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, but redirects from the old names will be useful for future reference and for category navigation. –
FayenaticLondon09:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale This will make it much clearer what the intended scope of the category is. This is especially so since currently the format creates a link in the header to the article on the entity in question.
Kingdom of Hungary covers the time involved here and will help people better see what the intended boundaries are. This set seemed to be a large enough to notify people and to establish a clear understanding that this is what we want to do. Anyway once you move into the 19th-century and the Kingdom of Hungary becomes part of first the Austrian Empire, then Austria-Hungary there might be some who just want to upmerge. So the issues could be different, so 1800 seemed a good place to cut off this nomination to make it as straight forward as possible. We did something similar when we moved say
Category:1812 establishments in Russia to being
Category:1812 establishments in the Russian Empire. The categories need to be clear in their scope to modern editors, while reflecting a scope that conforms to reality on the ground at the time. This is why we have
Category:1902 establishments in the Ottoman Empire even though at the time common English usage would have called the area "Turkey". It would just confuse people too much if they found a thing in Albania or Syria in that Turkey category, but the Ottoman Empire category lets people see what is going on. The same works for the use of Kingdom of Hungary.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Doubtful -- I do not oppose, but consider this completely unnecessary, because there was no Hungary at the time apart from Kingdom of Hungary, though its scope was rather greater than the present country.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Hungary unambiguously refers to the Kingdom of Hungary in the period considered, and the proposed nominations would break a coherent category structure. Borders and political regimes do change, but we cannot create an entire new chronology tree every time they do. See e.g.
Chronology in Switzerland / Helvetic Republic for a precedent.
Place Clichy (
talk)
09:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I would not consider that precedent to be binding in this instance. The Swiss precedent was a case of duplication and brass nameplate changing. The underlying entities were the same. It's not the same for the Kingdom of Hungary and the modern republic which is only a tenth the size of the kingdom.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
09:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)reply
(Changing vote) Keep -- for reasons stated above. There is no need to plant a new tree every time a country changes its borders or constitutional status. I made a neutral vote above (accepting the proposal with doubts). The fluctuations in the border as the Ottoman Empire grew and then retreated did not mean that there was not continuously a polity called Hungary; and there still is. In the same way the English Parliament did not cease to exist in 1707; it admitted Scottish members and became the British Parliament, with no substantive change in its operation, except a greater jurisdiction. The same applies to the Church of England, which was reformed (not created) in the 1530s.
Hungary has had a continuous existence since 895 AD, though its boundaries have periodically grown or shrunk.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment This goes well beyond "every time a country changes its borders or constitution" the
Kingdom of Hungary was something like 4 times as big as the modern nation, including parts of at least 6 modern countries. The change is very significant, and using the current names and links to articles on the current country is used as reason to perpetuate establishment categories that refer to a place that had no seperate political identify within the Kingdom of Hungary.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Rename all — although the current country of a similar name exists, better to distinguish in historical context, as we have with so many others (Russia versus Russian Empire being most prominent lately). I'd have closed Rename, but the most recent !votes have been changing. There has been no activity for weeks, so better to refresh, and put a nail in it. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Over the centuries, the borders of Hungary have waxed and waned, due to encroachment by the Turks and then reconquest, with fragmentation as part of the WWI peace treaties. At the core of this is a single country, Hungary, subject to different rulers and governmental arrangements at different times. There is no need to split these.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:46, 14 February 2021 (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:Universities and colleges in Historical Germany
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.
Oppose The one is specifically for institutions that were in what used to be Germany but no longer is. This is about the loss of German status to the area, which is a very different issue than just closing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Contrary to Johnpacklambert, the contents appear to include universities located in Nuremburg and Ingolstadt which last I checked were still part of Germany.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
16:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, so if this were universities formerly in Germany, it would include Breslau (and all Austrian universities functioning from 1938-1945) but exclude Ingolstadt, etc.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete (or any Split or Merge that gets rid of this category) The reason we're having trouble coming up with a clean solution is because there is no article on
Historical Germany so this category could mean any number of things: universities that would still be inside Germany but no longer exist, universities that still exist but are no longer within Germany, and universities that no longer exist but would be outside of Germany even if they were still around. Just burn this down and boldly create clearer categories as needed from there. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. No such place as Historical Germany. Germany did not exist until 1870, or maybe later. And there arent many countries with such disputed boundaries. But Stuttgart (historic home of Rathfelders) has always been within them so why is that one included? Because it's so ambiguous!
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Again the bullshit myth! Why do we have so many hundreds of medieval and Early Modern "German" categories then? You need to get your head round the difference between political states and geographical regions.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I have no problem with using modern states to define geographical areas, but I cant see it as very helpful to look back to where the boundaries used to be when we are categorising institutions which exist now. Especially when the boundaries moved so much.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
That's not precisely correct: out of the 12 articles in the category (not counting redirects), 10 are in present-day Germany. About the others, such as the
University of Königsberg (1544-1945), the fact that it was in Germany (in this case, Prussia) for its entire existence is more defining than the loss of German status of the area, whatever that means, or the present country where this city is (Russia). This notion of historical Germany is not a very efficient or defining way to describe these institutions, and has not proven useful. The very notion of lost territories of Germany is also irredentist (and therefore nationalist) and subjective. Why not consider areas like the Low Countries, Bohemia, most of Switzerland which were also part of Germany for centuries? Are the universities of Amsterdam, Leuven, Basel or Prague historically German? It is more defining to categorize these institutions by the actual country in which they were, e.g.
Category:Universities and colleges in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Place Clichy (
talk)
01:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
That is factually incorrect, Königsberg was not part of the Holy Roman Empire when the university was established and long after, Prussia was nominally a fief of Poland at the time. It was part of the (second) German Empire though. This confirms that the concept of Historical Germany is not workable.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
This is correct, that's why both the article and the eponymous category are in
Category:Universities and colleges in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. We seem to agree that the concept of Historical Germany is not workable. Amsterdam, Basel, Vienna or Prague (the German capital at the time of Charles IV) probably just as well belong to historical Germany, and using this term as a periphrasis for territories lost by Germany after 1945 carries a certain POV.
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete — burn it down, and never do it again. Defunct places should be listed by the time they became "disestablished", and never by country. Places that exist now should be listed in the places where they are now, not the places where they were previously. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
00:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
This is totally not true, Institutions within the German Empire were clearly influenced by this fact, and just because they outlasted its fall and dismemberment does not mean this placement has no relevance.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. As long as they are extant, I see no real utility to categorizing universities by former countries/empires. Categorization by current country is sufficient.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)reply
My preference is Merge per nom. The German universities of Breslau and Königsberg became defunct in 1945 before being replaced by Polish and Russian institutions.
TSventon (
talk)
23:43, 22 February 2021 (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:FT-Class articles
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.
As suggested, changed the class parameter on the London Transport to class=FA. However, the FT-Class chemical element topics were not on the Talk page as usual, instead they were on the Project page and did not use a template. Therefore, I've changed them to populate
Category:Chemical elements articles by quality instead, as their Talk pages already populate an appropriate class.
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:Destroyed individual trees
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The two categories seem to be duplicate in scope. The target category is more populated (including those in subcategories).
JsfasdF252 (
talk)
20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Manually Merge as nominated. Sadly, not all the destroyed trees are present in the tree deaths, so simple deletion is not possible. The distinction is too nebulous, and editors seem to be confused. We don't have a matching category called
Category:Constructed individual trees that would match our construction/destruction of buildings and structures. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
16:29, 22 February 2021 (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:Plantain-eaters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic by city
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/merge. As mentioned, it can be difficult to assess categories like this mid-pandemic. Opinions may well change as we go forward, so we shouldn't be too harsh with restricting non-immediate re-creation of these categories, but they certainly should be discussed if re-created.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- This is a destructive nom. If a category has at least 5 members it should be allowed to exist. Removing Wuhan is particularly obnoxious since that is where the pandemic started. However
Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain by city is an unnecessary layer as the city categroies can go immediately under Spain. London has 22 articles; (the rest of) England another 47. Both these are quite large enough to keep (apart). It is fine to upmerge small categories, but we should keep anything larger.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Usually the local geography cats bump up against smallcat but there can also be situations where the locality isn't meaningful, say demolished buildings by riding/congressional district/constituency. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment/Future Noms It's hard for me to assess the need for these breakdowns mid-pandemic. Any outcome here should be subject to new noms sooner than most decisions at CFD since the subject matter is in flux. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge and Delete as nominated. Contents have proven to be frequently incorrect. Many cities/counties have counts that are really from elsewhere, as they have superior hospital facilities. And we know that certain kinds were deliberately miscounted to avoid legal liability. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
16:21, 22 February 2021 (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:Africa women's national association football teams
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cardinals by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Misguided attempt to duplicate
Category:Cardinals by nationality. Only content apart from the two subcategories below is
Category:Lists of cardinals by country, which clearly dont belong according to the blurb, which says, for example: "This is a list of cardinals of the Catholic Church from England. It does not include cardinals of non-English national origin appointed to English ecclesiastical offices such as the cardinal protectors of England." and "This list includes all ethnic Poles, living and deceased, who were raised to the rank of cardinal".
Rathfelder (
talk)
16:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose It is necessary. While it true to say that all Irish cardinals are Irish nationals, it is not true that all Irish cardinals were cardinals in Ireland. Ireland has a long history of giving prelates to the world. These people usually spent their entire episcopate, and their cardinalate, in their adoptive country. See, for example,
John Murphy Farley. To @
Marcocapelle: I would point out that the current category is not
Category:Cardinals of Ireland, it is
Category:Cardinals in Ireland. If a cardinal is normally resident in Ireland then he is a "Cardinal in Ireland". This is especially true as most cardinals are also bishops with a specific geographic remit. Irish nationals, on the other hand, can go wherever the Spirit moves them to go. The same is true in the Australian case where
Edward Cassidy is an Australian national yet has spent his cardinalate in the
Holy See. The scope of
Category:Cardinals by country couldn't be clearer: "
Cardinals of the
Catholic Church who serve or have served in that office in a particular country, regardless of nationality. See Category:Cardinals by nationality for individuals by nationality who were created cardinals, regardless of where they served.".
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
17:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
It is completely untrue that "most cardinals are also bishops with a specific geographic remit." There are probably more cardinals who served as diplomats, officers of the Papal See etc than those who served in particular areas. The diplomats often served in many countries. This has varied over time. Categorisation of clergy needs to take a long view.
Rathfelder (
talk)
11:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment -- If this is about nationality, there is no difference since the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to Irish and British nationality. However, the Catholic Church is quite capable of appointing an Englishman or an American to an Irish archbishopric, though I suspect that does not happen much these days. I suspect that in theory the Cardinals are the chapter of St Peters Basilica in Rome, but Cardinals ministering in Ireland might be an appropriate way of defining the scope of
Category:Cardinals in Ireland. There has indeed been a long tradition of Ireland exporting clergy to serve elsewhere.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Support deletion cardinals are personal titles and are not cardinals of or in any particular place. Some places may have numerous cardinals, others none. Cardinals are called to the Vatican for long stretches, but I wouldn't want to label those as "expatriate cardinals" as some probably attend to matters "back home".
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)reply
since Farley emigrated to the US at age 22, and did not even the priesthood until he was over 25, the answer to that question has no relevance to this discussion. However I can cite hundreds of cases where we categorize people by situations that only applied to them post-emigration. It would take a major revision of how immigrants are categorized to remove all of these. The entire contents of
Cuban Latter Day Saints are people who converted to
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after emigrating to the United States, so I could see elimanating it. The answer to the question on Farley is not affected by this discussion one way or the other.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Agree that it does not matter for this category discussion. Anyway, if hypothetically he might have been cardinal in Ireland, then in the United States, it would have been perfectly valid to put him in both categories. With his actual history, having him in the American subcategory should be sufficient.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Support the distinction between country served in/country of nationality makes sense for bishops and archbishops, who have a specific area severed in. It does not make sense for Cardinals, who hold office connected to the Church as a whole, not to a specific area. Unless we are ready to create
Cardinals in Italy and include all non-Italians who held various appointments with the central organization of the Catholic Church. We do not want to go that route.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:40, 19 February 2021 (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:Grand Crosses of the Order of Carol I
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Labels distributed by Universal Records
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry
WP:SMALLCAT for a non-
defining characteristic. Distribution, in the music business, is simply a matter of what company's infrastructure is used behind the scenes to deliver the music from the label's offices into the retail stores or online platforms where it's sold -- so record labels aren't particularly defined by who their distributors happen to be, because it has no discernible effect on how the music is actually purchased or consumed by the listener. And while there are a few other parallel categories for distribution conglomerates, they're all much more populated than this -- and they're also of questionable necessity, as there's certainly no comprehensive scheme of always categorizing record labels for the matter of who they happen to have distribution contracts with. If the label isn't an outright subsidiary of Universal, then it doesn't need Universal-related categorization at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:13, 13 February 2021 (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:Manaus Futebol Clube managers
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.
Oppose - the category name merely reflects the article name, Manaus Futebol Clube, which is the (Portuguese) style used by the club (eg at the bottom of
their homepage). And generally we use the native name of clubs unless they are well known enough to have a
WP:COMMONNAME in English - see eg
these articles such as
Esporte Clube Bahia. If you want to change that, you need to start with a debate to rename the article via
Wikipedia:Requested_moves#CM and then the category will follow. Also words such as "managers" in these kinds of category names are never capitalised.
Le Deluge (
talk)
15:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose Rightly or wrongly, "
Manaus Futebol Clube" is the main article title and the cat should match, per
WP:C2D. (Peterkingiron is correct about the capitalization as well.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
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.
People from Chalkidiki
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns. In this case there aren't any of those exceptions, even the capital
Polygyros has only 7,500 people and three articles in
Category:People from Polygyros. This is follow-up on
this earlier nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
A million population is certainly too high. I would suggest a population of 50,000 but the key criterion should be whether we can populate with at least five articles. If we can it should be kept.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:17, 14 February 2021 (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.
People from Chania (regional unit)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except
Chania (108,000 people). This is follow-up on
this earlier nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Kissamos is a quite notable town, and the category currently has 4 members. There are some more articles about people from Kissamos already in the Greek Wikipedia, and
this one I will be probably translating soon. Therefore there is a concrete reason to believe the category has potential for growth, and there should probably be kept per
WP:SMALLCAT. --
Antondimak (
talk)
16:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge but a million population is certainly too high. I would suggest a population of 50,000 but the key criterion should be whether we can populate with at least five articles. If we can it should be kept.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:18, 14 February 2021 (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.
People from Corinthia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except
Corinth (38,000 people),
Sikyona (19,000 people) and
Xylokastro (6,000 people). This is follow-up on
this earlier nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Polygyros is indeed larger and is actually the capital of the entire prefecture. However it currently has 3 articles and we have taken the "pessimistic" approach of not assuming growth in these nominations. --
Antondimak (
talk)
17:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge but a million population is certainly too high. I would suggest a population of 50,000 but the key criterion should be whether we can populate with at least five articles. If we can it should be kept.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:19, 14 February 2021 (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:merge, but redirects from the old names will be useful for future reference and for category navigation. –
FayenaticLondon09:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale This will make it much clearer what the intended scope of the category is. This is especially so since currently the format creates a link in the header to the article on the entity in question.
Kingdom of Hungary covers the time involved here and will help people better see what the intended boundaries are. This set seemed to be a large enough to notify people and to establish a clear understanding that this is what we want to do. Anyway once you move into the 19th-century and the Kingdom of Hungary becomes part of first the Austrian Empire, then Austria-Hungary there might be some who just want to upmerge. So the issues could be different, so 1800 seemed a good place to cut off this nomination to make it as straight forward as possible. We did something similar when we moved say
Category:1812 establishments in Russia to being
Category:1812 establishments in the Russian Empire. The categories need to be clear in their scope to modern editors, while reflecting a scope that conforms to reality on the ground at the time. This is why we have
Category:1902 establishments in the Ottoman Empire even though at the time common English usage would have called the area "Turkey". It would just confuse people too much if they found a thing in Albania or Syria in that Turkey category, but the Ottoman Empire category lets people see what is going on. The same works for the use of Kingdom of Hungary.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Doubtful -- I do not oppose, but consider this completely unnecessary, because there was no Hungary at the time apart from Kingdom of Hungary, though its scope was rather greater than the present country.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Hungary unambiguously refers to the Kingdom of Hungary in the period considered, and the proposed nominations would break a coherent category structure. Borders and political regimes do change, but we cannot create an entire new chronology tree every time they do. See e.g.
Chronology in Switzerland / Helvetic Republic for a precedent.
Place Clichy (
talk)
09:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment I would not consider that precedent to be binding in this instance. The Swiss precedent was a case of duplication and brass nameplate changing. The underlying entities were the same. It's not the same for the Kingdom of Hungary and the modern republic which is only a tenth the size of the kingdom.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
09:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)reply
(Changing vote) Keep -- for reasons stated above. There is no need to plant a new tree every time a country changes its borders or constitutional status. I made a neutral vote above (accepting the proposal with doubts). The fluctuations in the border as the Ottoman Empire grew and then retreated did not mean that there was not continuously a polity called Hungary; and there still is. In the same way the English Parliament did not cease to exist in 1707; it admitted Scottish members and became the British Parliament, with no substantive change in its operation, except a greater jurisdiction. The same applies to the Church of England, which was reformed (not created) in the 1530s.
Hungary has had a continuous existence since 895 AD, though its boundaries have periodically grown or shrunk.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment This goes well beyond "every time a country changes its borders or constitution" the
Kingdom of Hungary was something like 4 times as big as the modern nation, including parts of at least 6 modern countries. The change is very significant, and using the current names and links to articles on the current country is used as reason to perpetuate establishment categories that refer to a place that had no seperate political identify within the Kingdom of Hungary.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Support Rename all — although the current country of a similar name exists, better to distinguish in historical context, as we have with so many others (Russia versus Russian Empire being most prominent lately). I'd have closed Rename, but the most recent !votes have been changing. There has been no activity for weeks, so better to refresh, and put a nail in it. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Over the centuries, the borders of Hungary have waxed and waned, due to encroachment by the Turks and then reconquest, with fragmentation as part of the WWI peace treaties. At the core of this is a single country, Hungary, subject to different rulers and governmental arrangements at different times. There is no need to split these.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:46, 14 February 2021 (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:Universities and colleges in Historical Germany
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.
Oppose The one is specifically for institutions that were in what used to be Germany but no longer is. This is about the loss of German status to the area, which is a very different issue than just closing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Contrary to Johnpacklambert, the contents appear to include universities located in Nuremburg and Ingolstadt which last I checked were still part of Germany.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
16:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, so if this were universities formerly in Germany, it would include Breslau (and all Austrian universities functioning from 1938-1945) but exclude Ingolstadt, etc.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete (or any Split or Merge that gets rid of this category) The reason we're having trouble coming up with a clean solution is because there is no article on
Historical Germany so this category could mean any number of things: universities that would still be inside Germany but no longer exist, universities that still exist but are no longer within Germany, and universities that no longer exist but would be outside of Germany even if they were still around. Just burn this down and boldly create clearer categories as needed from there. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. No such place as Historical Germany. Germany did not exist until 1870, or maybe later. And there arent many countries with such disputed boundaries. But Stuttgart (historic home of Rathfelders) has always been within them so why is that one included? Because it's so ambiguous!
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Again the bullshit myth! Why do we have so many hundreds of medieval and Early Modern "German" categories then? You need to get your head round the difference between political states and geographical regions.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I have no problem with using modern states to define geographical areas, but I cant see it as very helpful to look back to where the boundaries used to be when we are categorising institutions which exist now. Especially when the boundaries moved so much.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
That's not precisely correct: out of the 12 articles in the category (not counting redirects), 10 are in present-day Germany. About the others, such as the
University of Königsberg (1544-1945), the fact that it was in Germany (in this case, Prussia) for its entire existence is more defining than the loss of German status of the area, whatever that means, or the present country where this city is (Russia). This notion of historical Germany is not a very efficient or defining way to describe these institutions, and has not proven useful. The very notion of lost territories of Germany is also irredentist (and therefore nationalist) and subjective. Why not consider areas like the Low Countries, Bohemia, most of Switzerland which were also part of Germany for centuries? Are the universities of Amsterdam, Leuven, Basel or Prague historically German? It is more defining to categorize these institutions by the actual country in which they were, e.g.
Category:Universities and colleges in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Place Clichy (
talk)
01:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
That is factually incorrect, Königsberg was not part of the Holy Roman Empire when the university was established and long after, Prussia was nominally a fief of Poland at the time. It was part of the (second) German Empire though. This confirms that the concept of Historical Germany is not workable.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
This is correct, that's why both the article and the eponymous category are in
Category:Universities and colleges in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. We seem to agree that the concept of Historical Germany is not workable. Amsterdam, Basel, Vienna or Prague (the German capital at the time of Charles IV) probably just as well belong to historical Germany, and using this term as a periphrasis for territories lost by Germany after 1945 carries a certain POV.
Place Clichy (
talk)
16:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete — burn it down, and never do it again. Defunct places should be listed by the time they became "disestablished", and never by country. Places that exist now should be listed in the places where they are now, not the places where they were previously. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
00:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
This is totally not true, Institutions within the German Empire were clearly influenced by this fact, and just because they outlasted its fall and dismemberment does not mean this placement has no relevance.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. As long as they are extant, I see no real utility to categorizing universities by former countries/empires. Categorization by current country is sufficient.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)reply
My preference is Merge per nom. The German universities of Breslau and Königsberg became defunct in 1945 before being replaced by Polish and Russian institutions.
TSventon (
talk)
23:43, 22 February 2021 (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:FT-Class articles
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.
As suggested, changed the class parameter on the London Transport to class=FA. However, the FT-Class chemical element topics were not on the Talk page as usual, instead they were on the Project page and did not use a template. Therefore, I've changed them to populate
Category:Chemical elements articles by quality instead, as their Talk pages already populate an appropriate class.
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:Destroyed individual trees
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The two categories seem to be duplicate in scope. The target category is more populated (including those in subcategories).
JsfasdF252 (
talk)
20:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Manually Merge as nominated. Sadly, not all the destroyed trees are present in the tree deaths, so simple deletion is not possible. The distinction is too nebulous, and editors seem to be confused. We don't have a matching category called
Category:Constructed individual trees that would match our construction/destruction of buildings and structures. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
16:29, 22 February 2021 (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:Plantain-eaters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic by city
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/merge. As mentioned, it can be difficult to assess categories like this mid-pandemic. Opinions may well change as we go forward, so we shouldn't be too harsh with restricting non-immediate re-creation of these categories, but they certainly should be discussed if re-created.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- This is a destructive nom. If a category has at least 5 members it should be allowed to exist. Removing Wuhan is particularly obnoxious since that is where the pandemic started. However
Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain by city is an unnecessary layer as the city categroies can go immediately under Spain. London has 22 articles; (the rest of) England another 47. Both these are quite large enough to keep (apart). It is fine to upmerge small categories, but we should keep anything larger.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Usually the local geography cats bump up against smallcat but there can also be situations where the locality isn't meaningful, say demolished buildings by riding/congressional district/constituency. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment/Future Noms It's hard for me to assess the need for these breakdowns mid-pandemic. Any outcome here should be subject to new noms sooner than most decisions at CFD since the subject matter is in flux. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge and Delete as nominated. Contents have proven to be frequently incorrect. Many cities/counties have counts that are really from elsewhere, as they have superior hospital facilities. And we know that certain kinds were deliberately miscounted to avoid legal liability. William Allen Simpson (
talk)
16:21, 22 February 2021 (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:Africa women's national association football teams
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Cardinals by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Misguided attempt to duplicate
Category:Cardinals by nationality. Only content apart from the two subcategories below is
Category:Lists of cardinals by country, which clearly dont belong according to the blurb, which says, for example: "This is a list of cardinals of the Catholic Church from England. It does not include cardinals of non-English national origin appointed to English ecclesiastical offices such as the cardinal protectors of England." and "This list includes all ethnic Poles, living and deceased, who were raised to the rank of cardinal".
Rathfelder (
talk)
16:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose It is necessary. While it true to say that all Irish cardinals are Irish nationals, it is not true that all Irish cardinals were cardinals in Ireland. Ireland has a long history of giving prelates to the world. These people usually spent their entire episcopate, and their cardinalate, in their adoptive country. See, for example,
John Murphy Farley. To @
Marcocapelle: I would point out that the current category is not
Category:Cardinals of Ireland, it is
Category:Cardinals in Ireland. If a cardinal is normally resident in Ireland then he is a "Cardinal in Ireland". This is especially true as most cardinals are also bishops with a specific geographic remit. Irish nationals, on the other hand, can go wherever the Spirit moves them to go. The same is true in the Australian case where
Edward Cassidy is an Australian national yet has spent his cardinalate in the
Holy See. The scope of
Category:Cardinals by country couldn't be clearer: "
Cardinals of the
Catholic Church who serve or have served in that office in a particular country, regardless of nationality. See Category:Cardinals by nationality for individuals by nationality who were created cardinals, regardless of where they served.".
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
17:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
It is completely untrue that "most cardinals are also bishops with a specific geographic remit." There are probably more cardinals who served as diplomats, officers of the Papal See etc than those who served in particular areas. The diplomats often served in many countries. This has varied over time. Categorisation of clergy needs to take a long view.
Rathfelder (
talk)
11:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment -- If this is about nationality, there is no difference since the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to Irish and British nationality. However, the Catholic Church is quite capable of appointing an Englishman or an American to an Irish archbishopric, though I suspect that does not happen much these days. I suspect that in theory the Cardinals are the chapter of St Peters Basilica in Rome, but Cardinals ministering in Ireland might be an appropriate way of defining the scope of
Category:Cardinals in Ireland. There has indeed been a long tradition of Ireland exporting clergy to serve elsewhere.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Support deletion cardinals are personal titles and are not cardinals of or in any particular place. Some places may have numerous cardinals, others none. Cardinals are called to the Vatican for long stretches, but I wouldn't want to label those as "expatriate cardinals" as some probably attend to matters "back home".
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)reply
since Farley emigrated to the US at age 22, and did not even the priesthood until he was over 25, the answer to that question has no relevance to this discussion. However I can cite hundreds of cases where we categorize people by situations that only applied to them post-emigration. It would take a major revision of how immigrants are categorized to remove all of these. The entire contents of
Cuban Latter Day Saints are people who converted to
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after emigrating to the United States, so I could see elimanating it. The answer to the question on Farley is not affected by this discussion one way or the other.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Agree that it does not matter for this category discussion. Anyway, if hypothetically he might have been cardinal in Ireland, then in the United States, it would have been perfectly valid to put him in both categories. With his actual history, having him in the American subcategory should be sufficient.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Support the distinction between country served in/country of nationality makes sense for bishops and archbishops, who have a specific area severed in. It does not make sense for Cardinals, who hold office connected to the Church as a whole, not to a specific area. Unless we are ready to create
Cardinals in Italy and include all non-Italians who held various appointments with the central organization of the Catholic Church. We do not want to go that route.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:40, 19 February 2021 (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:Grand Crosses of the Order of Carol I
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Labels distributed by Universal Records
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry
WP:SMALLCAT for a non-
defining characteristic. Distribution, in the music business, is simply a matter of what company's infrastructure is used behind the scenes to deliver the music from the label's offices into the retail stores or online platforms where it's sold -- so record labels aren't particularly defined by who their distributors happen to be, because it has no discernible effect on how the music is actually purchased or consumed by the listener. And while there are a few other parallel categories for distribution conglomerates, they're all much more populated than this -- and they're also of questionable necessity, as there's certainly no comprehensive scheme of always categorizing record labels for the matter of who they happen to have distribution contracts with. If the label isn't an outright subsidiary of Universal, then it doesn't need Universal-related categorization at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:13, 13 February 2021 (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:Manaus Futebol Clube managers
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.
Oppose - the category name merely reflects the article name, Manaus Futebol Clube, which is the (Portuguese) style used by the club (eg at the bottom of
their homepage). And generally we use the native name of clubs unless they are well known enough to have a
WP:COMMONNAME in English - see eg
these articles such as
Esporte Clube Bahia. If you want to change that, you need to start with a debate to rename the article via
Wikipedia:Requested_moves#CM and then the category will follow. Also words such as "managers" in these kinds of category names are never capitalised.
Le Deluge (
talk)
15:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose Rightly or wrongly, "
Manaus Futebol Clube" is the main article title and the cat should match, per
WP:C2D. (Peterkingiron is correct about the capitalization as well.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
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.
People from Chalkidiki
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns. In this case there aren't any of those exceptions, even the capital
Polygyros has only 7,500 people and three articles in
Category:People from Polygyros. This is follow-up on
this earlier nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
A million population is certainly too high. I would suggest a population of 50,000 but the key criterion should be whether we can populate with at least five articles. If we can it should be kept.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:17, 14 February 2021 (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.
People from Chania (regional unit)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except
Chania (108,000 people). This is follow-up on
this earlier nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Kissamos is a quite notable town, and the category currently has 4 members. There are some more articles about people from Kissamos already in the Greek Wikipedia, and
this one I will be probably translating soon. Therefore there is a concrete reason to believe the category has potential for growth, and there should probably be kept per
WP:SMALLCAT. --
Antondimak (
talk)
16:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge but a million population is certainly too high. I would suggest a population of 50,000 but the key criterion should be whether we can populate with at least five articles. If we can it should be kept.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:18, 14 February 2021 (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.
People from Corinthia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except
Corinth (38,000 people),
Sikyona (19,000 people) and
Xylokastro (6,000 people). This is follow-up on
this earlier nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Polygyros is indeed larger and is actually the capital of the entire prefecture. However it currently has 3 articles and we have taken the "pessimistic" approach of not assuming growth in these nominations. --
Antondimak (
talk)
17:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge but a million population is certainly too high. I would suggest a population of 50,000 but the key criterion should be whether we can populate with at least five articles. If we can it should be kept.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:19, 14 February 2021 (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.