Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 28 October 30 >

October 29

[edit]

Category:Roman Catholic Church

[edit]
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 all. ~ Rob13Talk 07:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an opposed speedy, but it should be a C2D to match the main article Catholic Church (Roman Catholic Church redirects there). See also a related RM at Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia#Requested move 2 October 2016.) -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories included in the nomination
copy of speedy nomination
Comments
[edit]
If "Catholic Church" is good enough for the main article, it should be good enough for the categories. It'd be a different story if the disambiguation page was located at "Catholic Church", but it's not. Perhaps if you have a problem with how the article is named, you should take it up at RM. -- Tavix (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I trust then that there will be follow-up noms for Category:Catholics, Category:Roman Catholics, Category:Catholic church buildings and Category:Roman Catholic church buildings. Oculi (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia uses the "common name". The article is at Catholic Church. That is by far the common name. In fact some argue that the name "Roman Catholic Church" is a relic of Anglican anti-Catholicism that attempts to portray Catholics as foreign. The main point is that if it works for the main article name, it can work for the category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 4 November 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.
 – Proper venue for follow-up discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1795 establishments in Ohio

[edit]
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: upmerge all to appropriate Northwestern Territory categories. @Marcocapelle: As the original proposer of this alternative, could you create a list of the appropriate categories and message me on my talk page with them so I can complete the upmerge? (Alternatively, you're welcome to carry it out directly, but I'm happy to make use of WP:CFD/W if helpful.) ~ Rob13Talk 08:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is an anachronism. Ohio was part of the Northwest Territory in 1795 and wasn't named Ohio till 1803. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to [x] in NT. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Northwest Territory categories, preferable ones covering a whole decade. It is inappropriate for the target to be a subcat of decades in Michigan etc. Also there is a need for a capnote as in Northwest Territories due to several places with rather similar names. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I seem to remember a multitude of previous nominations of this sort and how they amounted to more busy work on the part of editors with a fondness for such rather than anything that's really going to move the encyclopedia forward. The point being, in this context, is "Ohio" supposed to refer to a piece of geography or a state of mind? I believe that point has been raised before and no consensus was ever achieved. If there really is any confusion, it could be resolved by placing explanatory text at the top of the category page in lieu of endless CFDs. From what little Ohio history I remember from long ago, much of northeast Ohio was considered a part of Connecticut during the tail end of the 18th century, which confuses the matter even more. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to the Northwest Territory category. Various discusions have established that in the United States we use the name and the boundaries that reflect the political reality of the time. Whether we have enough contents for these categories to justify having categories for each year is a question best left for a seperate discussion. We have Category:1825 establishments in Michigan Territory etc that reflect this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Connecticut claimed part of this territory" statement is not quite right. In 1786 all claims of rulership to the Northwest Territory were ceded to the Federal Government, and the Northwest Territory was created. All Americans operating in the Northwest Territory after that point accepted that they were under the political control of the Northwest Territory. The Western Reserve of Connecticut after that point was an area of land that Connecticut held the theoretical ownership of as land owner, but did not hold any political control over. It then sold off the land or gave it as grants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 4 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_29&oldid=1090392235"