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:no consensus. bibliomaniac15 03:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCEGRS. I am not sure if this cat membership should be based upon religion or ethnicity or something else. I read the intro to Category:Jews and I'm still not sure about this specific category. - jc37 23:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nom. If kept, the inclusion criteria, at least, should be clarified. - jc37 23:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment objection, the subcategories should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural objection: I agree. – FayenaticLondon 07:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, I'm not entirely sure about this one. But if you think they should be added here or separately nommed, please feel free to do so. _ jc37 14:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless they are composers of Jewish music (which does not seem the case) this is a trivial intersection, regardless whether "Jewish" refers to ethnicity or religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a well-populated intersection. Furthermore, Catholic composers will not normally compose music for use in synagogue services, whereas some Jewish ones will. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who, or how many, will do that? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an intersection of an ethno-relitgious group with making music that if kept creates more mess than anyone is willing to deal with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One example of this is Felix Mendelssohn who was very clearly and unabashedly a Christian composer. Basically we have to use the race based defintion of Jewishness favored by the Nazis to put him here, and thus ignore our own rule that we categorize by ethnicity and not race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see any ambiguity in the title. Ethnicity is often defining for musicians, but religion is mostly a trivial aspect. The category should include ethnic Jews. Dimadick (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not easy to define though. Was Mendelsohn an ethnic Jew? The Nazis defined him as a Jew based on race, not based on ethnicity, because the Nazis defined Jewishness as a race. In Mendelssohn's time people saw Jewishness as a religion, and so if you became a Christian you stopped being a Jew. So I am pretty sure that Mendelsohn's contemporaries did not see him as a Jew, defining him as a Jew was a later invention of those who defined Jewishness as a race, but we do not categorize by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert that's POV push and a re-write of history; as well as displaying ignorance of Jewish culture and religion. Historically, the Jewish people have always defined their religion through genetic terms (i.e. descendants of Abraham). Judiasm is both equal parts religion and ethnicity, because of God's promise to Abraham. The Jewish people have always kept detailed genealogical records for this reason, with Jewish inheritance being tracked through the bloodline of the mother. As such Mendelssohn was a Jew because of who his mother was, when looking at it from the perspective of Jewish culture and religion. The fact that he converted to Christianity, doesn't change the fact that he was born Jewish and a descendent of Abraham. From a Jewish perspective he's a Jew (one can not stop being Jewish from a Jewish perspective; you are born into the covenant made with "God's chosen people" through Abraham because of the bloodline), and saying otherwise is not allowing the Jewish people to define their religion and culture on their own terms. See Abrahamic covenant for details. 4meter4 (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This a well defined category which mirrors reference works such as the Concise Encyclopedia of Jewish Music and Encyclopedia of History of Jewish Music; all of which feature large numbers of biographical entries on Jewish composers.4meter4 (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree it can get complicated sometimes, but as someone who has written a fair number of wiki bios of Jewish composers, I'll put in that it does have some historical significance in terms of an excluded ethnic group with a distinct tradition and composers who wrote for their own community. And add to the fact that this is a group that did not historically have its own nation state, it would be hard to group them according to nationality, unlike many others. Dan Carkner (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a simple matter. No advantage in deleting. Tim riley talk 15:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a useful category for a distinct ethnic group, per Dan Carkner and Kyuko. --Chefallen (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is disagreement as how to define being Jewish . The "general" world sees it as an ethniticity; but observant Jews see it as a religion. There are a number of people included in this category that observant Jews would never consider Jewish. Thus I feel the current category should be deleted and replaced with something more specific. - kosboot (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do think this is different than Catholic composers, as the distinction between an ethnicity and religion for Judaism is extremely muddy. In addition I have seen huge surveys of Jewish composers; the same cannot be said for catholic composers, whose music is usually surveyed as "Catholic music", if that makes sense. Aza24 (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ethnicity of Jewish composers has been the subject of, and/or provided the background for numerous academic books and studies. (And indeed it became a crucial issue in both Nazi and Stalinist arts policies). The category is clear and I believe unambiguous.--Smerus (talk) 19:12, 26 August 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 result of the discussion was:delete. bibliomaniac15 03:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCEGRS. - jc37 23:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nom. - jc37 23:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless they specifically are composers of Catholic music (which does not seem the case) this is a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you don't think Beethoven's work had no relationship to him being Catholic? What do you think of Beethoven's Solemn Mass and Christ on the Mount of Olives? Your example has already been debunked. Provide another if you can. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been debunked, you just do not agree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely objective that Beethoven's work was due to him being Catholic. There is no argument around this. If a composer's work was not because they were Catholic, they will not be listed in the category. Are you even going to attempt to respond to what I said? Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The people arguing for deletion show they do not understand what the category is for. they keep thinking it's for composers who happen to be catholic when it was clarified this is for catholic composers of catholic music, catholic being the defining characteristic of the composers.Not defining of their entire living, just helping with writing the catholic music. We're not banning buddhists writing it as well, we are just saying he was .... you know, like history teacher talking about...idk what, a holocaust... but we trust more a literal Jew who happen to be there, irrelevant if he's even literate, and teacher has PhD in holocaust. Shintoist can paint Jesus, but i think some Swiss abbot would be better
Delete as trivial, non-defining, WP:SYNTH, and a recreation of a category deleted before. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is the central focus and inspiration of the music. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for categorizing religious music, not their composers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The composers were Catholic and their Catholicism was what made them do their work and do it the way they did. This is about the composers not just the music itself. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Among most people in this category, Ludwig van Beethoven just happened to be born in a Catholic country. He did not limit himself to religious music though. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what categorization is for. A sci-fi writer does not have to write only sci-fi to be a sci-fi writer. If you have a problem with a certain person being listed on the category, you can start a discussion whether they should stay or not. Talking about removing the entire category makes no sense. We have already abundantly proven it is proper categorization. I also do not understand your criticism of Beethoven being listed in the category. He was Catholic. It says right here on his page: "the registry of his baptism, in the Catholic Parish of St. Remigius..." Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not about whether he was Catholic. The issue is that him being Catholic has no relationship with his work. And that applies to the majority of people in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be pretty impossible to argue that being Catholic had nothing to do with his work. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me phrase it differently, he did not consistently compose religious music.
You are not listening to what we are saying, which is a very bad habit, especially in "talk section"... we are saying that Bethoven just happened to be what he is. He couldve change his religion of his father's, unlike some, but he kept it, because he liked it. He also liked...cheese, and... horses. If he wrote a song about cheese, we'd put him in the cheese composers, if he was Turkish history enthusiast and wrote Turkish march, we'd put that in turkish (INSPIRED) music. That doesn't mean HE is a Turk. In this case he just HAPPENS to be BOTH inspired by Catholicism AND Catholic. Regardless of his own faith, he still is a catholic(ism inspired) composer. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to write only classical music to be a classical composer. You don't have to paint only Rococo to be a Rococo painter. Your train of thought makes zero sense. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, but Beethoven should be known as a religious composer in order for this to be a defining intersection, and he is not. And that applies to most composers in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand what inspiration means. You don't see their music as an expression, as a form, an art form. You see it as some religious fanaticism and sincerely it starts getting a bit offensive. I start feeling that Bethoven is some....irish catholic terrorist
Please just say what you mean. The link you posted explains so perfectly why Catholic composers is a good category that it's very puzzling you would link it while arguing against keeping the category. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple. People are categorized following how they are referred to in reliable sources. That's what "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" means. This applies to (almost) none of the members of this category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because they ARE specifically composing catholic themed,but that doesn't mean they're exclusively doing so. It's like children music composers.They are not experts (children pedagogue PhD) nor they are kids, they just happen to like to write it, irl they like...horses too and...mayo sandwiches etc. And they will write about that too, and then we'll call them mayonnaise composers. They're not priests. When they compose ....Turkish march, we'll call them Turkish history connoisseurs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violet Feet (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is "Violet Feet"'s first edit. Antandrus(talk) 15:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The RC category was probably correctly removed, by merging to this one. For many composers, their faith will be central to what they compose. This is not just limited to liturgical works. Would Elgar have set the Dream of Gerontius if he was not a Catholic? And Anglican composers will not normally produce settings for the Latin mass, but some of settings b y Catholics are performed in concert halls, not just churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is just speculative. Why wouldn't Elgar have set the Dream of Gerontius if he was not a Catholic. The poem already existed, he was not responsible for the text. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a category like this works for hymnwriters where their music will be clearly religious in nature. However this is set up to capture people who did not have religious themese in their music, or exclude very clearly and publicly Catholic people who at the same time did not in their music itself have clearly Catholic themes. Neither approach is satisfying. We might have Category:Catholic composers of religious music, but this broad category is not the right approach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category is only for Catholic composers of religious music. Catholics who did not compose religious music are not included. Calling the category Catholic composers of religious music is redundant. Even if that is your point of view, you should ask to rename the category, not delete it. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not expect that Category:Catholic composers of religious music will solve anything. Since these composers happened to be Catholic, a number of them will occasionally also have composed some works that could be used in church. That still does not make it a defining intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem confused on what defining intersection means. You are wrong to say that they only occasionally wrote Catholic music; they very often wrote Catholic music. However defining intersection is not based on how often something occurs. It is based on if it can be notably defined by the description. You are arguing against yourself without realizing it. You are admitting these Catholic composers composed Catholic music. If you want me to give even more examples than I already have to show you how often they compose Catholic music, I can do that for you. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A question, Helpfulwikieditoryay - When you say that something is defining, would you please clarify what you mean by that? I do not wish to misunderstand your meaning or intent. - jc37 12:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I say defining I mean that the composers and their music are notably Catholic and that is a distinct way of categorizing these types of composers. The music is deliberately made by Catholic people for the purpose of serving the Catholic religion, such as the many composers who wrote Latin Masses. It is similar to a category like Catholic painters. A Catholic painter would be a Catholic person who, for example, paints a picture of the Virgin Mary. A Catholic composer does the same thing in musical form - he writes a piece called Assumption of the Virgin Mary, for example, which is a real piece by Vivaldi. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unhelpful and overbroad category, and for numerous reasons: it fails WP:CATDEFINING; because of WP:OCEGRS; and because it was already deleted after discussion (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_11#Category:Roman_Catholic_composers), and therefore was re-created out of process. Arguments for keeping it are weak. We could use a category for Category:Roman Catholic composers of religious music; that would be useful. But not this. I also need to point out that many composers of "Catholic" music are not demonstrably "Catholic" in any way. Beethoven was either a pantheist or deist -- see his writings, and anyone who has written on the topic; Verdi was an atheist; Fauré was an agnostic; Janacek was either an atheist or agnostic; Berlioz was an agnostic; I can go on. "Catholic" has to be a defining characteristic of the topic and this simply isn't true in most of these cases. Antandrus(talk) 23:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize all of the people you mentioned except for Beethoven are NOT listed in the category, due to them not being Catholic. As for Beethoven, he was Catholic and wrote Catholic music. We are not here to judge his other philosophical interests or how he perceived religion. If he fits the category he fits the category. If you find it absolutely necessary, you can start a debate whether Beethoven should remain in the category. You are arguing against your own point by pointing out those composers. You argue that the category is too broad while demonstrating that it is not broad at all. Simply composing Catholic music is not enough. That's why Verdi, Fauré, Janacek, Berlioz, and many others are NOT listed. Roman Catholic composers of religious music is redundant because if they did not compose religious music they are not a religious (Catholic, in this case) composer. Catholic is the defining characteristicHelpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were all baptized as Catholics though, which makes them exactly as Catholic as Beethoven. This just shows how useless this category is. Antandrus(talk) 23:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you just explained that it is defining. You are actually on our side now. Thanks. And also, never forget that old saying "It's not important that you are an atheist, but of which religion you are atheist now", what were you before you became so called atheist. As i said nobody is banning muhammadans write about Passions of the Christ, He IS their prophet TOO, same with the atheists. They know Him, He is their inspiration, even tho they "don't" want Him no more (in most cases, atheists just denounce superstition, which isn't the part of Christianity in the first place)Violet Feet (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons mentioned above. Completely nonsensical categorisation.Spartly (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorizing a composer by nationality or ethnicity simply requires us to see what reliable sources claim about their background. To claim that someone's religion was a defining aspect of his life based on a work or two is not reasonable. Take for example the prolific composer Antonín Dvořák. Widely known for works influenced by folk music and folklore in general, but we are supposed to assign special importance to him composing music for a medieval hymn, and writing a single requiem. Why would that make him a "Catholic" composer? It tells us more about his intended audience than himself. Dimadick (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes your last vote incoherent, because it was not until well into the 19th-century that the idea that Jewishness as an ethnicity seperate from practicing the religion even existed. Before that time if you did not practice Judaism, or if your converted away from Judaism, you were seen to have ceased being a Jew.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a rational and helpful category. Tim riley talk 15:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Music and religion are intimately tied subjects with a long documented history in academic publications in multiple disciplines; including music history, musicology, church music, theology, and religious studies. It's a reasonable and useful categorical intersection of interest to musicologists, music historians, and writers on religion and religious music. The fact that there are challenges in categorization in particular instances does not invalidate the category as a whole, or diminish its usefulness within an encyclopedia. Further, there are many biographical entries on composers in the The Catholic Encyclopedia and the New Catholic Encyclopedia. As reference works within this religion have a defined intersection here, calling it a spurious or unhelpful intersection doesn't align with published reference materials which do highlight this intersection.4meter4 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it would by default encompass the vast majority of medieval and Renaissance composers of Western classical music, creating what I don't think is a helpful or meaningful group of people. The scope also makes no sense; there is no distinction between composers who wrote catholic music and those who were baptized catholic (is one group 'more' catholic that the other?). It also seems improper to have recreated this without discussion when it was once deleted. I do think this is different than Jewish composers, as the latter has loads of literature pertaining to surveys of Jewish composers—I'm not sure the same can be said for Catholic ones. Aza24 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "encompass the vast majority of medieval and Renaissance composers of Western classical music" I doubt that. I sometimes work on articles and categories about troubadours, trobairitz, and their contemporaries. In many cases, we know a bit about their work, or even have surviving samples. But we know very little on their backgrounds or personal life. We know nothing about Alamanda de Castelnau's personal life, but she lived in an area with a substantial population of Cathars. Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to educate me about troubadours or equivalent traditions. Please avoid WP:BLUDGEON. Aza24 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not an ethincity (as it is with Jewish composers, above). There could be a category for Composers of Catholic church music (why not?), but there are plenty of composers born Catholic, but not in any way practising Catholics. And as pointed out above, all mediaeval coposers were Catholic. To have one category uniting Hildegard of Bingen, Carl Maria von Weber and Edward Elgar in this manner is nonsensical.--Smerus (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly per Aza24 and Smerus just above. I agree that Composers of Catholic church music might work (which would include Bach who wrote masses). A vague Catholic says nothing, - inspiration doesn't show in that description. If kept - I hope not - the category article should be precise on whom to include. Thousands fit the category by baptism at a time when it was the common religion in wide aereas (as explained above), which makes it practically meaningless. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "at a time when it was the common religion in wide aereas" Why the past tense? An estimated 35% of people in current Europe are Catholics, and Catholics are still the majority of the population in Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Spain. How secularized these areas have become is a different question. Dimadick (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because in the time of early music it was perhaps nearly 100%. Truly, not complicated. Aza24 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 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: As of now, there's only one article in the category. If there are ever more notable non-binary tiktokers, it can be recreated, but in the meantime WP:SMALLCAT applies. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a non-notable intersection that shouldn't be recreated even if a sufficient number of articles are created.--User:Namiba 19:11, 28 July 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: Small category that only has one person in it. If more non-binary skaters become notable, it can always be recreated, but not needed for the time being. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:36, 27 July 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 result of the discussion was:keep. I withdraw my proposal per the comments below. (non-admin closure) ―Qwerfjkltalk 08:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as busywork. There's a whole slew of similar categiries to this one. Consider renamimg the odd one out if you must. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 21:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as no valid reason given for any gained value. The are so many AfC categories (over 5000) many that start with AfC many that don't. If there was going to be any homogenization having them all start with AfC would make more sense. However without a valid rational just seams unnecessary work with no benefit. KylieTastic (talk) 21:26, 27 July 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 result of the discussion was:delete. bibliomaniac15 03:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete' per WP:SMALLCAT, currently one article. There is no need to merge, the article is already in appropriate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom with no prejudice against future recreation if and when more pages exist that can be organized under that category.4meter4 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 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.
Establishments based on first-mentioned dates[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:Option A. When the actual date of establishment of a city or place is unknown, the subject should not be categorized in "establishment by date" categories. bibliomaniac15 03:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where the actual date of establishment of a city or other place is unknown, Propose deprecating categorisation as an establishment at the date of first mention in historical records.
Nominator's rationale: It has been argued (at CFD 2021 June 18 and the related Talk:Khmelnytskyi,_Ukraine) that in cases where the actual date of establishment is unknown, there is a consensus to categorise places as established at the date first mentioned. The most relevant example given was Moscow#History, first mentioned in 1147, but by then it was already a minor border town.
Other editors did not recognise any such consensus, and indeed saw the practice as wrong in principle.
It was noted that {{Infobox settlement}} allows the use of first-mentioned dates as the "established_date" parameter. However, in the infobox, the caption can be changed to something more accurate e.g. "First mentioned". Therefore, infobox usage does not imply that categorisation by that date is also acceptable/WP:DEFINING.
Going the other way, it was also suggested that an old CFD on the Domesday Book was against categorising that way; but that discussion did not hinge on dates first mentioned.
If there are other prime examples to use as test cases, I will be pleased to add them. London and New York were also mentioned at the links above, but in those cases there is more evidence of their actual establishment dates. – FayenaticLondon 14:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A I had written an explanation for why, but my internet decided to fail and not send it. That said, it mostly comes down to us not even not being sure when the first mention occurred. For instance Khmelnytskyi,_Ukraine says it was somewhere between 1493 to 1431. So it still wouldn't be correct to put it in Category:1431_establishments_in_Ukraine even if the standard is changed. I imagine most pre-modern historical subjects have the same issue. There's zero reason the alternative can't just be putting the articles in century of establishment categories as Laurel Lodged suggests instead either. Otherwise, it's trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A: a mention is not an establishment, it is as simple as that. By the way, establishment categories by year are overrated anyway, in many instances contemporary people will not have been aware of the establishment at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A we should categorize things by the fact we know they were established, not by first mention when we know very well this is not when the thing was established. We should also seek to not be so precise we are inaccurate. I have a strong suspicion we should systemically look at all our pre-1500 establishments categories and ask both "does this thing actually fit in this accurate of a cateogry" and also " does it make sense to have this many small categories".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A -- I have long been concerned about establishment categories for distant periods, advocating mergers to centuries, which will sometimes provide a category that can be adequately populated. It is usually easy to say when (or about when) a town in America was first settled. In Europe, it is commonly not possible, because they began sometime earlier than history first records them. Many villages in England are first named in 1086, but they were probably established a few centuries earlier, when settlements began to be nucleated. It might be valid to make Moscow a 12th century establishment, but the date we have for it and many "first mentions" is only a terminus ante quem, not a precise date. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option A. Two of the cornerstone policies of this project are no original research and verifiability, I have no idea when guesswork and misrepresentation of sources became an accepted method of categorising articles but I really don't think its appropriate. A mention is not the same thing as an establishment, so we should not be presenting them as such. To quote from WP:CATV: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If there are no reliable sources documenting when something was established it should not be sorted into an establishments by date category, and if only the decade/century is known it should be sorted into the appropriate decade/century. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 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 result of the discussion was:keep. bibliomaniac15 03:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article Wormhole, unsure if eligible for WP:C2D. Should the title be singular or plural? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
not agree What category name will best avoid confusion here for the average reader, not familiar with theoretical physics, who might think this category is for the holes created by earthworms? It seems to me that the existing name is best. Hmains (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the category currently contains quite a bit more articles than about wormholes as a set. Of course we might purge while renaming, but I am not sure if that would be helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 5 August 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 result of the discussion was:delete. bibliomaniac15 03:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The former two targets are outright wrong, the city of Bruges was not part of Brugse Vrije. The third target might be an option, though the article does not give a clue about which city he was from or where he lived. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Delete without merging, then. – FayenaticLondon 13:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCategory:Burgrave of Brugse Vrije. The article Brugse Vrije suggests that this was a fourth with Bruges, Ghent and another place as constituting Flanders (though I may not have understood thus right). "Lord mayor" is certainly wrong, applying historically in England only to London, though from the 19th century also used in other British cities. Burgrave might be translated as "town count", but mayor would perhaps be a good English translation. I think there must have been others, so populate; if not merge to Category: Flemish politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found two others, not enough to keep the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:18, 28 July 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.
