Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lekoren (talk | contribs) at 22:03, 21 June 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 8 May 10 >

May 9

Category:Luciferian Light Orchestra albums

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. MER-C 13:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Luciferian Light Orchestra redirects to Christofer Johnsson —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 9 May 2015 (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:Christian female saints by century

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. MER-C 10:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not needed after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_21#Category:2nd-century_Christian_female_saints. This now only contains Category:1st-century Christian female saints, which is in other suitable parent categories. (Perhaps that one should also be nominated for upmerging to its other parents.) – Fayenatic London 20:30, 9 May 2015 (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:Ancient Christian denominations

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. MER-C 12:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did not spot that. So agree that this should become a delete nomination. Will I let this stand or withdraw? What's best? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the length of discussion we already have I think it would be too confusing to come up with an alternative nomination to delete within this discussion. I'd say withdraw and after closure come up with a new nomination to delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain & Restore Have these been being moved around? Actually to have a "by century of establishment‎" category as the main category is a complete pain & bad idea, forcing people to hunt through endless categories if they can't remember the exact name of what they are looking for. Almost always a bad idea, & completely unnecessary with the small numbers involved here. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain what you mean by the pain and the hunting? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did above. Given you do so much category work, I'm rather alarmed that I have to explain why breaking categories up by divisions most readers won't know (in terms of what they are looking for) is a bad idea. These by century categories should only be the primary ones, if ever, where there is a huge population & no alternative. Here it is just unhelpful, quite apart from the fact that there is really no reliable information as to when any of them actually were established, or where. Look at Celtic Christianity for support for the idea that it was founded in the 5th century. By the 5th century maybe. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1/ Lack of reliable information as to when they were established and 2/ too small categories for efficient navigation are two issues that I fully understand but they weren't really as clear from your initial reaction. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a category note giving an end date would do it. That need not be Nicea, in fact later might be better - splits rather died down after 600 and that might be better. "Early Christian", "Ancient and Late Antique" are alternatives. The category seems rather small, although one has to hunt around these stupid by century categories to see that. We used to have a "heresies" category, abolished for political correctness. Where are they? Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a strong preference for being specific in the category titles (rather than in hatnotes) so that the meaning is clear in Hotcat where most categories are applied. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Should not lots of them be added here? Of course it is a tricky issue - "denominations" is not the ideal concept, and "heresy" POV. Our knowledge of almost all of these is almost entirely drawn from what their orthodox opponents said and quoted. The first on the list, Aquarii, was regarded as a heresy per the article, but is not so categorised. Instead it is categorized as a schism, which seems odd. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of mainstream early Christians become heretical only in retrospect as orthodox (lower case "o") theology became more defined in the Roman church. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for a fair name instead of heresies or denominations (I agree that both terms aren't really ideal), then what about "movements"? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of these is part of the nomination. Yea or nay on the nomination pls. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Currently...
  • Category:Ancient Christianity says it is for events from "the Resurrection of Jesus around the year 30 until Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD"
  • Category:Early Christianity says it is for events from "the Resurrection of Jesus until the rise of Christianity under Emperor Constantine (c. 313)" and
  • Category:Late ancient Christianity says it is for events from "the rise of Christianity under Emperor Constantine (c. 313), until Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD"
I also think we chould keep these meanings (they follow the articles of same names) and label any categories as such. tahc chat 17:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather hopeless to try to define these periods tightly, as the RS are hopelessly divided. For example different dates tend to be used for Early Christian art and architecture, as that article notes. We should use category notes to make clear what ranges we are using. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: We already have Category:Christian denominations by century of establishment we don't need Category:Christian denominations by century established. Since we already have Category:Ancient Christianity, I see no benefit to removing Category:Ancient Christian denominations -- doing so would just merge it into Category:Ancient Christianity. tahc chat 12:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I support Marcocapelle's suggestion in general. The problem is what to do with four ancient heresies, which are probably only views, not denominations anyway. None of those I looked at was much more than a stub, defining the heresy or practice. What have we replaced "heresies" with (to be NPOV)? The articles probably need to go into that tree, after which this could be deleted. If we do keep this I would suggest we change it to Category:Ante-Nicaea Christian denominations (purging anything later), a variant on RevelationDirect's suggestion, with the definition as related to the First Council appearing in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually not too fond of these Ante-Nicaea categories that are currently all over the place in Wikipedia Categories. Nicaea is a needlessly precise cutoff, arbitrary as well (why not e.g. the Edict of Milan), and it leaves the period 325-476 sort of orphaned. I'd rather be perfectly fine with Ancient categories followed up by Medieval categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2015 (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.

Eastern Catholic churches in the United States

I would also support this approach. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1723 in Belgium

  • Rename Category:1723 in Belgium to Category:1723 in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Rename Category:1723 establishments in Belgium to Category:1723 establishments in the Austrian Netherlands
  • Nominator's rationale In 1723 Belgium as such did not exist. Belgium would not be formed until 1830. The lone present subject of this article was created in the Austrian Netherlands, that had fairly similar borders to modern Belgium. The general trend in Wikipedia is to name and organize such by year specific categories in ways that reflect the geo-political realities of the year in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rationale for original creation of category. I can certainly see the merit of the proposal, but should explain that I created this and a number of similar categories on the basis of sources, primarily histories and historical/biographical dictionaries "of Belgium", in which "places that went to make up what is now the kingdom of Belgium" are covered as a full part of the history of that country. The kingdom of Belgium did not exist in 1723, but a distinct polity that came to be called Belgium in 1790 (a full forty years before 1830) was already in place – "Spanish Netherlands" and "Austrian Netherlands" being different names for a composite polity that passed dynastically from the Spanish to the Austrian royal family without any changes to its internal structures, and without ever being "part of" either Spain or Austria. Historians seem to be happy enough to subsume these precursors under the history of the later kingdom (see here for instance https://books.google.com/books?id=p9gGAU3InGUC : a modern "History of Belgium" that starts with the Roman invasion). Perhaps this is something that can be laid at the door of Henri Pirenne, one of the most highly regarded historians of the 20th century, although as early as 1817 the same use of "History of Belgium" can be found in English publications (see https://books.google.com/books?id=9ToPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q=%22history%20of%20belgium%22&f=false ). Other states that existed in various forms over time, became parts of larger states, and then became independent states in yet another form, are Ireland and Poland. The current categories in those two cases seem not to set clear precedent. As I say, the proposal has some merit, but it would mean a lot more work to determine exactly when which bit of what is now Belgium became part of which other polity, bringing to mind the lady who was born in St Petersburg, married in Petrograd, and died in Leningrad, all without ever leaving her neighbourhood. (Incidentally, do we have separate categories for St Petersburg, Petrograd and Leningrad?) It would also mean Belgium "disappearing" entirely 1794-1830 (when annexed first to France and then to the Netherlands - but barely making any appearance as such in modern histories of either France or the Netherlands), before again making its appearance in 1830. An alternative to obviate this particular difficulty is to break it down to the provincial level ("disestablishments in the Departement of the Dyle", and so forth). Ideal would perhaps be to list at the provincial level from the start ("county of Flanders", "duchy of Brabant", etc.) – I considered this myself and then decided that it was too much work for me and that it was unlikely that any other users would want to take on the task. Precedent set by reliable sources indicates that "Belgium" (specifying somewhere clearly that this is used in the sense "the kingdom of Belgium and its precursors") is the simplest solution taking account of ease of reference and maintenance.
On a perhaps abstruse side-note, the poetic/Latinate use of "Belgium" and "Belgic" for the relevant bit of Europe goes back to the 16th century, and perhaps earlier. A geography published in London in 1762 uses "Circle of Burgundy" and "Belgium" alongside "Austrian Netherlands" (https://books.google.be/books?id=t_oGAAAAQAAJ ); Thomas Salmon's Modern Gazetteer (1747) uses "Circle of Belgium", and so on. So a case can even be made from pre-1790 sources that "Belgium" is an accepted usage for the pre-1790 polity, although I think the cases from current usage and from manageability are clearer, stronger, and more relevant to our purposes.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree on the thought behind this nomination, it also raises the question what to do with the Prince-Bishopric of Liège which was not part of the Spanish or Austrian Netherlands. (An actual example: 1795 is the year of disestablishment of this Prince-Bishopric.) I guess we should recategorize any Liège articles to the tree of the Holy Roman Empire, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't really answer the question. If we would create a separate tree for the Prince-Bishopric of Liège, should we then parent it to the Holy Roman Empire as a sibling of Austrian Netherlands, or should we still parent the Prince-Bishopric of Liège to Austrian Netherlands? I guess the former would be more correct and I notice below that JPL agrees on that too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this is not related to the rationale of the nomination, but I also think that we should upmerge to the 18th century level because as of now there is way too little content for year categories in Belgium within this century. Only the 1790s may be kept apart as a decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I had been doing. No category has been created (by me at least) independently of an article that goes in that category, and none is necessarily limited to the few articles already in existence that do go in it.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That answers the abstruse side note appended to the rationale, but not the rationale itself: this isn't just about 1723, it's about how to categorize 2000 years of history in a part of Europe that since 1830 has been the kingdom of Belgium. My main problem is that if we apply "categories of the time", and want to avoid the unwieldiness of just putting everything in "France" and "Empire" without acknowledging the shared and distinct history, it gets to be more work than it seems to be worth to determine exactly which category any given thing fell into at any given time. Then from the point of view of user-friendliness, readers who, for example, want to know about the impact of the French Revolution in Belgium will not be able to find out about it if we hide as "disestablishments in France" things that were only located "in France" 1795–1815 and are not usually regarded as aspects of "the history of France" (comparably to the situation that Marcocapelle deprecates below with regard to people "from Congress Poland"). This whole can of worms can be left unopened simply by following the habit of modern historians (our sources) to amalgamate the earlier polities to the history of the present-day kingdom. If you've got the time and energy to get this right, and maintain it, by all means apply less anachronistic categories – but be aware that to do it right will mean a lot more work than just a few clicks of the mouse. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick clarification: I personally dislike anachronism, especially in the form of "presentism", but suspect that most users who look these things up will be living, studying or holidaying in present-day Belgium, and don't want to make their searches more difficult than they need be. And please don't take my saying "by all means" as "consensus" until the nature of the changes to be made has been hammered out! --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've put notice of this discussion on WikiProject Belgium, in case it's an active project and any members would be willing to contribute their expertise here. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One alternative would be to go for a geographical term (such as "Low Countries") rather than a state-based one. But as you pointed out yourself, "Austrian Netherlands" excludes Liège, and provides no guidance as to how to proceed with years like 1790, 1795 and 1815, where "historical accuracy" is less viable (and much harder to get right if we do take that path). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Austrian Netherlands". We have established a precedent that we use contemporary polities. An alternative might be "Southern Netherlands", which would apply whether it was Austrian or Spanish. I accept that there is a problem over what to do with Liege. There has been a recent (and open) discussion over Gerrmany/Holy Roamn Empire and it may be best to wait for its outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, "Southern Netherlands" could work 1585-1830. What to do for the period before that? (And does this obviate the difficulty of Liège not being Austrian, or is "Southern" only used of the Habsburg bits?) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before it should be Seventeen Provinces. Because of the slight ambiguity of "Southern Netherlands", as you mention, it wouldn't be wrong to categorizing Liège articles in the Southern Netherlands category too. (That type of guidelines can be put in the header of the category.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seventeen Provinces works from about 1500, maybe – but then what to do about earlier periods such as 1063, 1302, etc.? Just do them by principality? (This is one reason I'm starting to think the geographical "Low Countries" might obviate a lot of bother without being anachronistic because it is a geographical rather than a political term). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The majority of articles on things are not currently categorized by year of establishment, and the majority of those that are are not currently categorized by geographical sub-units of the year of establishment. So the number of articles currently in these categories does not well reflect the number of articles in Wikipedia at present that could be in these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Establishments in a place that was not yet a state

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 for consistency, without prejudice against a group nomination to rename Category:Establishments in the Northwest Territory by year and its sub-cats to something clearer. – Fayenatic London 18:06, 18 June 2015 (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:Singles certified by the Australian Recording Industry Association

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 all. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
rest of list
Nominator's rationale: That a song/album (e.g. Christmas) has this certification is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. See related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_25#Category:Singles_certified_by_the_Asociaci.C3.B3n_Mexicana_de_Productores_de_Fonogramas_y_Videogramas. DexDor (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: If you propose deleting these, should you also include everything in Category:Certified singles? What about Category:Certified albums? GoingBatty (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, I think most/all of these categories should go, but I'm nominating in manageable chunks. DexDor (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're all tagged now. Whatever size chunk of a large tree is taken to CFD then some editors may say that the CFD should be broader and other editors may say that the CFD should be narrower. If, for example, the whole of Category:Certified albums was taken to CFD then some editors could argue that Category:Certified albums should be discussed at the same time whilst other editors could argue that the nomination is already too large. DexDor (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for deletion is the same for every case here though. Why would certification in US or Germany be defining but not Australia or Mexico? I'm not saying take the whole to thing to CfD but to a centralized discussion on a WikiProject talk page and possible RfD to see if these categories are even worth having. If not, it could possibly be added as a caveat to WP:OC. What happens if these get deleted then you nominate US RIAA certification categories and consensus is to keep (especially since a lot more people may want a say in such a nomination)? I am changing my recommendation to delete because I do agree with you and perhaps we can look at these results as consensus building. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you delete this category you will have to delete every single one, including the RIAA. On the other hand, I don't understand why you propose to delete this category I think we should keep it since it's not only a defining moment for the song as one user has said but also it provides a list of all songs that have been able to achieve higher certifications and can be relevant for future generations and also as trivia or for research purposes. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2015 (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:Unit subtemplates of Convert by year

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. MER-C 06:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing templates by the year in which they were created is not how we normally do things in Wikipedia and does not appear to be particulary useful. Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_25#Category:2011_Convert_unit_subtemplates. DexDor (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them. Jimp 15:53, 9 May 2015 (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:Endemic fauna of France

Category:Endemic fauna of France to Category:Endemic fauna by country

Nominator's rationale: This category currently consists of subcats for 3 areas - French Guiana, French Polynesia and Metropolitan France. If we are to categorize species by their distribution then that should be by contiguous regions of the Earth (which may sometimes correspond with countries). Grouping, for example Central Coast stubfoot toad and Corsican nuthatch because they are both endemic to parts of the World governed from Paris is not good categorization. The French Guiana and French Polynesia categories could, alternatively, be moved to Category:Endemic fauna by region. DexDor (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient and early medieval saints

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: merge all except Category:Ukrainian Roman Catholic saints‎‎‎. MER-C 12:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
rest of list
Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename, saints from the above categories are ancient and early medieval saints for whom there is no indication that they are exclusively venerated by the Roman Catholic church. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2015 (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:Catholic churches

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. MER-C 10:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, its contents can be equally well found in Category:Catholicism. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This adds a confusing layer of navigation that the denomination and church building categories make much more obvious. Any subcategory should clearly distinguish its scope, which this one doesn't, or alternatively it should cover the broader topics of any potentially implied scope, which is already done at Category:Catholicism. SFB 21:05, 10 May 2015 (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:Greek Light Infantry Regiment officers

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category: The two Greek Light Infantry regiments were raised towards the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1810-16) for service in the Ionian Islands. Service as an officer in them is hardly a defining characteristic, and about the only famous person to do so was Theodoros Kolokotronis. Constantine ✍ 08:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most important was also Richard Church. --FocalPoint (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaos Petimezas was there too, as well as George Charles D'Aguilar and William Thornton (British Army officer) (see s:Thornton, William (1779?-1840) (DNB00). --FocalPoint (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Oswald (British Army officer) too. --FocalPoint (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, is this truly a defining characteristic? It is not as if the regiment itself is particularly notable so as to make its members notable by association, or as if those who did not serve in it were somehow at a disadvantage. It is a very long stretch to argue that anyone really learned the art of war from their service in this regiment in such a way that couldn't have happened elsewhere. Kolokotronis had been a klepht long before serving in it, and as for Petimezas and the others, the tactics used by the Greeks in the War of Independence had very little to do with the tactics of the British army, and everything to do with irregular warfare as was commonly practised throughout the Balkans before and after the period. A sober assessment indicates that yes, this was a military experience for some future leaders who first experienced military life through it, but that it did not offer any particular military insight denied to anyone serving, say, in an armatolik or in the army of Ali Pasha. About the most notable and long-lasting impact of the regiment was Kolokotronis' uniform. Constantine ✍ 18:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We now have six articles. This is an ethnically Greek regiment in British pay and (apparently) with some British officers. This presumably was the army of the Ionian Islands when they were a British possession. The regiment may not have been all that distinguished, but it existed. I see no objection to it being kept. I think there have probably been similar formations in British pay elsewhere. However they were not strictly part of the British army at the time, so that merging them to a British officers category, rather than keping them in a sub-cat would be strange. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment populating the category is not the problem. I am sure we can find more people, after all there were two such regiments, which means several hundred people at least. My objection is on grounds of notability. Shall we go on to add any military unit any officer belonged to as a category? There are certain iconic units where membership is a defining characteristic, but this is hardly one of them. Constantine ✍ 15:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is part of a category tree on Category:British Army officers which is a well-populated military history category. Not every subcategory need to be famous in its own right. Dimadick (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Modify and Move. Service in any regiment, however short, defines part of an officer's career. Taken together, these parts create a whole, so I do not object to categorizing anyone who served as an officer in one of them as such. The problem comes when we realize that the British Army itself was only part of the total British military land forces, most of which were technically separate establishments. About 1/5 of the total British forces at this time were foreign and émigré troops, only a small proportion of which were on strength as British Army. The 1st Greek Light Infantry was during part of its existence a non-British Army British regiment, but became a British Army regiment in 1812. The 2nd Greek Light Infantry was never a part of the regular British Army, nor were the various Ionian Islands Militias. Officers who served in the 1st Greek Light Infantry in both periods were both British forces officers and British Army officers at different points in time, before moving on to other phases of their lives where they were something else. The category as it stands does not reflect that, and it does not reflect the officers who technically never became British Army officers. Someone viewing this category will assume that all officers of the Greek Light Infantry Regiments were British Army officers, but that is emphatically not the case, as some never were. It is a serious disservice to Wikipedia readers to convey the impression that things were otherwise. Still, categories are very useful for sorting and tracking articles and defining career points for the biographical subjects covered. I don't think this is a total loss. It were better to move this to become a subcategory of something else, perhaps borrowing from the Osprey Men-At-Arms book titles Émigré & Foreign Troops in British Service for the parent category. This could be used to cover not only troops of the Napoleonic Wars, but also later conflicts like World War II if appropriate. The Osprey Books are rather shallow popular histories that only summarize these units, but they are good start, and we could perhaps use them as a source build subcategories and articles that can be modified or expanded with the use of more detailed sources. --Jpbrenna (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment Also, it should be noted that the Kingdom of Greece under Otto raised ten light infantry regiments called Akrovolistes from amongst klephtic soldiers. These could be translated as "1st-10th Greek Light Infantry Regiments", so there would be a potential naming conflict. I am working on an article stub on the 1st Greek Light Infantry drawn from one of the Osprey books and other Wikipedia articles, but before I create it, we should discuss how to avoid potential conflicts. If we later have articles on the Akrovolistes regiments and a category for their officers, we will potentially have conflicting sub-categories that will lead to bot errors that mis-categorize people. Also, these regiments later seem to have been broken up later in the 19th century and been reduced to battalion-sized units called "chasseurs de montagne (akrovolitses)" and "chasseurs de frontieres" in a French source. I can't find the native Greek names for these units at the moment (the latter one might be akrites), but presumably they will be something that, like the French, could be translated to "Greek Mountain Light Infantry" and "Greek Light Infantry Borderers" in English. Their officers could collectively be called "Greek Light Infantry officers", another potential naming conflict. --Jpbrenna (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Akrovolistes is the equivalent of "skirmishers", or, to use the direct French analogue, voltigeurs, and in the reign of Otto, IIRC, they were, again in the French model, one company per infantry battalion (with one grenadier company and the rest line companies). These were dressed in Western European uniforms. In Otto's time, the only purely light infantry units dressed in traditional "klephtic" uniform were the light battalions with personnel inherited from the War of Independence (that were quickly disbanded) and the battalions of the mountain watch (Orofylaki), which is probably your "chasseurs de montagne". From George I's reign, the successor units were termed Evzones. Anyhow, I don't think there is much reason to fear confusion because a) there never was a light infantry regiment in Greek service, b) any such unit would be clearly disambiguated as "Xth Light Infantry Battalion (Greece)", and c) I fear that even in twenty years, no-one will be able to write a reasonably-sized article on these very obscure units, except perhaps collectively. Constantine ✍ 22:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had just glanced at this source before. If I had read them more thoroughly, I would have realized that the total numbers summarised are misleading. This Revue Militaire d'Etranger [2] describes the chasseurs de montagne as wearing blue jackets, foustanella, and red shoes and caps, and a gray cloak. That certainly sounds like the Evzones to me (except the cloak is now blue). It says there are four battalions, which is to be raised to ten in time of war, with an extra company to be added to each battalion. There are four notional battalions of chasseurs de montagne listed as zero in peacetime, and four peacetime companies. It would appear that the companies are a primary reserve to be used as a cadre for building four complete battalions in war. That must be the Orofylaki. If they were never activated to full notional strength, then they were only Battalions 1-4 and Companies 1-4 and you're right, we do not need Wikipedia articles for units that only ever existed on paper, however their names are translated, and we could probably cover the others in one or two articles. As for the akrovolistes being "regiments" (συτάγματα), I have double-checked that source, too. It actually says «τάγματα», so no conflict there, because they were battalions, not regiments. I apologize for the over-blown concern for hypothetical category conflicts. We could just have "Akrovolistes officers", "Orofylaki officers" etc. if the categories are called for in the future. I still say Keep this category, but Move it and Split to reflect 1st and 2nd Greek Light Infantry Regiment officers. If it is to be accurate, it has to come out of the British Army officers parent category. Being a Greek Light Infantry Regiment officer did not necessarily make one a British Army officer (even though it could, depending on the timing and whether one was in the 1st or the 2nd). And it has to be split, since not all officers were in both the regiments - although Church was - and there were two of them. --Jpbrenna (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New comments
  1. Problem 1: confirmation of service. If you look at this link [3], you will see that an officer named "Nikiska Tourcoleco" was appointed ensign in the Duke Of York's Greek Light Infantry. In another edition, the same Ensign is promoted Lieutenant, apparently in the 2nd Regiment (but that is not quite clear to me). I believe, but cannot demonstrate with certainty, that this is Nikitas Stamatelopoulos, the nephew of Kolokotronis, who once lived in the village of Tourkolekas. (That would be original research, unless we have another source that can confirm this - and we should look for one. Perhaps there is one in Greek, if not in English that can clarify this). One difficulty is that a number of the Greek officers that are gazetted seem to be using nomes-de-guerre, some of which seem to be a mix of Italianate names and Greek (probably from placenames that also had an Italian version). It will be difficult to properly categorize them if we can't uncover the real person behind the pseudonym, and even if we can, that will only add a few officers to the category with out new sources being found. According to the popular history that I have cited in the 1s/Duke of York's regiment article, which itself cites War Office records, only the Duke of York's was ever on British Army establishment. Most of the Greek officers in the other source are mentioned only when they are being appointed to the Duke of York's or being seconded to the 2nd, but presumably there were a number of Greek officers who were appointed by Oswald directly into the 2nd and were never mentioned in sources covering the British Army. We will likely never have a complete list of all the officers of both regiments unless someone digs them up in the War Office archives and publishes them.
  2. Problem 2: Lack of coverage when service is confirmed. Most of the British and other nationality officers mentioned in Panorama lack Wikipedia articles, so this category won't be further populated unless/until new sources are found and new Wikipedia articles are written (one subject we can probably find good sources on is "C.A. à Court"; I believe he is the grandfather of Charles à Court Repington) and had a British Army career outside his Greek Light Infantry Corps service. I am all for hunting for new sources and writing articles on the ones that we know, but as it stands now, this category has very little room to grow without a commitment of effort by interested Wikipedians.
  3. Problem 3: Confrimation of regiment and British Army status. Many of the sources upon which contributors have relied up to now don't seem to specify to which regiment the categorized officer belonged. That is a problem since not all Greek Light Infantry officers were technically British Army officers, at least not while they were Greek Light Infantry officers. A further look through Panorama shows that some men of British, Greek and other non-British nationalities were promoted from non-commissioned ranks in other British Army units into the 2nd, and thus were not in the British Army while they were officers, but are being mentioned specifically because they are being seconded to a separate establishment (unless the Osprey book is wrong about the status of the 2nd regiment). So, in the absence of clarity on this point, mighn't it be better to rename this category "Officers of the Greek Light Infantry Corps" and then have sub-categories for each regiment, including each iteration of the 1st/Duke of York's, categorizing officers who served in all regiments in all sub-categories? Technically there was a 1st Regiment before there was a Greek Light Infantry Corps, but it is clear from the sources that the intention was always to use the 1st Regiment as a cadre to build the entire corps, which by the time of its disbandment was a very large establishment containing both British Army and non-British Army units and used organize their deployment brigaded with other British forces, including elements of the British Army. In terms of being a defining characteristic, this would delimit the portion of each soldier's career in which he was part of a complex multi-national force organized to fight the Ottomans and the French under British direction and pay, but not necessarily as part of the regular British Army. If we can't find an officer's regiment, we could just categorize him as "Greek Light Infantry Corps officers" until his regiment can be determined.
  4. Given all of the above, I still say Keep the category, but I still think it is incorrect to have "British Army officers" as the parent category, and I think we need sub-categories, even if the overall category remains thinly-populated for now. We must keep in mind that getting the next seven members of this category will probably take a lot more research and work than the first seven, and that some officers careers in the regiment were so short that some Wikipedians will question the importance of their appointment as a career-defining characteristic. (Against that, I would argue that the new international contacts, the experience of fighting a modern world-wide conflict, and seeing how another army's tactical and organizing systems worked cannot have failed to influence any officer, even if he returned to his home and resumed fighting in his old style later. Also, I think that fighting in skirmish order in a light infantry unit was not so different from klephtic styles as supposed, and seeing a major military power use such tactics would have validated them in the klepht's mind, vis-a-vis leaders like Demetrios Ypsilantis, who hd a different experience in foreign service). While I am an inclusionist Wikipedian, I also believe in having the greatest possible accuracy, and I don't think that we currently have it here. Jpbrenna (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former cabinet ministers of Karnataka

Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise the political office holders by "Former..." Shyamsunder (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People from Congress Poland by governorate

rest of list
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, it doesn't make too much sense to categorize people by birth in an adminstrative unit if that unit existed for only 30 years. Upmerging to Category:People from Congress Poland also doesn't make too much sense since Congress Poland as a country on its own only existed for some 50 years (from 1815 to 1867), while the Polish ethnicity is based on a much longer history of Poland. Even a single Polish person can have lived before, during and after the Congress Poland period. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No strong feelings about how to cover short-lived Polish States. But Category:People from Congress Poland is a subcategory of Category:Imperial Russian people which attempts to cover the entire population of the Russian Empire regardless of ethnicity. It would break the category tree to not cover them as Russian imperial subjects.

    • Category:19th-century Polish people could indeed use expansion as it seems to miss the Polish diaspora of the period. A merger would not harm it. The same is not true of Category:20th-century Polish people. As with many 20th-century people categories it has been tagged as "a container category. It should contain only subcategories.". The articles you want to move there might not fit the existing subcategories. What we have so far are:
      • 20th-century Polish actors
      • 20th-century Polish cinematographers‎
      • Diplomats of the Polish People's Republic‎
      • Diplomats of the Second Polish Republic‎
      • Polish generals of the Second Polish Republic‎
      • Polish intelligence officers (1943–90)‎
      • 20th-century Polish mathematicians‎
      • 20th-century Polish painters‎
      • 20th-century Polish politicians‎
      • 20th-century Polish writers‎
      • Polish Austro-Hungarians‎
      • People of the Polish People's Republic‎
      • People of the Second Polish Republic‎
      • Polish people of World War I
      • Category:Polish people of World War II.

Every other Polish person of the 20th century is currently uncategorized. The situation is worse in Category:21st-century Polish people which only has five subcategories. I would be happy to here ways of better coverage for an oft-overlooked nationality. But the message you propose hardly rectifies the situation. Dimadick (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The current concensus is that professions that were not widespread before 1900 should not be split by century because this becomes a de facto present/past split. Also, the general consensus seems to be that professions should only by split by century when issues relative to the profession come into play. On another note, The categorization of people by nationality is meant to be distinct from the categorization of people by ethnicity. Thus, a person who was born in 1880 in a largely Polish area of Milwaukie, Wisconsin and raised in a Polish speaking household, should not be put in any category for Polish people if they were never resident in Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Splitting people by governorate makes sense. These are political divisions that the people lived in. We may well want to purge the categories down to people with their defining roles connected with living in the governorate when it existed, but there is no reason to end these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glass science institutes

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. MER-C 12:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are not articles about glass science institutes; they are articles about universities etc. Even if a university includes a glass science institute (and many/most of the articles in this category, e.g. Penn State don't mention glass) it is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the university. DexDor (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2015 (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:Color 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: delete. MER-C 10:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Problems with these categories include:
1. They are massively incomplete - e.g. the color category (created in 2010) currently has just 1 file in it.
2. There are more important categorization schemes for images in wp - such as by-topic and by copyright status (i.e. why an image is on wp instead of Commons) (as well as maintenance categories). Unnecessarily having color/monochrome categorization makes it more likely that files won't be placed in the appropriate topic/copyright categories.
3. They place images under Category:Black-and-white media which is for articles etc about the topic of black-and-white media. DexDor (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have resolved point 3 above, replacing hierarchical links (which were improper) with "see also" links. However, the other reasons are persuasive. The first one definitely has to go; note that we do not have a category for articles about colour media – colour is now the norm, and B/W is the historical/special-purpose exception. – Fayenatic London 07:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "color" and "monochrome" are not mutually exclusive, since you can have a monochrome image that displays only blue shades, so "monochrome" does not mean black-and-white (even if you mean greyscale as B&W and not bilevel) while sepia toned "B&W" isn't exactly greyscale either. Image coloration should be based on more intrinsic values, such as 4-color dithering, bilevel, etc, if we have such categories -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2015 (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:Ngati Hine (Northland)

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 23:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add macron and remove disambiguator, per the head article. Nurg (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2015 (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:Holidays and observances by scheduling (nth day of the month)

Nominator's rationale: Merge, the two categories have an identical scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to look at modifying the infobox based on other category changes and was at a loss. Maybe I should lean toward the merge as nominated. (-: RevelationDirect (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: template:Infobox holiday builds a category name using whatever is entered in the infobox of each article. If we enter, say,
           |scheduling = nth weekday of the month
in the infobox of a holiday article, the infobox code tests to see whether Category:Holidays and observances by scheduling (nth weekday of the month)‎ exists. If that category does exist, then the article will be in it; if not, the category will not appear as a red link on the article page. – Fayenatic London 20:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_9&oldid=668001486"