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.
Centuries in Savafid Iran
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 preferably per option A - but option B is better than the status quo. The categories are largely overlapping. Option A is more consistent with the general tree of Iranian history. Note I have tagged categories of both option A and B. The nomination is a follow-up on
this earlier discussion which ended as no consensus. By leaving out the people categories and by offering two options I hope to reach consensus this time. @
Fayenatic london,
LouisAragon,
Cplakidas, and
HistoryofIran: pinging contributors to earlier discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Option A --
Laurel Lodged seems to regard every change of boundaries or of regime as creating a not country. This is WRONG. Persia/Iran has a continuous history with a state covering most of the present Iran for perhaps 2000 years, with a few breaks when it was conquered and incorporated in a larger empire. I am not suggesting that the present republic existed in 1700; of course it did not but there was a predecessor regime that ruled much the same country, though this suffered loss of territory to Russia in the 19th century. We are not being asked to merge to
Category:17th century in Islamic Republic of Iran, which would clearly be a gross case of anachronism, but that seems to be the basis of her objection.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
A few corrections: we are not female; it is not true to say that " Persia/Iran has a continuous history with a state". It is true to say that what we may now call Persian or Iranian peoples have lived in the fluctuating borders around the present day state of the Republic of Iran; that's not the same as saying that those people or peoples were at all times in the same state. Closer to home, Irish people were occupied by a foreign power for 800 years. During that time, they were forcibly part of several states (
Lordship of Ireland,
Kingdom of Ireland,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Despite this, the Irish people, as a a people, were one. Where the category structure differs from the Iranian people is that Ireland, conveniently, is an island so we can categorise things that happened in the island, not just the various states that drifted through that island.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
09:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Reply@
No Great Shaker: it's more than a regime change. People of 16th century England or France would have recognised and affirmed the names of England and France. It's unclear if the same is true for the peoples of the Safavid Empire. Go back further in time. In the 1st century AD, would the people occupying those lands have recognised and affirmed the names of England and France? Yet wiki persists in having such categories.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
08:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)reply
People of 16th century Iran would have recognised and affirmed the name of Iran. Note that "Safavid" is merely the name of a dynasty, not part of the country name.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)reply
(ec)The names of countries change over the course of centuries and we need to ensure continuity in a categorisation series. For example,
Category:1st century in England really means
Category:1st century in what became England and is by no means correct, but for practicality it is necessary to use a recognised geographical identity instead of fluctuating through the Celtic, Roman, Northumbrian, Wessex, Viking, Saxon and Norman variations until finally reaching the English one. Marcocapelle is right that the Safavids were a dynasty (like the Tudors, Bourbons, Habsburgs, Romanovs, etc.) and that cannot be part of the geographical identity.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
16:40, 26 March 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:Wikipedians who like Ashes to Ashes (TV series)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Ashes to Ashes (TV series) user templates
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:Archbishops of Santo Domingo
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: To complete the North America tree. Per form of all other Roman Catholic diocese and bishop categories. Whatever about the correctness of the form, for the sake of consistency the form ought to be followed.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
15:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose as unnecessary, because there is no other archbishop with this title. Category names should be kept short to lessen category clutter.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename we need to stop acting as if the Catholic use of the term bishop is "correct" and the Amish/Latter-day Saint?Pentecostal use of the term is "wrong". Categories like this that in their name form normalize the Catholic use of the term need to be ended.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:34, 13 April 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:American Burlesque performers
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. It is true that most of the categories were not tagged with
Template:Cfr, but I am going to do something I hardly ever do and pull an
IAR exception here, mainly because I cannot foresee any reasonable argument opposing the proposals.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)reply
You can save one, then edit it by changing the date and section title |1=Category:American Burlesque performers| then copy it to the other categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:11, 25 March 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:Fictional hacker groups
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:Austrian military personnel of World War II
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete this category shouldn't exist as all these people served in the armed forces of Nazi Germany, their pre- and/or post-war Austrian citizenship doesn't seem relevant. National identity of Austria was fairly complicated at that point with many people from Austria
identifying as Germans, as well. (
t ·
c) buidhe10:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per
Lugnuts. The status of Austria as a country from 1938 to 1945 is immaterial. The category is about nationality (Austrian) which did not change after the Anschluß. Großdeutschland (Greater Germany) incorporated numerous nationalities who did not become German, any more than the Polish and Czech pilots in the RAF became British. While it is true that some Austrians identified as German, many did not and, as
Buidhe says, the subject is complex. That being so, it would be wrong to categorise all Austrians as Germans because then you would be including the many who did not identify as German.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
14:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
No, they still held Austrian nationality and the category is about nationality, not about being in the service of the Wehrmacht. There were Austrians in the Allied forces too.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
21:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
There might not have been a country called Austria from 1938 to 1945 but there were Austrian nationals because they did not become Germans. There was no change of nationality and that is the key element in these categories. How are you going to merge those Austrians who served with the Allies? Many did.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
16:00, 25 March 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:Recipients of the Order of Glory (Ottoman Empire)
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.
When VIP guests visited the Ottoman Empire or vice versa, the
Order of Glory (Ottoman Empire) was given out as souvenir.
German Emperor Wilhelm II, American inventor
Samuel Morse, and Norwegian landscape artist
Frits Thaulow are not remotely defined by this award. (There are not any Turkish recipients in these categories but there are three not very loyal Ottoman appointed local leaders:
1,
2,
3.) There wasn't a list so I created one right
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
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:Recipients of the Order of the Griffon (Mecklenburg)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Centuries in Savafid Iran
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 preferably per option A - but option B is better than the status quo. The categories are largely overlapping. Option A is more consistent with the general tree of Iranian history. Note I have tagged categories of both option A and B. The nomination is a follow-up on
this earlier discussion which ended as no consensus. By leaving out the people categories and by offering two options I hope to reach consensus this time. @
Fayenatic london,
LouisAragon,
Cplakidas, and
HistoryofIran: pinging contributors to earlier discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Option A --
Laurel Lodged seems to regard every change of boundaries or of regime as creating a not country. This is WRONG. Persia/Iran has a continuous history with a state covering most of the present Iran for perhaps 2000 years, with a few breaks when it was conquered and incorporated in a larger empire. I am not suggesting that the present republic existed in 1700; of course it did not but there was a predecessor regime that ruled much the same country, though this suffered loss of territory to Russia in the 19th century. We are not being asked to merge to
Category:17th century in Islamic Republic of Iran, which would clearly be a gross case of anachronism, but that seems to be the basis of her objection.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
A few corrections: we are not female; it is not true to say that " Persia/Iran has a continuous history with a state". It is true to say that what we may now call Persian or Iranian peoples have lived in the fluctuating borders around the present day state of the Republic of Iran; that's not the same as saying that those people or peoples were at all times in the same state. Closer to home, Irish people were occupied by a foreign power for 800 years. During that time, they were forcibly part of several states (
Lordship of Ireland,
Kingdom of Ireland,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Despite this, the Irish people, as a a people, were one. Where the category structure differs from the Iranian people is that Ireland, conveniently, is an island so we can categorise things that happened in the island, not just the various states that drifted through that island.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
09:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Reply@
No Great Shaker: it's more than a regime change. People of 16th century England or France would have recognised and affirmed the names of England and France. It's unclear if the same is true for the peoples of the Safavid Empire. Go back further in time. In the 1st century AD, would the people occupying those lands have recognised and affirmed the names of England and France? Yet wiki persists in having such categories.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
08:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)reply
People of 16th century Iran would have recognised and affirmed the name of Iran. Note that "Safavid" is merely the name of a dynasty, not part of the country name.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)reply
(ec)The names of countries change over the course of centuries and we need to ensure continuity in a categorisation series. For example,
Category:1st century in England really means
Category:1st century in what became England and is by no means correct, but for practicality it is necessary to use a recognised geographical identity instead of fluctuating through the Celtic, Roman, Northumbrian, Wessex, Viking, Saxon and Norman variations until finally reaching the English one. Marcocapelle is right that the Safavids were a dynasty (like the Tudors, Bourbons, Habsburgs, Romanovs, etc.) and that cannot be part of the geographical identity.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
16:40, 26 March 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:Wikipedians who like Ashes to Ashes (TV series)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Ashes to Ashes (TV series) user templates
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:Archbishops of Santo Domingo
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: To complete the North America tree. Per form of all other Roman Catholic diocese and bishop categories. Whatever about the correctness of the form, for the sake of consistency the form ought to be followed.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
15:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose as unnecessary, because there is no other archbishop with this title. Category names should be kept short to lessen category clutter.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename we need to stop acting as if the Catholic use of the term bishop is "correct" and the Amish/Latter-day Saint?Pentecostal use of the term is "wrong". Categories like this that in their name form normalize the Catholic use of the term need to be ended.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:34, 13 April 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:American Burlesque performers
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. It is true that most of the categories were not tagged with
Template:Cfr, but I am going to do something I hardly ever do and pull an
IAR exception here, mainly because I cannot foresee any reasonable argument opposing the proposals.
Good Ol’factory(talk)03:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)reply
You can save one, then edit it by changing the date and section title |1=Category:American Burlesque performers| then copy it to the other categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:11, 25 March 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:Fictional hacker groups
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:Austrian military personnel of World War II
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete this category shouldn't exist as all these people served in the armed forces of Nazi Germany, their pre- and/or post-war Austrian citizenship doesn't seem relevant. National identity of Austria was fairly complicated at that point with many people from Austria
identifying as Germans, as well. (
t ·
c) buidhe10:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per
Lugnuts. The status of Austria as a country from 1938 to 1945 is immaterial. The category is about nationality (Austrian) which did not change after the Anschluß. Großdeutschland (Greater Germany) incorporated numerous nationalities who did not become German, any more than the Polish and Czech pilots in the RAF became British. While it is true that some Austrians identified as German, many did not and, as
Buidhe says, the subject is complex. That being so, it would be wrong to categorise all Austrians as Germans because then you would be including the many who did not identify as German.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
14:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
No, they still held Austrian nationality and the category is about nationality, not about being in the service of the Wehrmacht. There were Austrians in the Allied forces too.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
21:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
There might not have been a country called Austria from 1938 to 1945 but there were Austrian nationals because they did not become Germans. There was no change of nationality and that is the key element in these categories. How are you going to merge those Austrians who served with the Allies? Many did.
No Great Shaker (
talk)
16:00, 25 March 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:Recipients of the Order of Glory (Ottoman Empire)
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.
When VIP guests visited the Ottoman Empire or vice versa, the
Order of Glory (Ottoman Empire) was given out as souvenir.
German Emperor Wilhelm II, American inventor
Samuel Morse, and Norwegian landscape artist
Frits Thaulow are not remotely defined by this award. (There are not any Turkish recipients in these categories but there are three not very loyal Ottoman appointed local leaders:
1,
2,
3.) There wasn't a list so I created one right
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
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:Recipients of the Order of the Griffon (Mecklenburg)
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.