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 as container category. Include Category:Discoverers and lists as appropriate. Manual checks are needed to listify/categorise where appropriate; I volunteer. – FayenaticLondon 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 'Innovators' is extremely vague and poorly defined. The people and organisations in this category have little in common, beyond somehow doing something that was in some way new or better than other people had done it. 'Innovators' here is more of a peacock term than a useful categorisation. People who are actually notable for developing/creating something can be put in other, better-defined categories such as Category:Inventors, Category:Founders and Category:Pioneers. Robofish (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
consider keep as container hmm. this could work, but only as a container category. I agree it's not defining for individuals, but it could be a useful container for the subcats. Anyone want to take a crack at purging it and turning it into a container only-cat? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a container category, diffuse entries to sub-categories. -- Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a container-only category. The artilces should be split inot sub-cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not needed, given the existing subcategories. I don't see the need for a container category here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:53, 20 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/merge per nom. Not sure how the point of Ottoman Syria affect this, but since one of these was a merge, the action as proposed seemed logical. If Ottoman Syria is the better direction, then a group rename is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Israel does not exist until 1948. It is unacceptably anachronistic to impose the modern terminology on the largely Arab, and primarily not Jewish population resident in Palestine at the time. Beyond that, this was an integral part of the Ottoman Empire. Last fall we decided to rename various by year categories after 1918 to things like Category:1925 establishments in Mandatory Palestine. At the same time we merged the 1913 or so category into the relevant category for the Ottoman Empire. We should do that here as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, nothing unacceptable about it, please don't be so rigid. Note that this "largely Arab and primarily not Jewish" category contains one article, the Herzliya Hebrew Gymnasium. No objection to having this article in the 1905 Otooman cat as well, to respect the historic situation, but nothing prevents us from presenting history from a current politico-geographical position as well. Both are interesting and useful for readers, not only the strictly historical one you support. Fram (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fram. I do not think there is anything terribly wrong with using a broad framework that uses curent terminology to help organise historical information. This thing was founded in a place that is currently in Israel, so it makes sense for it to be found through the category tree of establishments in Israel. It also makes sense to point out that the territory was in the Ottoman Empire at the time. So like Fram, I see no problem with it being in both the Israel and the Ottoman Empire tree. I don't think we need to choose one particular way of approaching this over the other. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is highly problematic to impose Israel on the past. The modern boundaries of Israel had no meaning in this time frame. The discussion at [Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 14] seems overwhelmingly clear in going against using Israel before the creation of that state. We merged a similar Syrain category into the Ottoman Empire category, while Syria has much stornger historical precedents. We need to stop such blatant presentism. It will make categories too connected to the whims of future political change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general we categorize things by where they were founded when they were founded. For example, the 1910 category includes Grand Theatre, Poznań, which was clearly established in Germany, even if where it was established is now in Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support From what I've seen categories of this sort are generally sorted into states that fit the period of time they are in. Setting up a parallell anachronous category tree should have a larger discussion first. CMD (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citation to years in Germany is false. Category:1905 in Germany uses the boundaries of Germany as it existed in 1905, not as it exists today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Which boundaries does (should?) the pre-1871 cat use? CMD (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great question. I would say that probably anything that took place within one of the "German states" would be "in Germany"—Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg, the Thuringian States, etc. (Of course, there's no "one boundary" to this pre-1871—there were many and frequent changes. I would say relying on what sources say is most useful in such cases.) See the discussions below on this same page. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In case of renaming I think there should always be a soft redirect for people who don't know that Israel or some other searched-for entity didn't exist back then. Brandmeistertalk 18:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but using Ottoman Syria; this is more specific, and Category:Ottoman Syria has the start of a reasonable category structure. Although it has sub-cats for Jews and Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine, Ottoman Palestine redirects to Ottoman Syria. – FayenaticLondon 18:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we do not have any establishments by year cats yet for Ottoman Syria. If we merge this to the Ottoman Empire cat we can subdivide when and if it gets large enough to sub-divide. These cats are not really large enough yet to subdivide. We have things like the American University of Beirut sitting in Category:1866 establishments in the Ottoman Empire, and that category is at present far too small to subdivide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1905 establishments and Category:Establishments in Israel, and Category:Establishments in the Ottoman Empire would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk BeetstraTC 07:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are no categories in the form Category:Establishments in Israel without reference to date. The point of the Category:Establishments by country tree is to collate organisations etc by intersection of the dates they were founded, and countries. The contents of the nominated categories are already categorised as schools/clubs in Israel. Likewise, we would not place articles in Category:1905 establishments, which is a parent category for sub-cats by country and by type. What is at stake here is whether to categorise by a current country as well as, or instead of, the state that existed when the establishment happened. – FayenaticLondon 13:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but that is a circular argument - a choice was made to put everything in [[:Category:<year> establishments in <country>]], which goes generally fine .. until you run into cases which break. Similarly, people could have made the choice to put everything in [[:Category:<year> Establisments]] and [[:Category:Establishments in <country>]], which is a choice that was not made, and hence there are no articles in those categories.
I know what is at stake, put them into categories of the country where they were when they were established - but that leads to similar confusion - hence my recommendation to send this whole scheme for evaluation to history wikiprojects to see what is most logic and most consistent. IMHO, this whole 'establishment by country by year' is a form of overcategorisation, formed by custom and propagated without realising (well) that there are things that actually are utterly not logic (in a previous discussion, there was an establishment which was disestablished before the country existed, still the 'remnants' of the establishment are still in that area that now belongs to the country. Does that really make sense, except for that it fits in the grand scheme of things? The (only?) historian that commented on it did not think so). --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, did not think about that. This strict application of this categorisation scheme becomes less correct, the more examples are brought up. --Dirk BeetstraTC 05:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the above issue of whether we should split into extremely small categories would suggest we should go for the Ottoman Empire as the parent category, at least until we have enough to subdivide. The reality is virtually no XXXX establishment in place category is as large as it could be. In general the vast majority of things in even say Category:Educational institutions established in 1984 have not been placed in the applicable by place categories. The by country categories are in many ways a fairly recent development, that other then for sports clubs have not been very well developed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The strict application results in categories which are likely never going to have more than 2-3 items. This is especially true for countries which are by themselves so small (some of the small states in Europe, I am thinking of e.g. Monaco), that there will not be that many notable objects, and when you split these by year of establishment, there will just not be that many; same is true when you go back in time in certain areas of the world (how many notable establishments are there, in total, before 1000 DC in Alaska .. ). I can see that the US is big enough to have, after say 1800, enough establishments that for countrywide that easily goes over the 200 limit, and that a further split from then on is needed. But then that is backward strictly applied to go back all the way to the very first establishments for sake of consistency ... --Dirk BeetstraTC 05:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom -- Recent policy has been to categorise by the contemporary polity, not the current one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we kept these, we should also have Category:1907 establishments in Israel, which I guess should include the Arab Orthodox Benevolent Society, but somehow I think that would be unworkably problematic, which tells me we should apply boundaries and countries as they existed at the time in question, not retroactively apply more recent boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But was that where it was actually established? Anyway, that is per boundaries that have never been recognized as final or authoritative by Israel. It also would artificially impose a post-1947 division on a place that had no such division at the time of creation. I do not think you could get widespread support for creating such a mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Yes, it was established there. (2) The boundaries you refer to (which are the 1967 borders, not the post-1947 ones) are the ones recognised by the UN and by almost every UN member state; they are also the ones implemented w.r.t. the other WP articles and categories that deal with Israel and the Palestinian territories. The fact that one body (the State of Israel) doesn't recognise the boundary—and it is one of the parties to the dispute!—is of minimal concern. (3) Probably about as much support as you are mustering for your proposed rival "mess". Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to ignore the clear precedent of the previous discussion to get rid of all the pre-1947 Israel categories that were discussed there. What is clear is there was no such boundary in 1907. Your plan would also make it so we would have to revise these categories if future events change things, which is not a good way to approach past categories. Anyway, they are not 1967 boundaries, 1967 boundaries are Israel occupying the whole of the former mandate of Palestine. The fact of the matter is you are trying to impose a line many, many years before it existed which is a bad way to categorize things. The lines in question are the post-1948 war cease fire lines, lines that were always just the place that the fighting had stopped, and were never agreed to as permanent boundaries in any treaty by the involved parties, which is the general standard for something to be a workable permanent boundary. However that is not at all relevant to the Ottoman Empire in 1907, which is why we should not retroactively create these categories. Anyway, it is actually clear a majority of participants here to not want to use Israel in 1905 or 1906, so in fact it is clear most people do not want to retroactively impose 1948 cease fire lines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we disagree John, and that's OK. I understand and appreciate your position, but I don't think my position is a bad idea, unworkable, etc., as you allege. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you can keep attacking me as "ignoring" this or that. I'm not ignoring the points you raise—we just disagree on how to address them. If users other than you disagree with me, that's fine too; I'm OK with it because I can understand and appreciate their positions. (It would nice for such sentiments to be reciprocated, but that seems to be beyond some editors.) Anyhow, when I referred to the post-1967 borders I meant the ones that the UN recognizes as Israel vs. occupied territory (based on the 1949 Green Line armistices), not the ones Israel claims. I would welcome further discussion of that, but I can see that probably would not be productive here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom (although there might be more-specific targets that would clearly be better). Also consider sanctions, up to a topic ban, for any editor who can create such a ridiculous category as anything other than a simple mistake. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it is worth we have Category:1948 in All-Palestine (Gaza), which shows that the general tendency is to especially in the case of Palestine/Israel reflect the specific condition on the ground in these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... which was created about ten days ago, after this discussion began. That seems like an important factor to mention. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that it was created by someone not at all involved with this discussion, I think that when it was created is actually not fully relevant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's relevant, under the meaning of that term. The user could well have read this discussion—we simply do not know one way or the other. The weight you place on it may vary, but I would not say it's irrelevant. It's definitely worth mentioning. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question has commented in the discussion now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - current name anachronistic. nableezy - 16:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another point to consider is to match categories with chronology articles such as those linked from Years in Israel which only go back to 1948, Years in Mandatory Palestine for 1920-1948 (from example 1925 in Mandatory Palestine, 1918 in British-administered Palestine, 1919 and 1920 and the previous item on the series seems to be Timeline of Ottoman Syria history. This seems to be the result of development by a lot of different editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, modern states of the Levant cannot be applied for previous states and periods.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - merge either into Ottoman Syria or Ottoman Empire. It is completely unencyclopedic and problematic to use retroactive border definition. Just imagine that if Syria breaks up, somebody would retroactively rename all "Years in Syria" articles and split them into two - this is nonsense. Same applies to categories "Category:1917_in_the_Palestinian_territories" (merge into Ottoman Syria/Ottoman Empire), "Category:1918_in_the_Palestinian_territories" (merge into Occupied Enemy Territory Administration), "Category:1918 in Syria" (merge into Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) and "Category:1918 in the Syrian territories" (merge into Occupied Enemy Territory Administration). Cheers.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:46, 20 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.
Categories: History artists and Historical painters[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.
Delete, or merge to Category:19th-century painters of historical subjects This is a complicated one, I'm afraid. The parent Category:History artists is old, the child Category:Historical painters is new this week. Both contain very largely 19th-century painters of historical subjects, which imo might be a valid subject for a category. "Historical painters" is said in the creator's note at the category to be for all artists who practiced history painting, which is defined by the National Gallery of Art in Washington as follows: "Sophisticated Europeans from the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries deemed “history painting” to be the supreme achievement in the visual arts. In addition to imaginatively re-creating actual events from the past, history paintings also illustrated heroic or moralizing episodes from religion, mythology, and literature." [1]. In other words it covered pretty much everything that was not portraiture, still-life, or genre painting. This is too wide a range for a useful category, and this intended meaning is unlikely to be clear to many users. In fact most of the contents are 19th-century painters of historical subjects. The name is also wrong as "historical painting" in art history today means painters of subjects from actual "history" not religion, mythology, or allegory. "History artist" is not a term you find being used - the first hits on google are for "natural history artist" [2], and almost all of these are for artists of historical subjects. "History art" is non-existent as a term [3] Other ambiguities, such as "historical" in the sense of "old" are obvious.
If kept the two should be merged (anyway) and re-focused to contain 19th-century painters of historical subjects, which is a valid subject on which there are plenty of books and articles. I'm willing to sort through the merged categories & remove anyone who doesn't belong, or for whom the category is not defining (quite a few). For example the 17th century Gabriël Metsu (in Historical painters) is well known for genre subjects, but in fact (though you won't know this from our article) painted two (count 'em) religious subjects when young. He should not be there. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The terms have changed meaning over time. This is not a useful way to categorize things when it means different things to different people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historical painters. If some of them are incorrectly categorized (like Metsu), then remove them from the cat (note that the article on Metsu starts with "was a Dutch painter of history paintings, genre works and portraits."; the cat reflects the article, blaming this on the cat is not really on. No opinion on "history artists", not one I care about. but there are enough books and other sources that discuss "historical painters" or "history painters" (the terms are usually used interchangeably) outside a 19th-century context, e.g. [4] or this book on 17th century Dutch and Flemish painters where "historical painters" is a specific category of painters. Many painters are explicitly called "historical painters" (just like there are genre painters, portrait painters, animaliers, landscape painters, ...), and we should reflect this in our categories. That the term is "ambiguous" is not our problem: "genre painters" is equally ambiguous, landscapes or animals are also "genres" but not included in genre painting, and no one has aa problem with that; similarly "historical painting" or "historical painters" have a clear meaning. If people would rather have the cat at "history painters" instead of "historical painters", fine by me, like I said the two are usually used interchangeably except by perhaps one or two purists. Fram (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fram is not I think used to discussions here. He should have disclosed that he is the category creator, and is busy adding to it. He does not I think realize that category names should not be ambiguous, nor that they should be defining for the articles in them. The first link he quotes [5] demonstrates the problem, as it seems clear it is using "historical painters" in the typical modern sense of people who paint scenes from history, not the wider "story painter" sense the category is using, including painters of scenes from religion, myth and allegory. Who can tell what sense his second, slightly desparate, snippet view link means? I should say that my initial comments to him after he created this category has resulted in edit-warring and talk page discussion at History painting. I don't at all agree with his additions, which distort what the sources say. My version of what the lead etc should say is this, but that can be sorted out later, and I will take it up on talk. Note the other comments there from User:Paul Barlow, who is a professor specializing in 19th-century painting. Johnbod (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(for readers wanting the backstory to my comment, see User talk:Johnbod#Please calm down) JohnBod, how many times do I have to ask you to keep your paternalizing claptrap to yourself? Think whatever you like about me, but learn to keep it to yourself. If you want me to follow a rule, provide a link to a policy or guideline. If it is only something you believe to be true, I'm not interested. Yes, your inital entry has lead to talk page discussion. Shocking! I also tried discussing things with you at Category talk:Historical painters, but you were apparently more interested in edit warring than discussion. You are quick to criticize sources, but you "forget" to mention that you only keep your sources in the article, not the one contradicting your position, and that you have even removed a source which you introduced (since you thought it supported you), but which you speedily removed again when it turned out that it actually supported my position, not yours.
As for your actual comments here; you claim that my first example source supports you; but it doesn't; it discussed how the focus of historical painting has shifted, not that history painting has become historical painting. It clearly includes the "Burgundian and Venetian historical painters in the renaissance[...] with the sublimation of power into allegory and mythology" in the same genre as 19th century historical painters (just like, surprise, this category I created and you want to delete). Your reading of it is clearly contradicted by the actual book. I can understand that you get "slightly desperate" about my second link; the snippet is only an illustration, the book is what counts. If you fail to understand it, that's your problem, but I think it is quite clear for most objective readers. I also provided as an example on Talk:History paintingthis link, which clearly supports my position and thus wasn't worthy of inclusion in the article (not for being too old, Johnbod happily used sources from 1854 or 1913 when he thought they supported his version). The category is only ambiguous if you follow your minority idea of a strict and clear division between history painting and historical painting, which doesn't exist to most observers. Fram (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: the objection to "historical painters" is that it is ambiguous (which I don't agree with, but passons); as far as I can tell, the only objection against "history painters" is that it would be too large a category (please correct me if I'm wrong). This seems to me not a reason for deletion, but at most a reason for diffusion (by period, country, or subgenre). So, as a compromise, who can agree with a rename of Category:Historical painters to Category:History painters? I wouldn't mind, as to me they are the same anyway, but I'ld like to hear what others think. Fram (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an improvement, but might well be felt to be ambiguous by many. I still think my proposed narrower scope is the best and most useful category available here. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with having such subcats per period where wanted (assuming that the main cat is kept under whatever name). Fram (talk) 14:08, 12 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:Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (1) Germany in 1864 is widely understood to mean the German states. There is a vast tree of pre-1871 categories that use "Germany": examine Category:Years in Germany, for instance. (2) If the proposed category is created, it should be a subcategory of the nominated category. Personally, I don't think it's a great idea to have separate establishment categories for the multiple dozens of separate German states pre-unification. But if they do exist then surely we can have an overarching "Germany" parent for convenience of navigation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, generally per Good Ol'factory. While Germany (liek Italy) didn't exist as one state, it is generally used for the combination of all these kingdoms, duchies, ... in this period. Just take a look at Category:18th century in Germany, it makes no sense to subdivide all of these even further. Fram (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as with pre-unification Italy, we accept the existence of a sufficiently well-defined country of Germany long before political unification. I might add that considerable numbers of American (both continents) historical categories use modern political boundaries in the same way. Same for all similar noms here. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are mixing two issues. We are clearly not using modern political boundaries with the German categories, since we are putting things now in Russia and Poland into these Germany categories. On the other hand we have Category:1769 establishments in New Spain which consists entirely at present of things established in what is now the United States. There has been a general attempt to apply these categories to places as they existed at the time of organization. Another example is Category:1858 establishments in Virginia that applies the 1858 boundaries of Virginia. The one precedent that might be citable here is Category:1858 establishments in India, which applies the term as it was understood at the time without any direct restrictions based on political control, however the failure to include establishments in the part of Austria that was considered to be Germany (including what is now the Czech Republic) is these categories shows that it is not applying Germany as it was understood at the time, nor is it applying Germany on modern boundaries, but a hybrid based neither on history nor present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
East Prussia, West Prussia and Posen divisions of Prussia were not within the boundaries of the German Confederation. On the other hand since in 1864 Prussia included Berlin, Dortmond, Dusseldorf, Aachen, Cologne, Koblenz and many other places that have never been part of Poland, we cannot connect it with Poland. It also included Koenigsberg and Tilsit that are withing the current boundaries of Russia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having a couple of categories for an individual entry seems a better way to handle that issue. Daniel the Monk (talk)
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1864 establishments and Category:Establishments in Kingdom of Württemberg, and Category:Establishments in Germany would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk BeetstraTC 07:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- At that period Germany meant the German Confederation, and it was commonly known as Germany. Its boundaries were much the same as those of the German Empire in 1914. WE need to avoid these miniscule annualk categories. The article(s) could also be categorised as "1860s in Württemberg". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They may have been "much the same", but East Prussia, West Prussia and Posen were not part of the Confederation. However they were part of the Kingdom of Prussia which also included much in the confederation. On the other hand the Confederation included Austria and Luxembourg, which were not part of the German Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 18 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:Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale First off, what is Germany in 1868? I do not think there is an entity that could easily fit the name. There is the North German Confederation, and the establishments of the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency of Germany in this year seems to be a reflection of the actions of the North German Confederation as a whole. The thing founded in Bavaria clearly needs to go there. Since the North German Confederation included all of Prussia we can categorize that there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (1) Germany in 1868 is widely understood to mean the German states. There is a vast tree of pre-1871 categories that use "Germany": examine Category:Years in Germany, for instance. (2)If the proposed categories are created, they should be a subcategory of the nominated category. Personally, I don't think it's a great idea to have separate establishment categories for the multiple dozens of separate German states pre-unification. But if they do exist then surely we can have an overarching "Germany" parent for convenience of navigation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, generally per Good Ol'factory. While Germany (liek Italy) didn't exist as one state, it is generally used for the combination of all these kingdoms, duchies, ... in this period. Just take a look at Category:18th century in Germany, it makes no sense to subdivide all of these even further. Fram (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are the same people who elsewhere want to impose the present on the past, yet here they are advocating an unworkable solution of "German states". Which states are German states? How do we know if a state was a German state? Should we put establishments in Luxembourg in this category? What about things established in Schleswig when it was under Danish control? Just because people have been doing things in one way does not mean it is really working. The establishments by year by place tree is fairly undeveloped, so we should not just default to the way it is if it presents an unworkable mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I, at least, am not convinced that your solution would make anything work any better than it does already. It's not a question of imposing the present on the past, it's a question of using present understandings as a scaffolding to help users organize material. This is a very common practice in both popular and academic writing. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having a couple of categories for an individual entry seems a better way to handle that issue. Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1868 establishments and Category:Establishments in the North German Confederation, and Category:Establishments in Germany, and Category:establishments in Bavaria would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk BeetstraTC 07:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The fact that the south German states left the GErman Confederation and did not join the Empire until 1870 is too short-term an issue to require separate "national" categories: much simpler to leave it as it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 17 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:Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale What is Germany in 1855. Up until just recently it was considered expansive enough to include Koenigsberg where Segelclub RHE was founded. However that just plain does not work. The only think that could possibly be Germany in 1855 was the German Confederation. However the German Confederation did not include Konigsberg, it stopped west of Danzig, with the West Prussia, Posen and East Prussia regions of Prussia being included in it. Thus there is no way that we could even make Category:1855 establishments in Prussia a subcat of the Germany cat. Bwesides this, Half of what was then the Austrian Empire was in the German confederation, as was Luxembourg. A look at Category:1910 establishments in Germany and Category:1925 establishments in Germany will show we have clearly applied the categories based on the boundaries that existed in the year in question. We should split the category accordingly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (1) Germany in 1855 is widely understood to mean the German states. There is a vast tree of pre-1871 categories that use "Germany": examine Category:Years in Germany, for instance. (2)If the proposed category is created, it should be a subcategory of the nominated category. Personally, I don't think it's a great idea to have separate establishment categories for the multiple dozens of separate German states pre-unification. But if they do exist then surely we can have an overarching "Germany" parent for convenience of navigation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, generally per Good Ol'factory. While Germany (liek Italy) didn't exist as one state, it is generally used for the combination of all these kingdoms, duchies, ... in this period. Just take a look at Category:18th century in Germany, it makes no sense to subdivide all of these even further. Fram (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree that this would be creating a miniscule category, which has no chance of growth, and would just cause confusion. 16:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel the Monk (talk • contribs)
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1855 establishments and Category:Establishments in the Kingdom of Saxony, and Category:Establishments in Germany would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk BeetstraTC 07:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How are other large modern nations which were similarly split into varying states during preceding centuries handled? Italy would be one major example. If they are not divided, I wonder if this kind of splitting would create a precedent for doing the same and leading to a large creation of trees and categories, most of which would have only a few entries. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- At that period "Germany" means the German Confederation. WE really cannot allow categories for ever petty German state. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 17 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.
Category:Mammals of the People's Republic of China[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Per China (some time ago it was decided that China should be about PRC, not disambiguation). Brandmeistertalk 09:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do these animals respect the political frontiers? The whole fauna/flora of and subcats such as this are really misnomers more than not, because nearly every mammal exists in more than one country and in how many categories would we find "cow", "chicken", "pig", "horse", "rattus rattus"? like the animals have passports as the move from country to country...Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos, once I nominated a bunch of biota by country categories for conversion into more general categories by recognised "biosphere"—my reasoning was the same as yours—organisms don't respect political frontiers. The nomination was roundly shot down, as I recall, by users who liked organising these things by country. It leads to lots of duplication, but the benefit is that it does keep stuff within the country category trees. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:52, 20 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one person in the category and although Chenjerai Hunzvi was a controversial politician, and someone against whom claims of fraud were made, he was not a convicted fraudster. I suggest WP:COATBabakathy (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also have grave concerns with the whole category tree. I have a feeling we should search for a more clear name that will avoid questionable tagging.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of a tree. If the article doesn't belong, remove it. If the cat remains empty for some period, it can be speedied. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am doing as suggested. Babakathy (talk) 10:49, 12 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) 22:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1836 establishments and Category:Establishments in Portuguese Guinea, and Category:Establishments in Guinea-Bissau would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk BeetstraTC 07:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We should use the contemporary name fopr the polity -- per recent precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 17 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.
Category:North Carolina Music Hall of Fame inductees[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and precedent with similar categories. Robofish (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hall of Fame memberships should be listed in the article, where they can be notated and referenced and listed with appropriate achievements, dates of induction, and so forth. Categories are not a good way to list them, when you can't verify whether the person is really in the category or not. And of course Halls of Fame are not defining -- they recognize, rather than confer, notability. --Lquilter (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:OC#AWARD is currently under discussion. What is the great hurry to delete categories constructed by others at, sometimes, great effort? If the nomintor feels so strongly about this issue, he/she should contribute to the discussion, instead of continuing this stream of ambiguous deletion nominations which may require further effort to undo in a short while. Just my $.02 XOttawahitech (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Since the nominator is obviously aware that this guideline is under discussion, why continue to nominate for deletion before the issue is settled? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator would have to answer that, but from what I can see, there is not really any direction that that discussion is headed that would change the way the guideline is applied, so from a practical standpoint it's probably not a big deal. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't blithely say we just ignore it, but I am saying that from what I can see, there is not really any direction that that discussion is headed that would change the way the guideline is applied, hence leading me to think that not waiting for that discussion to end before this nomination has started may not be ideal practice, but it's probably not a big deal from a practical standpoint. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC is (should be) a summary of previous CFD discussions (which often hinge on the interpretation of WP:DEFINING). If I say "per WP:OC" I mean "per the arguments made in previous CFD discussions that are summarised at WP:OC". The WP:OC talk page should be a discussion about the content of WP:OC (e.g. which CFD discussions are used as examples). Therefore, that there's a discussion at WP:OC talk isn't a good reason to block CFDs. Incidentally, the last significant comment in that talk page discussion was on 11th May so it might be time to remove the "current discussion" tag from WP:OC#AWARD. DexDor (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We do not like awards categories, because they create clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 17 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.
Category:Military operations of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)[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. Orlady (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We should avoid the word "present" in this and any other categories (and articles for that matter) as what it means is (by definition) continually changing. There's no guarantee that someone will edit WP to put in the date when (if?) the war ends or that all copies of WP will be updated. If this nom is sucessful I may CSD other similarly named categories. DexDor (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the open bracket in titles like these, particularly in categories. What about just Category:Military operations of the War in Afghanistan? Perhaps it's a bit vague, but War in Afghanistan redirects to the article on the current one, so it's unlikely anyone would get confused by leaving the dates out of the category name. Robofish (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, though I think the nominator is correct that as a general principle WP should use "(XXXX–)" rather than "(XXXX–present)" (and definitely not the typographical monstrosity of "(XXXX– )"). But the head category is at Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and the main article is War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Unless/until those change, we shouldn't change the subcategories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:16, 14 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:Keep. Orlady (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Olympics are not a WP:DEFINING characteristic for subjects such as Amsterdam and Zuiderzee so articles about such subjects should be removed from this category. The category would then no longer contain all the 1928 Summer Olympic venues and the list article (Venues of the 1928 Summer Olympics) would serve readers better. This is a test case as similar logic could be applied to many other categories in Category:Sports venues by competition. DexDor (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you listing cities? These are venues for a specific Olympics, so the category should contain structures -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup remove non-structures. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A category such as "Structures created as venues for the 1928 Summer Olympics" might be OK. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why 1928? This is a test case. Do I understand the argument – being an Olympic venue is not defining for Amsterdam. Therefore Amsterdam should be removed from the category. But Amsterdam was the venue for road cycling[6] so removing it will make the category incomplete. It is unacceptable (at least in cases like this) to have categories that are incomplete so this category should be deleted. Thincat (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is Wikipedia complete? Even our list articles are not complete since Wikipedia is not a datadump. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The category listed was for locations used as sports venues for the 1928 Summer Olympics in Amsterdam. If you look at the official Olympic reports at [www.la84foundation.org] for the Amsterdam games, this shows you that. Miller17CU94 (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.46.213.186 (talk) [reply]
Keep Cleanup might be useful, but it is not necessary as a condition of keeping. Test case? Wholesale NO! If the idea is to ultimately improve the directory, then you might be on to something, but deleting for general sake, absurd. And to use this to try to delete more content elsewhere in wikipedia? Please go find another hobby. "Amsterdam" might be incomplete. If you wish the direction to be more specific, create articles for the individual streets of the route, or the route itself. Add to your usefulness and the wikipedia project. With a suitable substitute in place, then the general mention of Amsterdam would be unnecessary. Trackinfo (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I commented above asking whether I understood the deletion rationale but, since there has been no response, I assume that I have understood. It is preposterous to propose removing an article from a category on grounds of policy and then proceed to propose deleting that category on grounds that it is incomplete. Completeness is not required of categories. Thincat (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the keep !votes above provide any argument that having hosted the Olympics is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of Amsterdam, Amersfoort, Zuiderzee etc. The Amsterdam article mentions dozens of things that may be of more long-term significance to the city (e.g. being occupied by Germany in WW2). None of those 3 articles mention the olympics in the lead - which is generally a good indication that it's not a defining characteristic. A category such as "Venues created for the 1928 Olympics" would be OK as its membership would be limited to articles for which the Olympics is a defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said to remove them, and keep the category. Hosting an Olympic event is a defining characteristic of a building. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep the category It is part of a series found in Category:Summer Olympic venues and no valid reason has been offered for category deletion. We do not delete members of a series Hmains (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup The characteristic is defining and the category a clear aid to navigation. Non-specific venues (such as cities where events took place) should be removed. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is in the nature of a performance (Olympics) by performer (city) category. The Olympics are a major event, but not permanently defining for the city. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A single organized event however notable is not defining of a geographic place. This is appropriate for a list, where it can be indexed according to useful criteria such as sporting events, month, location, etc. --Lquilter (talk) 16:40, 11 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.
Nominator's rationale: If this category contained articles about collegiate woodsman teams it would be fine. However, it contains articles about "universities and colleges with intercollegiate woodsman teams". Having a woodsman team is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a college/uni. What next - catagorizing colleges by whether or not they have a rugby team or a rowing crew ? DexDor (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I'm not convinced this is a defining characteristic of these institutions. This category should only be created when we have actual articles on college woodsman teams, assuming any are sufficiently notable to have one. Robofish (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. The list at the main article if enough. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since nothing in it should be there. If those articles have sections on the woodsmen teams, maybe we could make redirects named for the team to those sections, but for now it looks like we should just delete the category. A list might be useful though. Especially since that could also include the years when the teams existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 9 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.
