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: Redundant category. Contains only other categories, no chance of expansion. Two of the subcategories are already at CFD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you collapse all the subcategory contents into this one, you'll have one comic book and one subcategory. It occurs to me that there is alot of missing content, as there is alot of fish in popular culture. So this needs populating. If Batman falls under bats in popular culture, then fishmen (mermaids) should do so here. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, "a lot" is two words. Second of all, Batman shouldn't fall under bats in popular culture. Third of all, how is this any different from Category:Fictional fish? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So my English teachers marked with their red pen decades ago, but I still use "alot" alot. As for how it is different from fictional fish; religious, legendary and mythical are not necessarily fictional. There's alot of fish in legend, religion, and mythology; as well as fish tales -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no more than a container category for a bunch of other cats that ought to be deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of category leads to categorization that is often not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Most popular culture sections in artilces were deleted years ago, becasue they became a place that collected a large quantity of trivia. This should apply with categories too. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename per the isp. What is wrong with container categories? There should be plenty more to go in here. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep as an obvious part of Category:Animals in popular culture. Just as justified as its sister subcategories. Needs to be further populated to be more beneficial to readers Hmains (talk) 05:00, 30 June 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.
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: Redundant category, contains only another category, no chance of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need this container category of one sub-cat. Whether we need the sub-cat is an issue for another day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not needed: it will merely collect unnecessary trivia. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 22 June 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.
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.
Delete another non-category category. One would have thought that the shark's edibility was its claim in popular culture, but at Wikipedia popular culture is only the culture of Anglophones - the rest of the world be damned, I guess. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not needed: it will merely collect unnecessary trivia. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 22 June 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCAT#SMALL. Only content is the Silverwing series, plus some Batman novels, which are about Batman, not bats per se. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep vampire bats would count as potential category members, if Batman is already a member. There should be much more content. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There should be, but is there? And does Batman even count? Bats are only marginally involved. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete media "about" a subject; how much about the subject must it be? and What reliable source says it's at least that much? Subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The inclusion of batman shows this category is being misapplied and should be scrapped.John Pack Lambert (talk)
REnameCategory:Bats in fiction -- Batman does not belong, but I think that literary references to vampire bats probably do. This is a theme that tends to fill people with horror at the idea and is thus notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Carlossuarez46 makes the point - "Subjective." --Richhoncho (talk) 20:58, 22 June 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.
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.
Question. Should the template also be renamed for clarity? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no firm opinion either way regarding the template, however I think the current name was chosen for consistency with the corresponding template on Commons. --W.D.Graham 23:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template should also be renamed -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:55, 25 June 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: systematic renaming: 'Fußball-' has now been removed from almost all such articles and categories. Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 13:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should the football article be renamed prior to closure of this category request, it should still not be renamed, because of the ambiguity with other regionalliga. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The relevant discussion on Talk:Regionalliga#Requested move 2 has resulted in majority for dropping the word Fußball from the articles names and the discusion was closed on 29 June. The articles have now been moved, it would make sense to do the same with the parent categories. Calistemon (talk) 11:54, 16 July 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.
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, probably should have been a speedy for that reason. There is no consensus her to overturn the previous close. To make sure nothing leaves a proper tree, this will be a merge to Category:1911 establishments in Russia. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the category shouldn't have been recreated, I still don't see any value in deleting it. Ukraine didn't exist, but the history of Ukraine is shaped by things established (and born, and disestablished, and so on) before the country was created, and categorizing things per current country for periods before the country existed is standard (in Wikipedia, and in more serious sources). Fram (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. That Ukraine category would give some information, but less than it does now. What's the advantage? Fram (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How would a combination of Category:1911 establishments in Russia (assuming that it was established while it was in Russia, I am not sure about that, but let it be another state), and Category:Establishments in the Ukraine give less information .. If I add it up, it gives more information, it tells you it was established in 1911 while it was in Russia, and it tells you that it is now an establishment in the Ukraine. In the current case, however, it does not tell you that it was established in Russia, or even that it was at some point in Russia, and gives the impression that it was established in 1911 in the Ukraine ... --Dirk BeetstraTC 12:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the cat under discussion is already a member of Category:1911 establishments in Russia, and that the article is a member of that category as well, it is clear that both the article and the cat do tell you that it was established in Russia, or more precisely in a part of Ukraine that was at the time a part of Russia. With the current situation, you easily get this info starting from the article and starting from the category tree: after your proposed change though, you still get the information from the article, but no longer from the category tree, since the 1911 + Ukraine cat no longer exists, and it is lumped in a much larger "establishments in Ukraine" cat. So, again, what is the added value of making the category less informative? Fram (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are still only looking at this from the angle of the article. If you start from the article, yes, you have the two side by side. If you start from "what happened in what is now Ukraine in 1911", which a reader could look for via the categories, you have totally lost that information. Fram (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted article. As I pointed out in the previous discussion, what is now Ukraine was in 191 split between 3 countries, and within those countries the sub-units that encompassed what is now Ukraine all in many cases included both things now in Ukraine and things now in other countries. There is no workable Ukraine in 1911. The support for deleting the category was overwhelming in the previous discussion. Where these things are now in Ukraine, we have them in other Ukraine appropriate categories, this one is not needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see the utility of such a category per Fram. Readers may well wish to discover things that were established in 1911 in a place that is today within the borders of Ukraine. I see no benefit to destroying this scheme, notwithstanding the previous discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Category:1911 establishments in Russia then delete and salt. We categorise things by years according to the state they were in at the time. If the category become over-large, it could be split by contemporary provinces. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 22 June 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Finland, in it's current state did not exist until 1917, in this time the area was called the Grand Duchy of Finland (established in 1809, disestablished in 1917). Finland is a State established in 1918.
Oppose. Like in all the similar discussions: what's the benefit? What are readers going to look for? Do they want the history of what is now Finland through the ages, or do they want the history of what was then the Grand Duchy? Probably both, so why not incorporate both categories into the article (directly or through the category tree)? What is actually won by not having a "1891 in Finland" cat, apart from some feeling of "historical correctness" wanted by some editors? What is so hard to understand? "I wonder when the things in Finland were established. Oh, too bad, nothing before 1918. Strange, we can have Category:19th-century Finnish people, but not establishments from the same period... The Great Fire of Turku is described as "the largest urban fire in the history of Finland", better go an correct that article as well." Fram (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my suggestion to split .. are they looking for establishments in Finland, are they looking for establishments in the Grand Duchy of Finland, are they looking for establishments in 1891, the current scheme only gives the possibility to search for 1891 establishments in Finland, addition of Category:1891 establishments in Grand Duchy of Finland does not solve the problem that some of these may be disestablished before (the current) Finland existed and editors may want to look for establishments that were disestablished in the Grand Duchy of Finland, or look for subjects that were established in the Grand Duchy of Finland and were disestablished in Finland .. hence the suggestion to split. --Dirk BeetstraTC 07:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how your suggestion solves those hypothetical questions. What is needed for these questions are parallel disestablishment categories, which are n being created as well (but less frequently, as there is often less information on the disestablishment of things). Removing the Category:1891 establishments in Finland category (by renaming, splitting, whatever) will not help a single reader find any disestablishments in Finland, the Grand Duchy, or anywhere else. Fram (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It will help those who want to find establishments in the Grand Duchy of Finland .. who now first have to find where they are actually categorised. And that question is only hypothetical until we find a subject that is established between 1809 and 1918, and disestablished after 1917. --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you want to help those readers interested in what happened in the Grand Duchy, add categories for the Grand Duchy. Splitting up categories and then hoping that our readers will know how to find and use the multiple category search is not a user-friendly move at all. What is the problem with simply adding categories? Fram (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said elsewhere, for other categories it results in information which is simply historically incorrect, and there are likely such cases here as well (which were established and disestablished before 'Finland' existed in its current form. --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said elsewhere, such rigidity, looking at it purely from a "historical correctness" point of view and ignoring the interest people have in what happened in a current country in the years and centuries before it actually existed, is doing our readers a disservice. There is no objection against adding the historically correct categories wherever you like, but that doesn't mean that they can't peacefully coexist with the ones that project historical years on a current geopolitical view of the world. Fram (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As should have been clear from the RfC last year, there are multiple problems, not just the historical correctness. You are ignoring the interest people have in which radio stations were established in Finland in the 1920s, or which sauna cabins were established in Sweden by Italians in the 1900s. Either those interests need the formation of a humongous number of categories on each article, or the use of CatScan anyway (which is now actually hampered by the fine-grained-ness of this specific scheme). These categories can be questioned on multiple grounds, and it's implementation similarly (and we discussed many of those issues in an RfC last year). --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fram. Have both systems if you wish, but please don't demolish the scheme that currently exists. The category is helpful for those who wish to research things established in 1891 that are now within the current boundaries of Finland. Such things will likely have a notable relevance to current-day Finland and its history. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is useful to those readers, yes. But it is useless to those readers who need other cross-sections of information, who would actually be helped by other cross-section categories - either that logic results in a humongous number of possible cross-section categories, or in the forced use of CatScan anyway which is actually hampered by making these fine-grained categories. --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather trite argument. Of course, any category will be "useless" for any editor who is not looking for the information that the category conveys. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose My Finnish geography is weak, but I don't see a border problem here, merely a name issue, and so I'm happy to leave it under the current (albeit anachronistic) name. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The geography of Finland is clearly different. [Vyborg]] for example was in the Grand Duchy of Finland, it is not in Finland today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose borders changed on yearly bases in many of these places; the "Grand Duchy of Finland" doesn't add anything to "Finland" any more than adding "Principality of Wales" would add to "Wales" (that border has been stable since 1972, at least - see England–Wales border). What was established in 1891 in Finland was within whatever borders Finland had at that time - not now, not before, not some pie-in-the-sky expansion dreams borders - but the real ones. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. By-year titles do not change with the type of government, so we do not have “2010 in the Republic of Finland” Hugo999 (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs a headnote defining its scope as for the Grand Duchy, whose boundaries may not be quite the same as the present republic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 22 June 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.
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. I think that based on the previous discussions, this might have been closed as a rename. However I noticed that there is no category tree for the Kingdom of Nejd and Hejaz. Which begs the question of what name should be used for the category, 'Kingdom of Nejd and Hejaz' or 'Nejd and Hejaz'? If we were to allow the move, then it would be a category without the rest of the country tree. I don't think that would be wise. Yes, there would be a parent to Saudi Arabia, but would that be enough? After almost 2 months of discussion, I think there are too many questions to close this any other way. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as it matches Category:1927 in Saudi Arabia and for reasons given in the related discussion. It would probably be best to allow that discussion to govern the subcategories, of which this is one. Anyway, the USA approach is in the minority: for several years we have had lots of categories for years/decades/centuries in current-name countries before the country existed under the current name. I think these categories are useful under the current state names. (No problem with having both types of categories, but I would use "Kingdom of Nejd and Hejaz" after the name of the article.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, There is no such thing as '1927 in Saudi Arabia', it did not exist. This is an establishment in Saudi Arabia, this was an establishment in the Kingdom of Nejd and Hejaz, and this was a 1927 establishment, but this was never a 1927 establishment in Saudi Arabia. --Dirk BeetstraTC 05:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was an establishment in a place that is now within Saudi Arabia, which is why I support keeping the name of the category, since it will facilitate research/reading about things that were established in particular places. And anyhow, Saudi Arabia did exist in 1927—what did not exist was the "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia", or Saudi Arabia in its current form. At international law, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the successor state to the Kingdom of Nejd and Hejaz, and the Kingdom of Nejd and Hejaz was (and still is) routinely referred to as "Saudi Arabia". It's very similar to how there are many references to "Germany" pre-1871. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this is a '1927 establishment', this is an 'establishment in Saudi Arabia' (technically, an 'establishment in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia', taken into account that it was not disassembled before 1932) ánd an 'establishment in the Kingdom of Nejd and Hejaz'. It is also an '1927 establishment in the Kingdom of Nejd and Hejaz', but it is not a '1927 establishment in Saudi Arabia'. And 'references to "Germany" pre-1871' is something different (similar arguments were made earlier elsewhere), suggesting 'what Germany was before 1871' is something else than saying that something happened in 1870 in Germany. --Dirk BeetstraTC 05:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really following you. What would be wrong with having Category:1927 establishments in Saudi Arabia (perhaps with the other "historically-correct" category)? Is it not useful for someone to be able to find information easily on things that were established within the borders of current-day Saudi Arabia, even if the establishment happened before the KSA was established? A thing established within the KNH in 1927 could be of immediate interest and relevance to Saudi Arabia today because it's the same place on the globe. Also, you keep suggesting that Saudi Arabia did not exist in 1927—but sources say that it did! It's the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that did not yet exist. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is still useful to find .. just do a cross-section of Category:1927 establishments and Category:Establishments in Saudi Arabia and you will get all establishments that were in the area that is now known as Saudi Arabia, and where established in 1927. In this example, it still goes reasonable, but if the same subject was disassembled in 1930 it was NEVER an establishment in Saudi Arabia, and it was never established in Saudi Arabia, and the area where it was in its established life was never really Saudi Arabia (and yes, such objects do exist, we do have subjects categorised that were disestablished in 1040 BC in China ...). --Dirk BeetstraTC 06:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the other point, between 1902 and 1932 the area was not 'Saudi Arabia', there were still parts of the Ottoman Empire (there are two Ottoman Castles a short drive from where I am) and other kingdoms or just tribal land. Ibn Saud took control of Riyadh in 1902 and that area grew in time until the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was established on September 23, 1932. That area, post-1902-pre-1932 controlled by the Saud family, was maybe referred to as Saudi Arabia, but the name of the state Saudi Arabia was not established until 1932. Now, I know we're not a reliable source .. but guess where Saudi Arabia is categorised: Category:States and territories established in 1932. --Dirk BeetstraTC 06:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing why users are trying to demolish one useful system in favour of an alternate system, which is also useful. If you like the alternate system, then build it from scratch—that doesn't mean you have to demolish the other system in the process of building it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the old scheme contains too many erratic cases. Pages which were established in A, but are now establishments in B because they moved, Pages which were established and disestablished in A, before place B existed, Pages which were established in A, moved to B, where B changed name to C and were disestablished there before C became D, pages which were established in A before it became B ... the old scheme just turns out to contain too many problematic cases. --Dirk BeetstraTC 07:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the case at all. If you view things from the standpoint of what exists currently, all the problems of "but that place didn't exist then" disappear, because you're viewing it with the modern lens. It's just a different way of approaching the same information, and one that many readers might prefer. There are two different ways to present the establishment and years information; both can be legitimate and useful. I don't know why those in favour of these renames are so rigid in their thinking that they cannot acknowledge that there are two ways to view these issues. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'and one that the readers might prefer'. And we are back at the rigidity point, which comes from both ends, and does not address the issues. --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not back to rigidity. I have acknowledged that both systems would be useful and desirable and that I have no objection to a creation of a "historically correct" scheme to parallel what already exists. That's not exhibiting rigidity—that's demonstrating that I can see your point of view and I recognise that you have a good argument that the "historically correct" category names could be helpful. However, those on the other side who are in favour of a straight rename (including you and the nominator) have yet to even acknowledge that the arguments I and others have put forward are valid, let alone that you would welcome the existence of both systems. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good Olfactory, that same goes for you - there is no acknowledgement that some of these cases are plainly (historically) incorrect, and that parts of this scheme do not make sense. There are many nominations of these kind, for a long time now (over a year), by several editors (I think I counted at least 5 editors bringing these up in that year on Categories for Discussion, and a significant number of these have been closed resulting in renaming or deletion). Still, editors insist to add only the current scheme of categories, hardly ever, if ever, adding also the historical ones, insisting that others solve the problem that these have, and insisting that it is not necessary, with the help of the editors from History WikiProjects, to re-think the scheme from the start, and that all is fine. But only those who bring this up for discussion, over and over, are rigid. Sure. --Dirk BeetstraTC 05:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have acknowledged that both schemes are useful, make sense, and may co-exist. You have not. In fact, you have made nominations to delete part of one scheme in preference of the other scheme. I have not. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other scheme already exists .. making this one superfluous. Good thing that our readers are only looking for when things are established in a certain country, not when certain types of subjects were established, or whether certain types of subjects are found in a certain country, or when certain types of objects were established in a certain country .. I could see that a reader has interest for those, but that would lead to such a massive overcategorisation of each possible article that I would suggest readers with such interests to use CatScan anyway. --Dirk Beetstra[[User_Talk:Beetstra|T]C 06:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both schemes already currently exist, though neither has been fully developed. I see no problem with further developing both. In my opinion, CatScan is currently a piece of junk; most readers don't know about it/how to use it anyway. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even one schema is hardly resulting in creation of many of these categories. I do not think there is a real will to populate two schemas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One scheme takes about 200.000 categories per millenium. Others may figure out what would be a reasonable average per category to make this a reasonably filled scheme and how many articles that would need (we have about 4 1/4 of a million at the moment, a lot of them do not have the property of being 'established' at some point, in theory we could now have an average of 22 articles per category). But once the scheme exists and is actively populated, the argument that the categories will often be very small is not valid, because there is the larger scheme to follow. --Dirk BeetstraTC 06:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want one schema, create and populate it. But how does the obstruction of a scheme you don't like help in any way? The only result is that aricles like Allgemeine Zeitung (Namibia) now don't get added to either scheme, since it is unclear what name should be used for Namibia anno 1916 (and it is not the scheme that interests me anyway), and you would oppose the addition of Category:1916 establishments in Namibia. All these CfDs create only a lose-lose situation, and don't help Wikipedia and its readers one iota. I was and am still willing to populate many of these categories, but being obstructed by you and an editor you successfully canvassed for support is hardly helpful. Your complaints that "there is no real will to populate two schemas" seems rather hypocritical when you are constantly obstructing the creation of one of the two. 07:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The scheme already exists, I don't need to create it (the same scheme that can give the reader the information of 'Newspapers established in 1916 that use the German Language', or 'Newspapers established in the 1900s that use the German Language in Africa', or whatever cross-section, not just this specific one cross-section, which actually hampers finding other cross-sections that a reader might need). And as you observe, this scheme gets questioned over and over - moreover, it is too fine grained and specialised. --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Over and over by the same few users. Beetstra, from this and other posts, it is obvious that you have a much deeper problem with the category system. CfD'ing some of them is not the solution in such case. Start an RfC or something similar on a removal of all intersect categories (make all categories have only one defining characteristic), and on the simultaneous implementation of CatScan. Perhaps somehow include your idea into WikiData. But advocating this large-scale change on a very small-scale CfD is only a waste of everybody's time. Fram (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, these are the same issues as in the RfC months ago, and they are obviously not resolved yet. But I think it is clear that multiple editors have multiple problems with this specific scheme. --Dirk BeetstraTC 11:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not the RfC, which only dealt with some year-country intersections; there are also countless cats for occupation-country intersections, and for century-occupation intersections, and so on. In your proposal, categories should be elemental, singular characteristics. This would create its own problems (e.g. that while now CatScan is sometimes hindered by too detailed categories, in the opposite plan the actual categories would be useless outside of CatScan), but in any case, this is far outside the scope of this and all similar CfDs. As for "multiple editors have multiple problems", yes (although one editor rallying others may skew the picture a bit), but multiple editors also present multiple, rather contradictory "solutions" for the problem; so that doesn't bring us any further. Fram (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was only one case, and others that I am aware of who CfD'd a couple ran things on their own, AFAIK.
The RfC was indeed on specific intersections, although that could have had implications for the other intersections (and the RfC did not get to a real conclusion, not enough participation overall). I know that too big categories are an issue (unreadable and useless) and that they should be split, here I feel that it becomes the opposite (the categories gets split to a too fine grain). And there are still the other issues. Maybe another, coarser, splitting of the top-level cats should be considered (Category:2012 establishments will need a bit of a split (thousands of items), though maybe not down to the country (or even state) level, maybe something else, Category:1040 BC establishments for sure does not need a split (would it even get to 100 items?), and maybe even Category:1040s BC establishments will not even be significantly big; Category:Establishments in the United States will also need a split (will likely have 100-200 pages in the category-display), but maybe not down to the year level, maybe there state is suitable, maybe something else, Category:Establishments in the Vatican however will likely never get more than 5 pages in the category-display, so does not need a split). But the different contradictory "solutions" do suggest that something needs to be discussed. --Dirk BeetstraTC 12:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too fine-grained categories are not a problem when they are part of a larger pattern (like here), and are often much more informative. The difference between "16th-century births" and "1523 births" is that the former contains those we don't know a more precise date of, while the latter contains those for whom we do have the precise date. The same applies to establishments categories. Upmerging specific year cats to century cats (or country cats) loses that meaningful distinction. WP:NOTPAPER, there is no reason to restrict the number of categories just for the sake of having less categories (in total; it often requires more categories on an article though). You need reasons why having only one or only five articles in a given year category is bad, and what the problem is with incomplete year category series. Yes, we will probably only have one or a few articles in 1040BC establishments: so what? The fact that we have even one article with that precise category is telling, much more than lumping that one together with fifty articles in 11th century BC establishments cuold ever be. Fram (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we use the names of places when the things were formed, we will never have to change the categories. If we were to use the names of places now, then whenever boundaries changed, we would have to alter categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you've ever witnessed the WP reaction of the creation of a new state or the adjustment of international boundaries, you will know that this would be absolutely no problem. Users tend to love fixing and updating everything when such changes occur, rare as they are. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:42, 21 June 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale the name of the place was Northern Rhodesia prior to 1964. The 1962 category consist of an article that uses Northern Rhodesia in its name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why, serve the reader - would our reader never want to know what happened in the years in Northern Rhodesia (and for some areas which are now A, they would have to select out the right years of country A, half of the subjects in the same years in area B (which is now also incorporating part of the wanted country ..) ... --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but you can just create category redirects for that. You don't need to build two different schemes when the pre- and post- boundaries are the same and it's the same place. It makes sense to me to group them together. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in this specific case that is true. --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah ... that's why I said I was in favour of doing that in this specific case. I would not necessarily recommend the same course in a different case. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REname per nom but the parent should still be a Zambia category, as the bounbdaries are the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 22 June 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.
