August 12
Category:Krassó-Szörény County
- 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: delete. Note that this nomination did not include Category:People from Krassó-Szörény County. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: It is used to categorize places over the inclusion in a county that no longer exists. We should only categorize them with the current territorial units, not what was valid a hundred years ago. For some towns in more disputed areas, this would lead to a dozen or two new categories. bogdan (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support deleting the category with this content. Though I wouldn't object to reinstating the category if it could be populated with history articles about this county. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible Keep -- The article on the county indicates that it was created in 19881 by the merger of tow other counties and partitioned between three countries in 1921. I think it is useful to categorise places by their former county, particularly there later arrangements seem to bear little relation to earlier ones. In this particular case, perhaps the contents should be split between Category:Krassó County and Category:Szörény County, omitting a category for the amalgamated county that existed for a mere 40 years. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The current category confuses navigation. I'm open to recreating this (or similar categories proposed by PKI) if and when there are specific articles about this period/location to place in them. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The nominator has overlooked the fact that this is part of an established scheme of historical categorisation consisting of counties and comparable administrative areas within the Kingdom of Hungary and the Austro-Hungarian monarchy as a whole. That in turn is part of a larger scheme of categorisation consisting of comparable administrative units in larger former states, such as the German Empire, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Deleting it would seriously disrupt this whole scheme, which has existed for many years already. Lekoren (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, categories of this type serve as parent categories for the subcategories consisting of people born within the county (or comparable administative unit) while it existed. Category:People from Krassó-Szörény County, for instance, is a subcategory of both Category:Krassó-Szörény County and Category:Austro-Hungarian people. See the corresponding categories for other parts of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, the German Empire, the Russian Empire etc. As I said, it's all part of a much larger established scheme of historical categorisation. Lekoren (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article, Krassó-Szörény County, is already in Category:Counties in the Kingdom of Hungary so there wouldn't be disruption there. The question here is are the other articles in this category defined by being part of this historic county? For instance, Oravița makes no mention of it.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the people from category is sufficiently linked to Category:Austro-Hungarian people and with the header that links to the article on this county. While arguably Jerusalem and many other such places could benefit from being in categories for every political division they have been part of, that is really not what categories are for. Categories are for defining characteristics of the article. For people, if they were born in one county, where they were born was annexed to another country where they did a part of their defining activities, and then a third country annexed the place and they continued doing defining activities, maybe they were a writer publishing works while a national of all 3 countries, than all three countries can be defining. However, places have much longer history and so the many different countries they were in over time will not be as defining. It does not seem a good way to categorize places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not useful nor practical to organize places by former countries and subdivisions. Think of how many categories many places would be in. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2015 (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:LGBT places
- 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:
Relisted at 2015 SEP 11 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons whereby Wikipedia consensus has insisted on categorizing films as Category:LGBT-related films rather than "LGBT films", magazines as Category:LGBT-related magazines rather than "LGBT magazines", and on and so forth, this needs to be renamed — the current naming implies, wrongly, that the places have an inherent sexual orientation or gender identity of their own, rather than simply being associated with people who have sexual orientations or gender identities. The places are LGBT-related, but they don't have sexual or gender identities per se. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - would the same logic mean that "Category:LGBT nightclubs" should be renamed "Category:LGBT-related nightclubs"? Would a rename to something like "Category:Facilities for LGBT people" be better? DexDor (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The subcategories of this categoory consistently leave off "related" from their titles. I don't have preference with this parent category but the articles in, say, Category:LGBT museums and archives aren't just LGBT "related", they're specifically LGBT. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and upmerge to Category:LGBT, not "places". These are various types of places frequented by or catering to a LGBT clientele, the only thing they have in common is their clientele, which is handled in the category to which they should be upmerged. Otherwise we'll be categorizing every place by who goes there, lives there, or is marketed toward. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support alternative rename to Category:Facilities for LGBT people per DexDor. Places is pretty vague and facilities is a much better description anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2015 (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.