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: All related topics are already sufficiently categorized in the "songs" subcategory, so this is an unnecessary parent per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me23:23, 24 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.
Nominator's rationale: Category of unclear necessity, due to a fuzzy and ambiguous distinction from Category:Radio programs by broadcast network. In much of the world, there isn't really a meaningful differentiation between stations and networks at all -- the phenomenon of local "stations" producing local radio or television content separately from national "networks" is fairly rare (although admittedly not entirely nonexistent) outside of North America, and in much of the rest of the world the terms are quite commonly used interchangeably for many radio services rather than actually referring to different things. Of the nine subcategories filed here, seven (every single one with "BBC" in the name) are being categorized as both "radio programs by station" and "radio programs by broadcast network", and one (WOR) is listed for CFD below as a SMALLCAT. (There were formerly several other subcategories here for things like CBC Radio and NPR, which were all more properly categorized as networks rather than "stations", and have already been moved accordingly.) And even in the relatively few countries where there is a genuine distinction between stations and networks, radio programs produced by individual local stations and aired exclusively locally are rarely notable per WP:BCAST, so there's little to no reason for individual radio stations to have their own dedicated "XXXX-FM radio programs" categories at all. So that really just leaves Manx Radio as the only category here that's neither inappropriate nor already dual-catted for both station and network status, but since that's a national service it wouldn't be strictly out of place if we recatted it as a "network" either. Alternatively, of course, we could also come up with a new name for the target category that avoids any quibbling about whether any given category encompasses a "station" or a "network" -- "Radio programs by station or network", "Radio programs by service", that kind of thing -- but the distinction between a "station" and a "network" isn't universally clear (or consistently categorizable) enough to need two separate category trees here. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 24 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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just three articles, not meeting the required conditions for special treatment as exceptions to that rule: CFD has a longstanding consensus against categorizing North American radio programs by individual local terrestrial radio station, so this isn't part of any established categorization scheme; and since American radio programs are already subcategorized by genre and/or decade rather than just being thrown directly into the undifferentiated Category:American radio programs, this isn't needed to help diffuse an overly large parent category since the radio programs here are already so subcategorized. Further, of the three articles here, one is not actually a radio program at all, but a biographical article about a person who was one of two hosts of a radio program not named after herself, and thus doesn't belong here at all -- and of the other two that are actually radio programs, one was a nationally distributed network program which thus isn't defined by any individual radio station. In other words, only one article here is actually about a radio program that was actually unique to WOR, and one article that fits the bill isn't automatically enough to justify a category. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Without Precedent The nominator is quite correct that this is a small cat with little room for growth. While it's not appropriate to categorize syndicated shows by which local stations carried them, there is no conceptual objection to have a Wikipedia category named after radio call letters.- RevelationDirect (talk) 23:04, 24 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.
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain some members who served before 1949, when the Republic of China still controlled the mainland, and were never posted to Taiwan. I'm aware there's some sort of established convention to always use Taiwan for the modern state/country/polity/whatever, but forcing it on these categories seems anachronistic. None of these countries currently maintains formal diplomatic relations with the ROC/Taiwan, so members of the categories will remain historical. This partially reverse a CFDS tagged by Marcocapelle in 2018, which in turn was prompted by this CfD of the parent category. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to make that claim, the "government of China" recognised by most countries until 1979 was the Republic of China, so all ambassadors to pre-1979 ROC should be dumped into the ambassadors to China categories. But that's clearly the wrong approach. What exactly is the problem with maintaining the distinction (or splitting/subcategorisation) as in the Russia/Turkey approach? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both are exceptional exceptions. Russia and the Russian Empire are completely different in borders and there is discontinuity in time because the Soviet Union was in between. The Ottoman Empire and Turkey are completely different in borders and name. China on the other hand still has the same name and almost the same borders. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Purge -- We have been over this many times. WP uses China for mainland China, which will be imperial China to 1912; the nationalist republic 1912-49 and PRC since. The practice is that an ambassador in post on the change of regime will (on instructions) approach the new regime proposing to do business. The change of regime is not a change of country. Taiwan was a Japanese possession until 1945, when it was occupied by China, but in 1949 the defeated regime retreated to the island as Republic of China. Most countries quickly recognised PRC, but a few (including USA) did not and continued to have ambassadors to Republic of China, which WP has decided should be called Taiwan. The difficulty is that PRC does not allow foreign countries to have diplomatic relations both with it and Taiwan. Accordingly, anything before 1949 should be purged. Anything after 1949 should be kept. This is not something that can be resolved through the CFD process. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since this seems to be supported by most, I'm going to stop arguing against it. But it will still leave discrepancies with other categories (e.g. US ambassadors who are all under the China cat), and will probably require a follow-up discussion to sort out. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reality is not what Peterkingiron claims. Many countries in 1949 continued to send their ambassadors to the Republic of China and did not recognize the status and legitimacy of the new government in China at that time. In that case some countries kept their ambassadors with the regime.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 18 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.
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:WP:OCEGRS — recent creation, so far I've found none that utilize Judaism in their magicianship. Atomus isn't definitively Jewish, may have been Samaritan. Uri Gellar was born in Israel to Jewish parents, but his claims of supernatural magic are prohibited by Judaism. Harry Houdini was a skeptic of Judaism, and married a Catholic. Jacob Philadelphia was a convert to Christianity, and objected to being called a magician. Matt Wayne (magician) has no cites that he is Jewish at all, so should be removed from all Judaism categories.
Comment by creator: - the reason I created the category was that a significant number of magicians are Jewish[1], and, at least in the case of Michel Velleman, are known as much for their Judaism as they are for their careers as magicians. There are also some interesting sources about the relationships between magicians and Judaism[2]. However, after reviewing the deletion log for Jewish Mathematicians, I also believe that we should delete. However, it could make for an interesting article. Painting17 (talk) 19:36, 24 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:12th-century Scottish Roman Catholic bishops
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.
7th century bishops were also subject to Rome. I dont think any of the articles describe their subjects as Roman Catholic. We should follow the articles. Rathfelder (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clash between two naming principles. For consistency Roman Catholic should be added, but the proposed name is more concise and unambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The RC descriptor is used to separate Catholic from Orthodox (after the Great Schism). It is not used primarily to separate Catholic from Protestant, though it can also serve that purpose. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see why we need to separate Catholic from Orthodox in Britain. It seems misleading in a British context. In Britain Roman Catholic means "not Protestant", not "not Eastern Catholic". None of these articles mention Roman Catholicism or the schism. Is there any evidence that anyone in Scotland was even aware of it|? Rathfelder (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a simple answer to this question, namely consistency. The consistency argument usually prevails in discussions with conflicting naming principles. The way to come around it is to propose a new form of consistency, in this case by proposing to remove RC and EO in all countries until the 15th century. But I doubt there will be consensus for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Starting in the 1st century we have one tree, and starting in the 21st we have another. That is perfectly sensible and reflects reality. I suggest that the boundary - the century where we start using denominations - should differ according to locality. 11th century in places where the Great Schism was an issue and later where the issue was the Reformation.Rathfelder (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is an "issue" is very subjective. Both the Great Schism and the Reformation were issues for the continent of Europe as a whole, but not an issue in most individual countries, because countries took sides. (Ok with the Reformation there are exceptions like the Holy Roman Empire and France. But French Protestants did not have bishops at all.) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for merging -- There were no bishops in Scotland other than RC bishops, so that including RC in the title is redundant. Yes there was a Great Schism, but there were few places where there were rival bishops from these denominations. Any category scheme that implies that there were is engaging in gross anachronism. There was only one church in Scotland in that period. At the reformation the one church became presbyterian (without bishops). Charles I tried to impose (anglican) bishops on Scotland and ended off being executed. Later there was an episcopal church and a revived Catholic church, but these were (and are) minor denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification "At the reformation the one church became presbyterian (without bishops)." Not quite. There were at least 2 churches in Scotland during the Reformation: a state-sponsored church and an underground church with loyalties to the Holy See. The latter might not have had the services of bishops for a while but as the "People of God", they were still the Church in Scotland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:44, 3 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.
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.
Is there any evidence that the nationality of clergy is defining? The present Dean of Manchester is South African. That doesnt seem to affect how he behaves and its seldom mentioned.Isnt this more WP:OCEGRS ? Rathfelder (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This dates back to an old CFD. It was considered to be convenient that "Irish bishops" could be deemed to cover both Irish nationals who happened to be bishops (regardless of the continent of their diocese) and bishops whose diocese was in Ireland, regardless of their ethnicity. I consistently opposed this logical sleight of hand but have been consistently rebuffed by those who like fudge. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly happy with the ambiguity, but I dont see how we can run two separate category trees based on the same ambiguity. For people for whom a different nationality is defining we can put them in more than one category, but I'm inclined to leave the bishops in the country of their bishopric, and if appropriate Category:Clergy from Staffordshire, or wherever. Rathfelder (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that both trees may exist, but rather not independently of each other. Bishops in FOO should be a subcategory of FOOIAN bishops, such that undiffused articles are emigrants. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally the emigrants were not bishops when they emigrated. And in the ancient categories its very common to read something along the lines of "Nothing is known about Bishop Herbert's early life....". Better the other way around. Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other way around there would not be any undiffused articles so then the two trees would coincide. While I think of it you are offering a valid argument to cut the tree by nationality altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly for the ancient and even early medieval period it's often the case that we can only state with reasonable certainly the diocese of which the person was the ordinary / bishop. It is much more problematic to say where that person was born or to assign a "nationality" to that place if known. Was Paul of Tarsus Jewish, Syrian, Turkish, Roman, all 4 or some other combination? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On further investigation I think the whole by nationality tree should go. Its a source of great confusion. Category:Gambian bishops for example is not populated by Gambians, but for Anglicans by British people who served in Gambia, and for Catholics by Irish people. Of course they might have become Gambian citizens, but the articles dont tell us that. Rathfelder (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Less than you might think. For most countries there is either a nationality category or a by country category. Not many have both and its apparent that the difference has escaped many editors. Rathfelder (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Several other contributors have suggested a distinction between nationality and venue of service. That would be a genuine distinction if we were dealing with categories whose contents was individual bishops, but this is not the case here. Both are container categories of dioceses, so that in this case there is no distinction. Various of the early bishops were clearly English (or at least British, including all the Category:Bishops of Upper Nile before that was renamed in 1961. All are/were bishops of dioceses in Uganda; so the right answer is merger. We might have a category for individual British (or non-native) bishops serving in Uganda, or Ugandan bishops serving elsewhere, but neither of the nominated categories are preciely that. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the categories cover very distinct things. Whether both categories are needed is less clear, but since they are not the same thing they should not be merged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 9 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.
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:Recipients of the Order of the Republic (Serbia)
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:Recipients of the Order of Merit of the Bahamas
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.
Support, it is people that have a nationality, not the titles. Using "by country" naturally allows e.g. a German person to belong to the nobility of France if applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:21, 24 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 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.
Nominator's rationale: The official name for the district, and the title of the key article. Potentially a speedy, but the key article was only moved to this name last week, so I'm erring on the side of caution. Grutness...wha?00:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it may be the case that the information in the article is incomplete, but it says the council changed its name from Rotuara District Council to Rotuara Lakes Council (and that change is properly sourced), but there is no mention of the district changing its name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge of NZ's councils isn't total, but I don't know of any other district where the names of the council and district are different. If the council changed its name, it's almost certain the district name was changed too. Confusingly, the council website has a page headed "About the Rotorua District" which then uses the term "Rotorua Lakes District" in the text. "Rotorua Lakes District" seems to be widely used on the web though, from government sites to national news sites, FWIW. Grutness...wha?15:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's certainly the common name by now and that should be reflected by the category. Given that it was asked above, what happens in local government is that some councils give themselves a promotional name (as in this case; other instances are Environment Canterbury and Horizons Regional Council). Independent to this is the issue of having a name gazetted for a local authority. Most councils that adopt a promotional name don't change their legal name (and I don't know what Rotorua has done). There's the similar issue of starting to use macrons; some councils just do it (akin to the use of a promotional name) and others go through the process and also gazette their name with the macron, thereby changing their legal name. Schwede6619:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not the official name for the district according to Land Information New Zealand. The 2014 announcement called "Rotorua Lakes Council" a "brand" and an "operating name", but said the official name remained unchanged, so I think it's in the same boat as Environment Canterbury and Horizons Regional Council—an unofficial operating name adopted for branding purposes, so I don't think the district article and the category should be renamed, although the council article (if there was one) should certainly be Rotorua Lakes Council. Recent (2020) Gazettes refer to the council as "Rotorua District Council (operating as Rotorua Lakes Council)", so the status doesn't appear to have changed since 2014. --Canley (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis that it should follow whatever the main article is called, which currently is Rotorua Lakes District. If the name of the article was to change, the name of the category should probably follow. Nurg (talk) 10:26, 1 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.
