Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 13 December 15 >

December 14[edit]

Category:Rugby biography stubs[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: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Useless container category for just two sports, based on a common history but bordering on shared name. The non-stub equivalents eg Category:Rugby league people do not have such a parent. Only member William Gilbert (rugby) is a businessman who sold early balls, and already has 2 other stub tags which adequately cover him. Suggest deleting both cat and template and putting the rugbies into Category:Sportspeople stubs by sport directly. Qetuth (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the category for an associated stub type {{Rugby-bio-stub}}, and the nominator doesn't propose what to do with that stub type. Regardless of what solution is suggested for the stub type, this sort of container-type stub category is useful as a first step for editors who may be unaware of either {{Rugbyunion-bio-stub}} or {{Rugbyleague-bio-stub}}. Any subsequent stub-sorting will be easier if an article is in this category rather that in Category:Sportspeople stubs (through being tagged with {{sport-bio-stub}}). And before anyone quotes WP:ITSUSEFUL, stub categories are a maintenance tool, and their own purpose is to assist maintenance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Rugby union has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Rugby league has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Actually, I did propose what to do with the template - delete it as useless. It is currently only used for a single article, which is for a businessman who made sporting equipment. It is extremely unlikely more articles on 'Rugby' pre-current definitions would appear, and nowhere else is our main categorisation of sports bios by the predecessors to that sport. Especially when there are plenty of other modern successors to develop out of Rugby which haven't kept the name. As for it being useful to have a container category for those who can't find the category for the right sport, we have similar things with say Category:Winter sports biography stubs - I certainly wouldn't have a problem with something like Category:Football biography stubs but the current category just arbitrarily splits off a pair of football codes on a common name. --Qetuth (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BrownHairedGirl makes a good argument, which I support. Plus some articles are common to rugby rather than too either sport and some some editors may not be certain to which code an article applies. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another note on the 'some articles are common to rugby rather than to either sport' argument: Category:Rugby footballers‎ has 0 articles - as a sport, there only appear to be 4 rugby bio articles total: the game founder, the two original ball producers, and a historian. --Qetuth (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BrownHairedGirl and FruitMonkey. --Bob247 (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2012 (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.

Turkey categories[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: no consensus. We need a solid direction on whether to make establishment categories apply to the original country or the current one. This discussion doesn't get us there. Somewhere else, this needs to be settled so that editors have a clear guide.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1826 establishments in Turkey[edit]
This is not true in all cases. Category:1873 establishments in the Ottoman Empire was created last may by another user.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This was the correct name for the country, though "Turkey" was also used for the area in GB (e.g. Customs records). Peterkingiron (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and add category Category:1889 establishments in the Ottoman Empire and so on to the category, i.e. make it a subcat, so that you have the historically correct version without losing the current information. This way, people can find the things that are currently in Turkey by year of establishment: the pure renaming or upmerging of the category removes that possibility. A country is more than a political entity, it is also a geographical region. Having historical categories matching the current situation is useful and helpful for many purposes, and by making it a subcat the historical aspect can be satisfied as well without any loss of information. In many cases, things established when Turkey was still part of the Ottoman Empire don't even mention Ottoman Empire, only Turkey, since that is the major context. What happened in Year X in what is currently country Y? Fram (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for now, partly per Fram. The Ottoman Empire was a huge territory, and some subdivision of it will assist navigation. I am undecided whether that territory is best subdivided for these categorisation purposes by the current divisions, or by those which applied in the era being categorised (see Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire), or some combination of both ... but a quick look at this map will show that it covered a vast area now under the control of many different states. It seems wrong for the category system to cut all these areas off from their history.
    The nominator's statement that "the logical way to categorize things is by what country they were in" ignores the fact that there are many ways of looking at the history of the areas concerned, and the country-at-that-time approach is one one of several options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the country at the time way of categorizing is the only way that allows us to keep categories fixed. If we categorize by what the country is now, we will have to change categoriews if international coundaries change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was no place designated as "Turkey" that was a subcat of the total Ottoman Empire. Also the different uses of these categories do not reflect any logical division criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the extent "Turkey" was used before 1923 it was a synonym for the Ottoman Empire. Thus a 1910 map of "Turkey in Europe" shows under that designation an area that includes Thessalonika, modern Albania and many other places not ucrrently in Turkey. Turkey is a synonym for the Ottoman Empire. It does not have any level of existence as a sub-unit of the Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To conflate Turkey with Ottoman is a mistake and will be disruptive - Turk does not equal Armenian, Arab, Greek, or North African, although all could have been considered Ottoman at some stage. This is so ambiguous as to create a real mess - do you mean the land mass of Anatolia, or the political organisation of vilayets (post 1864 AD) that approximate the Anatolian territories, or the 14 sanjats that preceded them, or the Anatolian beyliks that preceded them? Are the Armenian/Trebizond areas included? Otherwise if you mean to exclude all references to Turkey, and replace them with all the vilayets etc then what about those territories which were part of the Empire in name only? Where do the fairly-autonomous Mamluk lands, Egypt, Morocco, Basra, etc feature? Do you also intend to rename e.g. Category:Canals in Egypt to Category:Canals in the Ottoman Empire for consistency? Ephebi (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is why we call these categories "Ottoman Empire" not "Turkey". However that does not change the fact that the 1910 Atlas I used to have showed a place called "Turkey" and it was in fact the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The canals category is just a red herring. Ephebi has correctly argued there is no clear definition of what "Turkey" is as a sub-unit of the Ottoman Empire. This means we ought to get rid of the Turkey categories. These are establishment by year categories. This means the simple way to use them is to follow the boundaries of the countries involved in the year involved. This is a simple and straightforward way to do it. However, the fact remains that it was common to desinate an area on a map as Turkey in 1910, but that would always be a designation applied to the Ottoman Empire in its entirety. To try to have Turkey and Ottoman Empire categories for the same year is an unworkable mess. Establishment by year categories logically should use the political lines that existed in the year involved. This is a very simple and straightforward plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The important semantic here is in - so that these are establishments which relate to the current location. We can visit Turkey and find establishments there which originated in 1966, 1902, 1712, 1125 etc. What this proposal would do is to confuse of with in, e.g. establishments of the Ottoman Empire - whether or not there was a political elelment in its founding. Ephebi (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ephebi makes a good point, which I support.
    However, I wonder whether our current category naming system adequately conveys the way that I read category names such as this, which I think is also Ephebi's approach. I read "YYYY in Turkey" as meaning "YYYY in the geographical area which is now Turkey", and I wonder whether there could be a more concise forms of words to convey this reading of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is just a horrible way to do things. Then if boundaries change then categorization will have to change. If we apply the actual limits of nations at the time, then the categories are permanent and fixed. This would be a really bad idea for applying Polish, German and Russian categories. To call things established in Konigsberg in 1890 in any way Russian would just be anachronistic and ignore the fact it was a German city at the time. It also would leave us with a mess in places like Thessalonika which is not a Greek city before the exchange of populations after World War I. It is a multi-ethnic city clearly within the Ottoman Empire. It is just much, much easier to apply the boundaries that existed at the time than to try and retroactively place things within modern nations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are by year categories. Things can not be done in countries that do not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Keep both. The Ottoman Empire and pre-1923 Turkey are not synonym. Some events influenced the empire as a whole and some not. Take a look at 1910. In 1910 several sport clubs were established in Turkey and they are still active. You can categorize them under 1910 establiahments in Turkey. But in the same year Ottoman Socialist party was founded which was an establishement effective all over the empire. Then you can categorize it under 1910 establiahment in the Ottoman Empire. So I think we need both of the categories. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 1910 when people said "Turkey" they meant the Ottoman Empire. They are the same thing. If something in 1910 was labeled "Turkey" on a map it would be the Ottoman Empire. Turkey in as much as it is used at all in 1910 is used as a synonym for the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me say this one more time. Turkey was not a sub-unit of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey was a synonym for the Empire. That is the only way Turkey would have been used in 1911. There was no sub-empire place ever designated as Turkey. To retroactively apply the modern boundaries of Turkey ignores the fact that there were genocides and population exchanges that had to happen to make those boundaries roughly correspond with the extent of Turkish (or Kurdish subsumed into Turkish) population areas. Beyond this, in 1911 some of what is today Turkey was in fact in the Russian Empire, so retroactive use of modern boundaries just plain does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(thanks for formatting your replies inline.) ... To respond, your point shows why working within modern boundaries is so much easier and obvious, per BHG. If you have ever spent any time in the archives researching the activities of the Sublime Porte across its territories, I can't imagine that you would ever assert that we can conflate all its Ottoman inhabitants with Turks, and vice versa. Vali and military officers were trained in Constantinople, but those areas outside Anatolia were not referred to as Turkish in any serious contemporary correspondence. Before WWI these areas operated with different levels of separation or protection (Egypt, Kuwait, Basra...) and the fragmentation of WWI clearly demonstrated that difference. (Also please be more careful with your statement about what "had to happen" - this could be badly misconstrued.) Ephebi (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Ottoman Empire is what the place is. The things were established in the Ottoman Empire. To treat Thessalonika as anything else is just misleading at best. To try and differentiate things in Thessalonika in 1911 from those in Istanbul in the same year because of events a decade later is just plain historically inaccurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To show how off the Turkey categories are, we had Moda FC in the Turkey category even though the opening line of the article was "Moda FC is a defunct sports club of Istanbul, Ottoman Empire."John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We are not trying to "conflate the Ottoman inhabitants with Turks". We are saying that from a political standpoint, The Ottoman Empire is what the place is. There is no sub-unit of the Empire designated as "Turkey". Turkey in as much as it exists at all is a synonym of the Empire. A 1910 map if it does show "Turkey" will show it stretching to the shores of the Adriatic in what is today Albania, and stretching to the Persian Gulf through what is today Iraq. The political unit, the country in place, is the Ottoman Empire, and this reality should be reflected in categorization. To try an pretend there is some place "Turkey" that is somehow a sub-unit of the Ottoman Empire is just false. To act like the areas that became Turkey in 1923 all had Turkish majorities is 1911 is even worse. It ignores not only the genocides and the exchange of population, but the fact that ethnicity in not fixed and that the Ataturk regime proactively worked to Turkicize non-Turkish populations. However, this is not about the ethnicity of the people involved. It is not even about the nationality of the people involved. These are simple place of establishment categories, and the simple way to do such categories is by the place where the things was established. The places are established in the Ottoman Empire. There may be some subcategories of the Empire that are worth having, but since Turkey, if used at all, would be used as a synonym of the Empire, it does not work. What next will you want Category:1876 establishments in Russia and Category:1876 establishments in the Russian Empire. Having both these categories is the same thing as having both those categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That Moda FC lede is strangely-written, I agree - Istanbul did not exist in the Ottoman Empire in 1908, for sure. I presume you saw that the article does cross-reference List of Turkish Sports Clubs by Foundation Dates? Football's not my thing, but as you seem to claim some expertise here maybe you know if they were from Stamboul, Pera, or across Constantinople? Ephebi (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and please JPL, I have asked you before, if you are replying to someone's comments and are not !voting, will you indent and place your comments after the other's statements? As it is, spraying the whole page with *Comment lines makes it hard work to know if you are responding to someone or ruminating aloud. Its also unnecessary if you are only repeating your earlier rationale; we already read it and got it. But repetition looks WP:SHOUTy. Also can you please avoid re-categorising/re-writing pages to fit your proposal until after the move has been agreed, like you did at Moda FC. Thanks in anticipation, Ephebi (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Moda FC article clearly says it was established in the Ottoman Empire. I did not put that in the opening sentance which says this, in fact the article opened by saying the istitution was in the Ottoman EMpire when it was put in the Turkey category without any reference to Turkey in the article. Unless people think we should delete Category:1903 establishments in the Ottoman Empire, which no one has motioned we should do, I see absolutely no reason for it to be in any category other than that one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Up until I added my own thoughts as well, this was the whole talk page on the item "== Not a Turkish club! ==

It was an English club of Istanbul. (note: I'm a Turk)Böri (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)" It seems pretty clear to me that it should never have been put in the Turkish category. It is the Ottoman Empire that the people who established were operating in, so we can state that without any dispute.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Clearly you can not have an establishment in a place that did not exist at the time of the establishment. If there are issues with using the word 'in' in these categories, then we need to address it outside of this discussion. But based on past discussions the proposal seems to be completely in line with consensus and usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no, it's not ideal but it's still the best solution to the problem. Borders change and it makes most sense to classify events and establishments using the political entity of that time. For instance, assume that in a few years Israel signs a peace treaty with Syria and cedes the Golan Heights. I think it would be crazy to suddenly consider the founding of Katzrin as an event that took place in Syria. Well maybe that's not such a great example because according to international law, it didn't occur in Israel either but the basic point remains. Pichpich (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1911 establishments in Turkey[edit]
Members of WP:YEAR are well qualified to give an opinion what "we do by year" - please notify them of your intention to refine what this mean. Thank you. Ephebi (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as 1826 etc above. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and add category Category:1911 establishments in the Ottoman Empire and so on to the category, i.e. make it a subcat, so that you have the historically correct version without losing the current information. This way, people can find the things that are currently in Turkey by year of establishment: the pure renaming or upmerging of the category removes that possibility. A country is more than a political entity, it is also a geographical region. Having historical categories matching the current situation is useful and helpful for many purposes, and by making it a subcat the historical aspect can be satisfied as well without any loss of information. In many cases, things established when Turkey was still part of the Ottoman Empire don't even mention Ottoman Empire, only Turkey, since that is the major context. What happened in Year X in what is currently country Y? Fram (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for now, per my comment in the discussion above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. this category relates to establishments that now happen to be in the current geographical area we call Turkey that were founded some years ago. The two football clubs that this category relates to were not political establishments of the Ottoman empire, and have survived through the administration of the Ottomans, Young Turks, Ataturk, the generals, and modern Turkey. It is not clear why they should now be redefined as Ottoman institutions? Ephebi (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are by year categories. Things can not be done in countries that do not exist. Ataturk was without question an officer in the Ottoman Empire. The Young Turks were a political movement within the Ottoman Empire. They did not form the modern nation of Turkey until 1923. Before that they were clearly operating within the Ottoman Empire. The place was the Ottoman Empire in 1911.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you look at the category you see it includes Rumblers FC which only lasts until 1915. It was established by people who were Greek and English. So Ephebi's claims about these instutions outlasting the Ottoman Empire, let alone any other government, are just plain false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly you can not have an establishment in place that did not exist at the time of the establishment. If there are issues with using the word 'in' in these categories, then we need to address it outside of this discussion. But based on past discussions the proposal seems to be completely in line with consensus and usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly? You can have prehistoric settlements in the United States, Roman cities in France, and so on. The history of a current country doesn't start with its official independence, a country is also a territory, and that territory existed since the prehistory. Only using the countrises that existed at the time of the establishment removes a whole lot of very useful information for the interested reader; what happened in a current country (territory) throughout the ages. Such continuity is equally important as historical correctness is, and removing one for the sake of the other means deliberately removing useful information. As for past discussions, there is no consensus for these kinds of things (plus that WP:CCC of course), as can be seen in this very discussion. There was an RfC on those, which didn't reach any consensus. Fram (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for reasons given in the CfD just above. But I would like to add a question/comment for the ones opposing the merge. Of course I do understand the argument in favor of categorizing according to modern states. But should we then delete all categories for defunct states such as the Ottoman Empire? And if not, how do we handle this dichotomy? Should we categorize some articles as both 1826 establishments in Turkey and 1826 establishments in the Ottoman Empire? Or should we choose one or the other using some kind of reasonable heuristic? I'm not saying this to counter your arguments, I'm genuinely interested in discussing the way forward if the parallel categories are kept. Pichpich (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:1838 in Turkey[edit]
This is not an establishments category. It is a x in y year category. In general the stuff are events that happened in that particular year in a given place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for now, per my comment in the discussion above on establishments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are by year categories. Things can not be done in countries that do not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom; one cannot establish something in a country that has yet to be formed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly you can not have an establishment in place that did not exist at the time of the establishment. If there are issues with using the word 'in' in these categories, then we need to address it outside of this discussion. But based on past discussions the proposal seems to be completely in line with consensus and usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
er, this proposal isn't about establishments. Its about annual events or some such? Jumbling up these proposals at random is confusing. Personally, I'd like to see how the "establishments" thread plays out before considering the general "Year in Foo" categories. Ephebi (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worse, the argument for these is probably even more for using the name of the place at the time, because in general these are things that happened in that year, they do not still exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to give you a flavor of what these categories have, in Category:1838 in Turkey the only entry is Treaty of Balta Liman, a treaty signed in the Ottoman Empire with the Ottoman Empire as one of the participatory countries. Treaties, rebellions and earthquakes are the most common entries in these categories. They are events that have location, and it would make most sense to use the countries at the time, especially for treaties.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and for reasons outlined in my !vote in the CfD just above. Pichpich (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2013 (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:1889 establishments in the Czech Republic[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 Category:1889 establishments in the Czech Republic to Category:1889 establishments in Austria-Hungary. I've looked at a lot of these discussions around whether to name the categories after the modern place names or the names used at the they relate to. It seems to me that there's a consensus emerging to do the latter, although it's not unanimous and both sides make well reasoned points. It looks to me like in this particular discussion that a consensus does exist to rename the category. delldot ∇. 03:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:1889 establishments in the Czech Republic to Category:1889 establishments in Austria-Hungary
  • Nominators rationale This was clearly not the Czech Republic in 1889. It was not a Republic at all but part of an Empire. The current name is just totally wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and add category Category:1889 establishments in Austria-Hungary to the category, i.e. make it a subcat, so that you have the historically correct version without losing the current information. This way, people can find the things that are currently in Czechia by year of establishment: the pure renaming or upmerging of the category removes that possibility. A country is more than a political entity, it is also a geographical region. Having historical categories matching the current situation is useful and helpful for many purposes, and by making it a subcat the historical aspect can be satisfied as well without any loss of information. Fram (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is just misleading and inaccurate to refer to it as the Czech Republic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. this proposal confuses items in a place with items of a political boundary, per discussion above.Ephebi (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are by year categories. Things can not be done in countries that do not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; there was no Czech Republic in 1889. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly you can not have an establishment in place that did not exist at the time of the establishment. If there are issues with using the word 'in' in these categories, then we need to address it outside of this discussion. But based on past discussions the proposal seems to be completely in line with consensus and usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the large number of pages allocated to their contemporary location, it seems a lot of our fellow editors do not think this is clearly about allocating things to the earliest historical country/empire/political union/fuzzy pink line on scrap of vellum. If we could get a rational discussion in one place it would then be worthwhile seeking a clearer alternative wording or lede for these articles. So lets keep things where they are 'til then. Ephebi (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2012 (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:1924 establishments in Israel[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 to Category:xxxx establishments in Mandatory Palestine. None of the supporters of the rename seemed to object to this option as opposed to "British Palestine". This discussion is one in a series about whether to name categories by their modern names or to use the names of the places at the time that they relate to. I have looked at a lot of them and I think I'm seeing a consensus emerge to use the names of the places at the time; however, the consensus is not as clear in some discussions as I think it is in this one. I appreciate that one participant brought up WP:MODERNPLACENAME, which points to an existing consensus. I have not taken into account the argument that people might be offended by a certain name, my task here is to find consensus among Wikipedians in line with the broader consensus of the community. delldot ∇. 03:38, 1 January 2013 (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:1912 establishments in Israel[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 to to Category:xxxx establishments in the Ottoman Empire. Whether there should be subcategories of that category need not be part of this decision, that can be for users to figure out through ongoing discussion. delldot ∇. 03:55, 1 January 2013 (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:Non Malayali actors acted in Malayalam-language films[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: merge to Category:Malayalam film actors. No objections from the nom, it seems like the proponents of merging that contributed before this was suggested would be ok with this. delldot ∇. 01:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Non-standard categorization, looking like confusing WP:OVERCAT. Malayali is not an ethnicity according to the article. Brandmeistertalk 11:25, 14 December 2012 (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:Afyonkarahisar geography stubs[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC):* Propose renaming Category:Afyonkarahisar geography stubs to Category:Afyonkarahisar Province geography stubs[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change reflects the naming of the permanent categories. Dawynn (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2012 (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:Unincorporated cities in Norway[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: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Norway does not a system with unicorporated areas that are parts of a greater local government 83.109.44.162 (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; there is no concept in Norwegian law that I could find that distinguishes between non-municipalities in more or less populated settings. See List of municipalities of Norway for an explanation of Norway's governance at the local level. For any sub-municipality settlements we categorize under "villages in" or "populated places in" each of Norway's counties see Category:Populated places in Norway and its daughter cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Carlos. By the look of the articles, some of the members are former municipalities which were merged. 'Unincorporated cities' does not seem the right phrase for this, if it is not an official one. --Qetuth (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2012 (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:Danube in culture[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: delete The Bushranger One ping only 19:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very little about the Danube in culture than a category of things named for the Danube in disguise WP:OCAT shared name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be just cleaned up, I think there is enough relevant things to put there other than famous The Blue Danube. Brandmeistertalk 20:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is really a category for things by shared name named in a way that avoids being quickly noticed as such. We should just delete it as the unaccetped grouping of things by shared name that it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per JPL. This is just a category of articles with "Danube" somewhere in the title. Mangoe (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2012 (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:1760s establishments in the United States[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 into Category:1760s establishments in the Thirteen Colonies. No objections to this suggestion by previous contributors, it seems like the nom and earlier contributors would be ok with this idea since arguments revolved around historical inaccuracy. delldot ∇. 01:57, 31 December 2012 (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:Ancient Christianity[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 Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity to Category:Early Christianity and Category:Late Ancient history of Christianity to Category:Late ancient Christianity. Keep Category:Ancient Christianity as their parent for now, as other sub-cats straddle those periods. – Fayenatic London 23:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
Rename Category:Ancient Christianity to more clearly separate out the years 313 to 476.
Merge Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity to remove redundant and newly created category for the same period. It also has an unnecessarily wordy and miscapitalized name. At the the very least Category:Ancient Christianity and Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity need to be merged under somename.
Rename Category:Late Ancient history of Christianity to remove unnecessarily wordy and miscapitalized name. tahc chat 03:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Merge to match articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The head Category:Ancient Christianity contains many sub-cats e.g. Ancient Christian controversies, denominations, texts, Church buildings. It looks as if these could be split with reasonable ease between Early and Late ancient; is that the intention? I would be more inclined to support the merger if a complete set of the required splits/renames could be set out here. Otherwise, I think the head category should not be merged, and the early/late sub-cats should include "history". – Fayenatic London 13:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You raise an excellent point. I personaly would treat this CFD as a test case, and afterward create a new to CFD to discuss spliting the subcats into new names, on what can be a case-by-case basis. Of course anyone can add any or all of them to this CDF (today only) if they feel it would help. Until or unless they are unsplit, the sub-categories can be added to both Category:Early Christianity and Category:Late ancient Christianity. tahc chat 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- In some fields of history, the term "late ancient" (or late antique) is applied to the period that in other areas is called the Dark Ages. The subjects of this discussion are unnecessary categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the merger proposal. Neutral about the re-name proposal. The current category of Ancient Christianity contains children that can be split cleanly into either Early Ancient or Late Ancient. Where such a split is possible, without undue straininng of dates, it should be done. I have done a lot of that heavy lifting myself already. The problem then becomes one of what to do with those remaining children and articles that cannot be cleanly split or whose splitting would violate the scope of the dates? I have not found a good solution so far and have been forced to conclude that Ancient Christianity must remain as a container for these remnants and the scope must define it as encompassing both the Early and Late Ancient periods. It would be wrong to merge it exclusively to Early as many of its contents are post-Nicene. As for the capitalisaton, I don't believe that it's inappropriate. Things like "Middle Ages", "Dark Ages", "Augustine Age", "Modern Era" are usually capitalised. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS I've just noticed that the proposer changed the scope of the category at the same time as submitting this proposal.It used to read "This category is for events, eras, and people of Christianity, from roughly the Resurrection of Jesus around the year 30 until Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD. It caters for those articles and categories that canot be neatly assigned to the categories of Early Ancient or Late Ancient Christianity." Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This discussion seemed familiar with ante-Nicene and post-Nicene (325) being discussed in two other nominations, 1 and 2. While not directly related to this discussion, it shows that there may be some naming issues in general for these periods. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Ante-Nicene/Post-Nicene is probably the best way to divide this period. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene would not use the names of the main articles for the categories. In addition, Post-Nicene could include anything from 313 up to the present day. tahc chat 06:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because those supposed main articles probably shouldn't exist. The divisions used by those in the field are Apostolic Age and Ante-Nicene Period, because those are the significant divisions; I don't know where this other division comes from, but I'd be surprised that it reflected scholarly usage anywhere in the field. This split discussion really needs to be closed early and started over with all the categories and articles discussed together; as it is we have at least two (and think really three and maybe even four) series of articles for the same overall history; we really can't solve the category problem without reducing the articles to a single unified series. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category, whether named "Post Nicene" or "Late Ancient", could continue to use the scope definition of "This category is for events, eras, and people of Christian history from the rise of Christianity under Emperor Constantine (c. 313), until Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD.". Would the title have to reflect this rather unwieldy scope definition? For example, would it have to be "Christianity from Ante-Nicene period until the Fall of the Western Roman Empire"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question—Why do the Ancient Christianity categories need to be split? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The convertion of Constantine is (IMHO) about the 2nd most important event in Christian history, and it does make a very common and natural dividing point. The two time periods do have one article each, and there are not any articles for the combined time period. If you have a good reason to combine them please consider creating a new CFD after this one is finished. If you do so, I will wait for it to play out before CFDing any of the subcats after the pattern of these two. tahc chat 06:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so there's no cogent reason to split them. The categories are not overly large and there's no confusion of terminology. The reason for splitting is merely a couple of editors' opinion. I also note that the article Early Christianity uses the Council of Nicea in 325 as the boundary point rather than Constantine's conversion possibly as many as 13 years earlier. Delete both the newly created categories Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity & Category:Late Ancient history of Christianity, which are just adding a pointless, extra, un-needed layer. I have no strong opinion on Ancient vs Early for the principal question here, so as the article seems to be stable at "Early Christianity" our protocols would have us rename Ancient Christianity to Early Christianity. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I guess that seems like a mildly better idea, overall. Rename main cat to Early. Please note that the original proposals are not withdrawn as they may still prove to draw more consensus than delete; anything besides the status-quo would still be an improvement. tahc chat 04:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to remove "...history of..." from the categories. Oppose the rest, and suggest manual cleanup instead. For example, it sounds like category:Ancient Christianity merely needs diffusion to its subcats as appropriate, to make it a container category. - jc37 07:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do it differently "Early" is by far the usual term over "Ancient", so support that rename, but the division at 313, or the Council of Nicea in 325, is entirely normal - it makes a little more sense to include Constantine's "conversion" with the later rather than the earlier. However unfortunately there is no standard definition of when the period ends, whatever it is called. Some sources use it up to the 7th century, which I don't propose we follow. These categories are surely very under-populated & inadequate. There is as yet no Category:Early Christian art or equivalent [now set up] - only Category:Palaeo-Christian architecture, which should be renamed. Suggest:
  • YES: Category:Ancient Christianity to Category:Early Christianity
YES, given existing boundaries we use Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity to Category:Early Christianity
Propose renaming Category:Late Ancient history of Christianity to Category:Late ancient ChristianityCategory:Christianity in Late Antiquity - using a standard term, if one also lacking clear date boundaries, but which can be restricted to 476.

Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod's suggestions still do not adress the problem identified above - what to do with those categories that straddle the Early and Late periods and do not lend themselves to easy division: "It would be wrong to merge it exclusively to Early as many of its contents are post-Nicene." Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2012 (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/2012_December_14&oldid=1088120472"