointed out in the analysis carried out in connection with the previous topic, many, and in some cases a majority, of the individuals placed in the categories of “Russian immigrants” include individuals who emigrated from the Russian Empire or otherwise during pre-Soviet period (for example, see Category:Russian immigrants to the United Kingdom). Not only do most of the comments made by me in respect of the discussion on the Russian/Soviet immigrants apply here, users are clearly confused by, or do not relate to, separate categories of “Imperial Russian immigrants”. As Peterkingiron himself points out, even, in the case of post-Imperial Russian immigrants, one could not clearly classify all of them as “Soviet” (in the case of White Russians), not to mention those who emigrated during the period between the May and October revolutions. However, a merged category of Russian and Soviet immigrants, would clearly correctly encompass all such individuals. As mentioned in the comments to the previous topic, ethnicity is simply not relevant to these groups of categories. Davshul (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary of Comments. Please see summary in discussion of previous topic. Davshul (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Russian and Soviet immigrants should be separatedly categorized with some individuals thereby inevitably catted twice Mayumashu (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Anglophone Japanese writers to Category:English-language writers from Japan

Category:Filipino writers in English to Category:English-language writers from the Philippines

Category:Indian English poets to Category:English-language poets from India

Category:Indian English writers to Category:English-language writers from India

Category:Pakistani English-poets to Category:English-language poets from Pakistan

Category:Pakistani English-writers to Category:English-language writers from Pakistan

and merging Category:Anglo Indian writers to Category:English-language writers from India

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the parent categories, Category:English-language writers and Category:English-language poets. Also, some of the current names are ambiguous ("Indian English writers" could be English-language writers from India or writers who write in Indian English) or ungrammatical (there's no hyphen in "English poets" or "English writers"). Jafeluv (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. This is a very good nomination and the proposals resolve ambiguities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Works for me, though I'd like to see Anglophone retained as a category redirect where appropriate. It would be nice to extend this category system to English-language writers from Africa (a large group that would need some national subcategories), from various Caribbean countries (also a large group), from China, etc.--Icuc2 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support standarisation Debresser (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support standards and clarity --Nuwanda360 (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC) nom. This is a very good nomination and the proposals resolve standards and ambiguities.[reply]
• Support Renames to standardize titles and better describe the content of the categories. Alansohn (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The Indian categories may need careful investigation. "Anglo-Indian" refers to an ethnic group of mixed race descent, from English residents in India as father, with an Indian wife or mistress (rather than vice versa). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2010 (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. A strict application of the convention for such categories might have resulted in a rename to Category:Keystone Aircraft aircraft, but there seems to be no appetite for such that rather odd-looking construct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Propose renaming Category:Keystone aircraft to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: Confusing, as it seems to refer to the manufacturer itself: Keystone Aircraft, but actually is a category for aircraft built by Keystone Aircraft. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Seems to follow the convention of Category:Aircraft by manufacturer. I suppose you could rename it to Category:Keystone Aircraft aircraft. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the current name is correct. For example, aircraft by Bensen Aircraft is at Category:Bensen aircraft. Adding an extra "Aircraft" there would only be confusing. Jafeluv (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: standard WP:AIRCRAFT project category, just to avoid confusion I have added a catmain link back to Keystone Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (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. Parent category can be renamed later. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Images of the Doctor to Category:Images of the Doctor (Doctor Who)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match Doctor (Doctor Who) since there are a variety of people, characters, movies, paintings, etc. named "the Doctor". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, if it weren't for the fact that it's a subcategory of Category:Doctor Who character images I'd agree with that argument. - J Greb (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories can be applied and seen without an examination of its parent category taking place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ambiguously named categories will be populated with images that should not belong, and require constant patrolling, regardless of which category tree in which they fall, because they are named ambiguously. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename all} per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging:

• merge Category:Cities, towns and villages in Brazil to Category:Settlements in Brazil
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Central-West Region of Brazil to Category:Settlements in the Central-West Region of Brazil Category:Settlements in the Central-West Region, Brazil
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in the North Region of Brazil to Category:Settlements in the Northern Region of Brazil Category:Settlements in the Northern Region, Brazil (fixing name to match Northern Region, Brazil)
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Northeast Region of Brazil to Category:Settlements in the Northeast Region of Brazil Category:Settlements in the Northeast Region, Brazil
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Southern Region of Brazil to Category:Settlements in the Southern Region of Brazil Category:Settlements in the Southern Region, Brazil
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Southeast Region of Brazil to Category:Settlements in the Southeast Region of Brazil Category:Settlements in the Southeast Region, Brazil
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Goiás to Category:Settlements in Goiás
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Mato Grosso to Category:Settlements in Mato Grosso
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Mato Grosso do Sul to Category:Settlements in Mato Grosso do Sul
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Acre (state) to Category:Settlements in Acre (state)
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Amapá to Category:Settlements in Amapá
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Pará to Category:Settlements in Pará
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Rondônia to Category:Settlements in Rondônia
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Roraima to Category:Settlements in Roraima
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Tocantins to Category:Settlements in Tocantins
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Alagoas to Category:Settlements in Alagoas
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Bahia to Category:Settlements in Bahia
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Ceará to Category:Settlements in Ceará
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Maranhão to Category:Settlements in Maranhão
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Paraíba to Category:Settlements in Paraíba
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Pernambuco to Category:Settlements in Pernambuco
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Piauí to Category:Settlements in Piauí
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Rio Grande do Norte to Category:Settlements in Rio Grande do Norte
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Sergipe to Category:Settlements in Sergipe
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Espírito Santo to Category:Settlements in Espírito Santo
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Minas Gerais to Category:Settlements in Minas Gerais
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Rio de Janeiro (state) to Category:Settlements in Rio de Janeiro (state)
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in São Paulo (state) to Category:Settlements in São Paulo (state)
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Paraná (state) to Category:Settlements in Paraná (state)
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Rio Grande do Sul to Category:Settlements in Rio Grande do Sul
• Category:Cities, towns and villages in Santa Catarina (state) to Category:Settlements in Santa Catarina (state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a follow-up nomination to this discussion, where it was agreed that the categories for "Cities, towns and villages" in Brazil should be renamed to "Settlements" in Brazil. The one for Amazonas state was already renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, although I would slightly prefer Category:Settlements in Central-West Region, Brazil and similar to match the parent articles. Jafeluv (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a good point. Nomination adjusted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:10, 2 February 2010 (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 to Category:Science and technology by decade. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Decades in science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry which I have put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1970s in science. This is the the only cat in a "decades in science" series. Categories for 1970s in science, 1980s in science etc already exist. The years in science series are poorly maintained. To make maint easier and since there seems to be little interest in developing these articles the decade in science cat should be deleted. Years and centuries in science cats already exist. Decades in science is overcategorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All "Decades in..." categories are unneeded. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm pretty dubious about "by decade" categories & articles too, but we have 3 articles here, and they should be categorized in the "Categories by decade" scheme. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is going to be kept it should be renamed Science an technology by decade. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep / Rename to Category:Science and technology by decade the ctageory is defining but I agree with the nominator above on a proposed name change. No reason to doubt further expansion. Alansohn (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• REname per Alansohn. I also do not like "by decade" categories, but scientific discoveries do happen at a particular date (or short period), so that this could provide a useful category scheme. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2010 (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.