Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 14



Clergy by period

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox bishops by period to Category:Eastern Orthodox bishops by century
 * Propose merging Category:Anglican clergy by period to Category:Anglican clergy by century
 * Propose renaming Category:Anglican bishops by period to Category:Anglican bishops by century
 * Propose renaming Category:Unitarian clergy by period to Category:Unitarian clergy by century
 * Propose renaming Category:Lutheran bishops by period to Category:Lutheran bishops by century
 * Propose renaming Category:Lutheran clergy by period to Category:Lutheran clergy by century
 * Propose renaming Category:Congregationalist clergy by period to Category:Congregationalist clergy by century
 * Propose renaming Category:Presbyterian clergy by period to Category:Presbyterian clergy by century
 * Propose renaming Category:Calvinist and Reformed clergy by period to Category:Calvinist and Reformed clergy by century
 * Nominator's rationale: These categories are organized by century. JFH (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.

Pre-1971 establishments in the United Arab Emirates

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:1970 in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1970 in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1970 establishments in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1970 establishments in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1969 in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1969 in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1969 establishments in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1969 establishments in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1968 in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1968 in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1968 establishments in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1968 establishments in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1967 establishments in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1967 establishments in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1967 in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1967 in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1966 in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1967 in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1966 establishments in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1966 establishments in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1958 in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1958 in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1958 establishments in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1958 establishments in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1945 establishments in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1945 establishments in the Trucial States
 * Rename Category:1945 in the United Arab Emirates to Category:1945 in the Trucial States
 * Nominator's rationale: This is for the same reasons that the category is named Category:1775 in the Thirteen Colonies. Prior to 1971 there was not a United Arab Emirates, there was a Trucial States. The United States/Thirteen Colonies seems to be the compelling precedent for the renaming here. Another possible precedent might be Ghana/British Gold Coast, where we have such categories as Category:1954 establishments in Gold Coast (British colony).John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, seems a relatively straightforward case. There is a subcategory of UAE years / estabs by year for Dubai, . Any pre 1971 ones can be a subcategory of the Trucial states, and other emirates could be created if they have sufficient content. Tim! (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to :Category:#### establishments and Category:Establishments in United Arab Emirates, and Category:Establishments in the Trucial States  would make more sense.  This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout.  The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * REanme per nom. This was the contemporary name of the polity - a British protectorate.  I doubt we will get enough population to need a split by emiragte.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If renamed, keep within and  trees and create category redirects. There is no need for  or —just include them in the UAE category parents for ease of navigation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cat redirects can only work if the 'rename' of the country is resulting in exactly the same area being occupied or a total incorporation of the original states. It does make perfect sense to make these cats subcats of the other mentioned cats, though.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no reason it wouldn't work here. The Trucial States did not take in any extra territory when it became the UAE. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here it would work, indeed - I don't know how 'compatible' the system becomes with the cases where it is not true, but I'll take for granted that that is going to work properly for the cases where it is true. Not sure however if it will cause grouping where readers would really look only for subjects established in the Trucial States, as they would then be categorised with everything of the United Arab Emirates as well.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that would actually be more relevant to whether we should have Category:Education in the Trucial States and the like. For some past countries, such as Czechoslovakia, we have categories for things that were in them. Actually Category:British India is a well developed tree containing many things that existed in British India. However in this case we are dealing with straight up year categories, where the naming is much more clear. Although Category:Czechoslovakia actually is in some ways more developed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note the open RFC on this general topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.

WIPO treaties

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization to Category:World Intellectual Property Organization treaties
 * Propose merging Category:Treaties of which the Director General of WIPO is the depositary to Category:World Intellectual Property Organization treaties
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge both into a new category. We have a scheme of, and generally the subcategories are "ORGNAME treaties", and included in them are (1) treaties that are administered by that organization, or (2) treaties for which the organization or one of its officials is the depositary. There is no unified category for WIPO right now, but we do have two separate categories for what usually goes together. There is a distinction between the two concepts, but I don't think it's worthwhile having two separate category schemes for administrator vs. depositary. In any case, there is often major overlap between the two. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although the Director General of WIPO is the depositary of the Eurasian Patent Convention, this does not mean that the Eurasian Patent Convention is a "World Intellectual Property Organization treaty". In fact, to me, the concept of "World Intellectual Property Organization treaty" might be regarded as slightly unclear or vague... And, strictly speaking, there is one World Intellectual Property Organization treaty: the WIPO Convention. --Edcolins (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly does mean that under the definitions used in the other "treaties by organization" categories. Your double-barreled division is a division that is just not needed currently. Why can't we group all treaties together if it is administered by the org or if the org is a depositary? I don't understand the need for any further information in the category tree. You go to the WIPO website, and lo and behold—information on the Eurasian Patent Convention. So it makes some practical sense to group these all together. There is no category scheme for "treaties by depositary", nor do we need one. The alternative is to have Category:World Intellectual Property Organization treaties as a parent category for both, but really ... why is it desirable to split when no other categories in the scheme do? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, your statement "You go to the WIPO website, and lo and behold—information on the Eurasian Patent Convention" is misguided. The link you provided is an entry in the "WIPO Lex" database of WIPO, which includes thousands of treaties and legal texts which are not "World Intellectual Property Organization treaties". The WIPOLex database literally contains thousands of national and international legal texts. My proposal would therefore be to delete altogether the category Category:Treaties of which the Director General of WIPO is the depositary (I indeed agree with your statement that "There is no category scheme for "treaties by depositary", nor do we need one.") and to insert only the treaties administered by WIPO into the new category Category:World Intellectual Property Organization treaties, i.e. only those treaties . Could we agree on that proposal? --Edcolins (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the Eurasian Patent Convention does have the Director General of WIPO as its depositary. WIPOLex might have other treaties listed that are not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, in fact, I have no particular feeling about this. If we indicate on the top of the Category:World Intellectual Property Organization treaties something like:
 * "Treaties that are administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization and/or treaties for which the World Intellectual Property Organization or one of its officials is the depositary."
 * then I would agree to your initial suggestion. --Edcolins (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much the sort of thing that I had in mind. Thx. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Thanks to you as well. --Edcolins (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support -- Expand abbreviation, as we usually do. No view on the more general issues about existence.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support renaming as nom'd, with indicator on the cat page. The technical complexities of depository, administration, sponsorship, blah blah blah, would make any category structure too narrow and technical to be helpful.  99% of people who care are going to call these things WIPO treaties (or WIPO spelled-out), and the 1% who care about the precise nomenclature will hopefully be mollified by having a clarifying note on the category page itself. --Lquilter (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:Foreign-language broadcasting in the United States

 * 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:  at 2013 JUL 5 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Foreign-language broadcasting in the United States to Category:Non-English-language broadcasting in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale I came across this article on the entry on KTNN. The problem is that it is just an unworkable POV-pushing to call the language of KTNN "foreign". It broadcasts in Navajo, a language indigenous to the South East United States, nearly only spoken by people resident in the United States. It is not a "foreign" language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Navajo is indigenous to the South West US. Otherwise, I agree as has been pointed out on several occasions, the US doesn't have an official language, thus "foreign language" is often shorthand for "non-English" Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * rename per nom but to easy on accusations of POV pushing I don't think that was the intent - as Carlos notes, foreign is (wrongly or rightly) a shorthand for non-English.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely understand the rationale behind this nomination, but don't agree that this is the appropriate new name for it — the problem, as always, is with the concept of defining "X" as "Non-Y". Consider other possible analogues here — redefining "female" categories as "non-male", "LGBT" categories as "non-heterosexual", etc. — and you'll see the problem; labelling X as Non-Y is pretty consistently considered the absolute worst thing you can possibly do when it comes to defining and labelling cultural identities. For an alternative, however, I put forward that the analogous categories for Canada are named "Multicultural and ethnic" (e.g., etc.) — which is still possibly not ideal, but at least it neutrally and objectively defines the entities as an X of their own rather than as a non-Y. I'm down with the rename, but would accordingly propose instead. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is the same thing though. In the United States a large amount of the ethnic broadcasting is done in English. I think in this case, our choices are to name it non-English, or to stop categorizing these together at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, again, it's never appropriate to label anything as "Non-Y" instead of "X". I'm not wedded to the specific name I proposed, having simply put it forward for discussion, but there's surely some alternative name that these can be grouped under which defines them by what they are instead of what they aren't. There's surely some alternative name that these can be grouped under which doesn't require a "non-" in it. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But they are only unified by what they are not, which is not broadcasting in English. That is the only thing that joins them together.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are still ways to define that in a positive, attributive "is this" way rather than a negative "non-that" one. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't take this too far Bearcat. You have non-native speakers of a language, you have non-profits, etc. One neutral way to categorize these would be based on continent, so we could have and  etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment We also have a whole "non-governmental organizations" tree. What we don't do is create non-x whole cloth, but in this case this is how things are group in actuality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Non-profit organizations" and "non-governmental organizations" are the actual proper names of those specific classes of things, such that they fall under "defining this class of thing as what it is" — they're not the same thing as imposing a label that defines something as "not its opposite". The equivalent here would be naming female categories as "non-male" or LGBT categories as "non-heterosexual", not naming non-profit agencies as non-profit agencies — because imposing an involuntary label from the outside is not the same thing as defining the class of thing by the term it uses for itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You ignore the fact that "non-English language" is an actually used term in a way that your other preposals are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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:Dutch Reformed Christians

 * 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. I think I got the renames right, if I missed any, let me know and I'll fix.
 * Category:Dutch Reformed Christians to Category:Members of the Dutch Reformed Church
 * Category:Dutch Reformed Christians from the Netherlands to Category:Dutch members of the Dutch Reformed Church
 * Category:Dutch Reformed Christians from South Africa to Category:South African members of the Dutch Reformed Church
 * Category:Dutch Reformed Christians from the United States to Category:American members of the Dutch Reformed Church
 * Category:Dutch Reformed Christians by nationality to Category:Members of the Dutch Reformed Church by nationality
 * Category:Dutch Reformed missionaries to Category:Missionaries of the Dutch Reformed Church

Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Dutch Reformed Christians to Category:Dutch Reformed Church Christians
 * Propose renaming Category:Dutch Reformed Christians by nationality to Category:Dutch Reformed Church Christians by nationality
 * Propose renaming Category:Dutch Reformed Christians from the Netherlands to Category:Dutch Reformed Church Christians from the Netherlands
 * Propose renaming Category:Dutch Reformed Christians from South Africa to Category:Dutch Reformed Church Christians from South Africa
 * Propose renaming Category:Dutch Reformed Christians from the United States to Category:Dutch Reformed Church Christians from the United States
 * Propose renaming Category:Dutch Reformed missionaries to Category:Dutch Reformed Church missionaries
 * Nominator's rationale: It's not obvious from the top level cat, but the subcats indicate that these are for members of the Dutch Reformed Church. Renaming is necessary to prevent confusion with Category:Dutch Calvinists, which will almost certainly soon be Category:Dutch Calvinist and Reformed Christians. JFH (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree with the nominator's rationale and agree that we need to rename these. I would probably be more inclined to use, , etc. "Dutch Reformed Christians" is a common way to describe these people, but I have never heard "Dutch Reformed Church Christians" used. That said, it's a minor issue and either way would be a helpful improvement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. --JFH (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with GOF and JFH; otherwise Support. We need to keep category names from becoiming excessively long.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.