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. No consensus to upmerge, though some commenters did not give an opinion on that issue, so it might help to have a new nomination that focuses on the merging proposal. Good Ol’factory(talk)06:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title isn't exactly wrong, but it doesn't sound right in English, where "post-mortem" comes up mostly in medicine or criminology. The proposed wording is more typical of these situations. And because I expect someone to suggest it, no, I'm not opposed to upmerging the category; there don't seem to be any comparable ones. BDD (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge whether elected live or dead is not defining. We don't have similar things like army officers promoted posthumously and dividing VC's, Medal of Honor recipients, etc. by when they got it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you look over the parent Category:Members of the Romanian Academy, you will surely note that the rather big pool is being split into subcategories, of which this is one. In this particular case, I argue, it a poignant form of subcategorizing: some people that were elected not just posthumously, but decades after they had died. Their election also came at very specific points in history: ca. 1948, when they inducted left-leaning dead people, and ca. 1990, when they inducted right-leaning dead people. Plenty of literature on the topic of Romanian communism looks into this specific issue and its political importance. Please consider this before upmerging, it might be of some importance. 21:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahn (talk • contribs)
Upmerge to Category:Members of the Romanian Academy Per WP:DEFINING and WP:OCMISC. The Category:Posthumous recognitions tree contains honors that are inherently after death whereas this one is incidentally after death for the purpose of diffusion. Diffusion doesn't seem to be a big issue in this case since uppmerging this category will only move the article count from 44 to 46 with the two list articles, it's not necessary to subcategorize every single member of the parent category. No objection to creating a third list article for this topic. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find this argument quite weak: you're saying we should have categories for titular, corresponding, honorary and founding members, as well as presidents, but on a whim should put the posthumous members in the generic parent category, even though the Academy, Romanian legislation and scholarly commentators on the topic all recognize that this is a distinct category of member. No, it's not necessary to subcategorize every single member of the parent category - but by the same token, it's not necessary to subcategorize any of them. However, for the reasons enumerated below, I would submit it's both preferable and logical to do so. - BiruitorulTalk19:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also been translated as "full" member - an entity distinct from corresponding members and honorary members. Now, if we could get back to the topic of posthumous members and at least pretend to listen to my objections, that would be appreciated. - BiruitorulTalk00:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not upmerge - I have no particular opinion on the rename. There are three main reasons for my objection to upmerging:
The Academy itselfmakes the distinction - if you look at the list of membership categories, the last one specifically groups together posthumous members. Moreover, the status is provided for by law: Article 6, Section 4, Law 752 of 2001, the same law that distinguishes this type of membership from the others (titular, corresponding, honorary). In other words, this is not just an incidental categorization but reflects an extant reality.
Whenever new members are elected post-mortem, there is amplemention in theRomanian (and Moldovan) press. There have also been more generalpieces regarding the practice of inducting members posthumously - usually frowning on the practice.
The significance of posthumous membership, both in its 1948 variant and the 1990 one, has also been the subject of academic attention: see here and here. See also Mihaela Grancea, "Moartea comunistă în România", in Studia Politica, vol. VIII, no. 2, 2008, pp. 267-293; Pavel Țugui, Istoria și limba română în vremea lui Gheorghiu-Dej, Editura Ion Cristoiu, 1999, p. 104; Petre Popescu-Gogan, "Istorie academică", in Manuscriptum, Muzeul Literaturii Române, vol. II, 1971, pp. 57-74; and Romulus Rusan (ed.), Anul 1948 - Instituționalizarea comunismului, Ed. Fundația Academia Civică, 1998, p. 535.
In conclusion, I believe I have shown that this is a distinct, indeed an inherent form of recognition. I would say the case of Nicolae Bălcescu (1819-1852), elected in 2015, is illustrative. For one, his formal education ended at age 16 - no such individual could be elected an active member in the present day. For another, when he died, not only was there no Romanian Academy in existence - there was no Romania, either. So again, we are obviously dealing with a rather different scenario than someone awarded a Victoria Cross two or three years after his death. In the case of Bălcescu (and Ion Creangă, and Ion Andreescu, and Garabet Ibrăileanu, and Aurel Vlaicu, and so on), we don't have individuals who died, met a specific set of qualifications, and were inducted shortly thereafter; we have entirely new generations of Academy members (or, for the 1948 inductees, Communist Party chiefs) deciding to bestow recognition, with no set criteria. In 1948, the motivation was to shore up their own image; in 1990 and after, it has generally been presented in terms of repairing oversights. - BiruitorulTalk15:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Such elections are an unusual kind of award, and rather different from joining the academy in one's lifetime. In theory this offends against OCAWARD, but I would suggest that this is sufficiently unusual and the award a sufficiently notable one to fall into the exception. An award given in life probably allows entry to a club of some kind. Posthumous awardees are not going to leave their graveyard to visit! Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2016 (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.
They are not synonymous, according to their descriptions. "Faith-based organization" does not encompass all religious organizations, it would seem, but seems to be a category for Faith-based activist organizations of some kind. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck through my initial comment entirely, following an attempt by the article creator to modify my words here, so as to make it seem as if I was supporting her position. I have reverted this vandalism and issued a level one warning for altering other editor's talk page comments (though what she did was actually much more serious than that). thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk)
Merge that's true: while "activists" in the description suggested to me faith-based NGOs or something, and a lot of the contents are those, there's also a lot of other stuff. The category makes no meaningful distinction. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I understand it, faith based organizations are a superset of religious organizations. For instance, an FBO can be affiliated with an RO without being an RO itself, like a soup kitchen sponsored by a congregation. Also FBOs that agree to not push their faith are eligible for some grants unavailable to ROs. Nonetheless, my colleagues are correct that little distinction is made between FBO and RO in this encyclopedia. Merging of the categories will be consistent with that lack of distinction. Lucis Aeternae 04:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
do NOT merge - although I agree that this cathegory might need some cleaning to remain only for organizations not for activists, i highly DISAGREE with idea of merging it. "Faith-based" is a much wider description than religious. Not all faiths and believes are classified in science as religions. See also (stub - i know, but worth developing): Faith-based organization --Lantuszka (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sufficient differences exist. Some faith-based organisations, while deriving their motivation from their faith, do not operate in the space of faith per se, but in the wider world (e.g. charities). Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2016 (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.
Upmerge to parent categories. The existence of one list does not automatically make a category like this necessary. If there were several lists (e.g. a separate list for each individual state in India, or at least separate lists for three or four major cities), then sure — but with just one list, it's a WP:SMALLCAT that doesn't need to exist in advance of potential content. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2016 (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:keep but purge of topics that are not defined by their attachment to socioeconomics. Socioeconomics is a broad and not clearly defined term. In fact, despite being a PhD student in economics, I've never heard of it discussed as its own field (as opposed to discussed in relation to something like socioeconomic status. It seems to be an obscure subfield of applied microeconomics. As with most applied microeconomics subfields, socioeconomics is both the intersection of economics with another discipline (sociology) and the application of economic thinking and methodologies to the problems of another discipline (sociology). Editors should carefully evaluate whether articles in this category truly meet either definition. In particular, there is clear consensus here that an economic concept that impacts society is not automatically a socioeconomics concept. If it were, this category would be deleted as per WP:OVERLAPCAT with Category:Economics, since all of economics impacts society in various ways. Since I know quite a bit about the topic area of applied microeconomics, please feel free to message me on my talk page if you have any questions about what probably should/shouldn't be purged. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk03:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly can't remember how the contents of this category looked like 11 years ago, but I usually did these kinds of things to connect the dots - the articles I had added had this as a defining characteristic. Sounds like this is a matter for cleanup of the list instead, not a straight deletion? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Socioeconomics is a field of study in the social sciences and it should be obvious that this would be exactly the general sort of category our readers would find useful in searching and understanding the field. Articles that fit in this category include all those of the type socioeconomic X, such as socioeconomic development and socioeconomic status. Other appropriate articles include social capital, assortive mating, and economic sociology. One could argue that political economy and related topics like economic imperialism are within the field as well. The boundaries among economics, sociology and socioeconomics are indeed fuzzy and fungible, but this is true of most interdisciplinary fields. Imprecise boundaries are not a reason for deleting the category of an active field of social study. Lucis Aeternae 04:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Heavily Purge if Kept If there are some articles that are really about this as a study (and I think Lucis has identified some good loose articles above). Most of the current contents, especially the subcategories, aren't defined by this topic though. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2016 (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 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.
