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.
Comments – Over the years, names have changed and/or boundaries have changed, and some of our most active Wikipedians have a million excuses why they can't be bothered to help when such occurs, resulting in factual inaccuracies which linger for years. Contrast this with the highly coordinated and Johnny-on-the-spot effort to replace "Wade Hampton Census Area" with "Kusilvak Census Area", which in that case occurred on Wikipedia before it was recognized by the Census Bureau, now followed by this. I understand that the power of this website has given rise to people who believe it's more appropriate to use Wikipedia to influence the world rather than merely reflect it, but making Wikipedia a party to the current political effort to eradicate names because they are of "dead white guys" doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence in someone such as myself who isn't here for that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:59, 31 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.
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.
Neutral - I do not see the need for a change and I was away on vacation when the original discussion took place. I see there were only a few comments on the original proposal and I think the topic should receive more comments for so many categories to be changed. However, if the changes are made, I believe that the category "Tourist attractions in ..." should also be placed at the top level for any country, since it is otherwise hidden under the "Economy of ..." category. The category "Tourist attractions" aggregates many topics that visitors (and residents) like to go visit, such as museums, parks, historic sites, monuments, shopping centers, places of worship, sports and more. Yes, tourist attractions affect the economy, but they are also a separate type of category, much as the category "Sports in ..." could also go under "Society" but would then be lost to a casual Wiki user.Jllm06 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Outside wikipedia these are tourist attractions. "Tourist attractions in ..." should always be placed in "Tourism in ....." Shyamsunder (talk) 20:41, 30 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.
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: merge. The fact that some people's life partially overlapped with the reign of Elizabeth I seems a rather trivial base for categorization. I don't think there are any other categories like that. Besides the name of the first category is ambiguous in the sense that it's not clearly excluding German, Arabian or Chinese people of that era. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not after cutting the entire Elizabethan tree, it just goes a bit too far (I think) to classify biographies in a short period like this, because most people's lifes will merely have some overlap with Elizabeth I's reign (e.g. died or born in 1580). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. One nation's golden period might be another nation's dark period. Not many Irish people of the time would have regarded the Tudor colonisation of Ireland as a golden period. The Chinese were probably blissfully unaware that they were living through a golden period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not everybody that lived in Ireland in the 16th century would self describe as "Elizabethan". Only the conquerors would accept that epithet; the conquored would probably call themselves "Gaels" or Category:16th-century Gaels. Both, however, could happily co-exist in a neutral Category:16th-century Irish people. But this would be over-cvategorisation which is why the merge is the best plan. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However they might have described themselves, I think it is useful to describe them as Elizabethans - she claimed to be their monarch and kind of got her way.Shtove (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may be missing the point - and getting sarcastic too, which is never a good thing on WP. Basic point is that her reign is a tight fit for colonisation in Ireland. Anyway, I don't understand why this tidying up can't be dealt with by sub-categorisation rather than merge. Shtove (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why? Because most of her claimed subjects in Ireland, would have rejected the categorisation "Elizabethan"; only a minority - the English conquerors - would have accepted the sentiment, though none would have used it at the time. At the same time, most of modern Belgium was governed by the King of Spain. Do you think that many would have self described as Philippians.? Would many Belgians today accept that categorisation? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've perfectly free to adduce any information from any reliable source that will support your stance that would describe Irish people, as opposed to the general history of Ireland in the period of concern, as "Elizabthans". I'm all for freedom of information, religion and politics, unlike Elizabeth herself. But let us not rush into presenting a socio-historical world view that may not be supported by scholarly evidence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like a further sub-category, which may be useful. This category covers Irish born people too, and many of them did contribute to or resist colonisation. It is a useful category, but then I would say that because I set it up and wrote some of the articles. Shtove (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case the fact that people in Ireland of this period were either English or Irish is much more defining than that they were Elizabethan. And I agree with User:Laurel Lodged that Elizabethan is too much of a POV issue for native Irish people. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just as people can have lives which overlap the changing of a century, they can of a period as well. And people by period/era is actually more defining than our century cats, which are merely WP:OC#ARBITRARY, if you think about it. Researchers are just as likely (if not more so) to look for bios belonging to some historical period than some arbitrary numerical timespan. - jc3715:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So you want to unravel every "by century" tree structure? Best of luck to you with that nomination process. You'll be tagging until Christmas. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that numeric lifespans are arbitrary, but it's even more arbitrary to categorize someone living from 1500 to 1570 in the Elizabethan category while there is less than 20 years of overlap with Elizabeth's reign. The big advantage of centuries is at least that many people's lifes fit within a century, especially in older centuries when most people didn't become as old as nowadays. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem all you "I dont like it" voters have is that references use the term. things and people are classified in such a way in scholarly texts. - jc3706:41, 9 September 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.
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: merge, "ulama" is not a defining characteristic of these articles. This is a follow-up nomination after this discussion has been closed as upmerge for some other Ulama categories by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 30 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.
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: Not entirely sure what this category is supposed to be for; seems to be an arbitrary list of Latin American diplomats (who should all be in subcategories of Category:Diplomats by nationality anyway). Linked Commons category doesn't exist. Only category it is in and only subcategory is itself. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 05:58, 30 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.
