From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 11 February 13 >

February 12

Category:A Song of Ice and Fire element redirects to lists

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. The parent category is Category:Fictional element redirects to lists and it has similarly-named sibling categories within that hierarchy, so a clear consensus would be necessary before diverging from that pattern. – Fayenatic London 15:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary distinction. Charles Essie ( talk) 23:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • If kept, support. But what is the purpose of the category, what does it track? Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not entirely sure. I have no idea what they mean by element. Charles Essie ( talk) 22:19, 18 February 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 Ellsworth   put'r there  01:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Paine Ellsworth: What is the definition of "element", since "object" or "concept" is still pretty vague? And what purpose does the category have? Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:17, 11 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 Ellsworth   put'r there  16:46, 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.

Category:Game of Thrones (TV series)

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. – Fayenatic London 15:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary distinction. Charles Essie ( talk) 23:18, 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.

Category:Game of Thrones episode images

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. – Fayenatic London 16:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary distinction. Charles Essie ( talk) 23:16, 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.

Category:Game of Thrones music

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. – Fayenatic London 16:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Music of Game of Thrones. Charles Essie ( talk) 23:15, 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.

Category:Game of Thrones RT scores

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:Game of Thrones templates. – Fayenatic London 16:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization. Charles Essie ( talk) 23:12, 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.

Category:Living Left communist organizations

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. – Fayenatic London 16:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary distinction. Charles Essie ( talk) 23:01, 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.

Category:Solidarity (Polish union movement)

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. – Fayenatic London 16:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Solidarity (Polish trade union). Charles Essie ( talk) 22:54, 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.

Category:Vietminh

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Viet Minh. Charles Essie ( talk) 22:48, 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.

Category:Ice Hockey Federation of Ukraine

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one substantial article. The other is about a politician, and doesn't say much about Ice hockey. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Oppose, more articles are available and will be added. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 14:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The articles which have been added do not belong in the category, because they are bout the sport rather the organisation. If kept, the category needs parents. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:01, 20 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.

Category:Colour schemes

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, keeping the redirect. – Fayenatic London 16:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Inconsistent naming with almost everything else in Category:Color and its own sub-categories. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 13:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 6#Category:Colour schemes
  • 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  ▎ TALK 20:30, 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.

Ruthenian people by period

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 nomination as revised; delete Category:Ruthenian princes – as it now only contains Category:Princes in Rus', I will add that into Category:Kievan Rus' royalty (do correct me if that's wrong). – Fayenatic London 21:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename/delete. By the end of the Middle Ages the terminology changed from Rus' people to Ruthenian people (both more or less equivalent to East Slavs), but all of the above content is still pretty high medieval hence Rus'. Note that the categories also have to be reparented to the tree of Category:Rus' people when renamed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Rus' refers to ethnicity regardless polity, so this is the broader concept, while Kievan Rus' refers to the polity (polities) under the rule of the Rurik dynasty from 882 until 1240. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
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
  • OK, you convinced me - support with Kievan Rus' prefix for royalty and monarchy. GreyShark ( dibra) 19:00, 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.

Ruthenian people by descent

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: move Isidore of Kiev into both parent categories! then delete all. There is evidently little appetite to retain this hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 07:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply
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
  • WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Ukraine and WikiProject European History have been notified of this discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:36, 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. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 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.
Both Isidore of Kiev and Danylo Apostol are much later than Kievan Rus' and thus don't belong in the Kievan Rus' category tree. At second glance Danylo Apostol doesn't belong in the Ruthenian category either, he was Cossack and should simply be purged from the Ruthenian category. So only Isidore of Kiev rightly belongs in Category:Ruthenian people but it's correct that there should be a dual merge not only to Category:Ruthenian people but also to Category:People of Greek descent.
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'.)
I realise I'm partially re-voting again, this second vote overturns the previous vote, obviously. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:41, 5 April 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.

Category:Internet in Palestine

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. – Fayenatic London 23:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: while Palestine is a disambiguation page which could mean several things, State of Palestine is the contemporary geopolitical entity. Rename following a similar procedure on 15 September 2016. This discussion is moved from Speedy Rename section (original discussion can be found at Category talk:Internet in Palestine) GreyShark ( dibra) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - requesting attention from user:Armbrust (speedy discussion participant), as well as user:Debresser, user:Marcocapelle, user:Laurel Lodged, user:Peterkingiron (previous discussion participants). GreyShark ( dibra) 12:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • 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 for consistency with established precedent. SJK ( talk) 12:45, 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
  • Support per nom Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support regarding Internet, Time and Universities. @Greyshark09 I need more convincing regarding Charities and Ethnicities. Debresser ( talk) 15:21, 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
Support all then. Thank for the reply. Debresser ( talk) 06:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Carlossuarez46: Good point - this is indeed confusing and you can find that i've already tried to fix it, but user:Debresser opposed. Making Category:Palestinian Jews a disambig cat page (differentiating category:Jews in Mandatory Palestine and Category:Jews in the State of Palestine) is a good solution in my opinion and you can find a relevant discussion at Talk:Yishuv#Merge_from_Palestinian_Jews about merging Palestinian Jews with Yishuv dealing exactly with this. GreyShark ( dibra) 06:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I don't remember why I opposed this, but the disambiguation solution sounds reasonable to me now. Debresser ( talk) 07:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Sounds good to me as well to avoid the problem. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Debresser: - it seems that for some reason i tried to make Category:Palestinian Jews into a redirect, rather than a disambig cat. I also do not remember why. Anyway, since we agree on this solution, I shall implement after completing those nominations. GreyShark ( dibra) 06:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
That indeed sounds like something I would likely have opposed. Yes, we agree about making it a disambiguation category. Debresser ( talk) 11:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support Per precedent and consensus on the State of Palestine AusLondonder ( talk) 12:17, 13 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.

Category:Censuses in Palestine

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. – Fayenatic London 19:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clearly a misnomer, requiring a more specific naming, since Palestine is a disambig page. As all category tagged articles are timed during Mandatory period (1920-48), the obvious rename target is "Censuses in Mandatory Palestine". GreyShark ( dibra) 09:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • 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
  • Support, it's entirely obvious to rename as proposed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support as proposed. Debresser ( talk) 15:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support As the above category AusLondonder ( talk) 12:17, 13 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.

Category:Mac OS software

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. Any subcats which haven't been remaned yet may be processed at the speedy rename process. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_12&oldid=1084319239"