Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3[edit]

Category:Recipients of the Efficiency Decoration[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The Efficiency Decoration was a long-service medal, nothing more. Although it carried postnominal initials, it was awarded to any officer who had served for the requisite length of time. We do not generally categorise non-discretionary medals such as these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2014 (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:JavaScript Libraries[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 Category:JavaScript Libraries, which is the only still remaining. I don't know whether the other categories had already been tagged for this discussion, but they had already been speedy deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Casing variation of Category:JavaScript libraries created by a user. Only article is their sandbox - not sure if redirect merited. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO these 'Titles' should be proper casing. Ganginator (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all delete all the empty categories that contained that userspacedraft. wrong capitalization in this case, extreme ambiguity for "frameworks", wrong capitalization for "front-end Development" -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2014 (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:Medieval Iraqi people[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. The underlying question here is the geographical categorisation of historical events in areas of shifting political boundaries, when political boundaries frame the primary geographic categories. This is a perennial question, in which a broad consensus seems to have been reached in some types of case. For example, some editors noted here how there has been a consensus to create this sort of category for a country with a long history, even when it was is not a state (let alone a sovereign state) in the relevant era.
There does not appear to be a broader consensus on how to handle situations where the notion of a historical country is weaker. In some cases (such as eastern Europe), editors have been happy to accept some anachronism in order to gain the navigational benefits of a category, but in other cases they have not. One possibility is to regard such a category as having an explicit anachronism, by describing it (whether in its title or in an explanatory note) as "[name of era] in the area now covered by the country known as Foo" (in this case "Medieval people from the area now known as Iraq", but editors divided sharply on whether to apply that approach in this case.
This perennial problem would benefit from a centralised discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Iraq was carved out of three Ottoman provinces and officially gained independence in 1932, it is therefore quite anachronistic to describe medieval people as Iraqis. Imagine Heraclitus and St. Paul being categorised as ancient Turks just because the region they were born in is now known as Turkey! Kathovo talk 15:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is it proposed to delete (or rename to??) all Iraqi time categories before 1932 (independence) or 1920 (League of Nations mandate); ie all the Medieval categories and up to say the 19th century? Many countries (Germany, Italy) have time categories before they were unified in the 19th century, and Ancient Greece was never unified at all. Hugo999 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Italians and Germans are ethnic groups that existed long before those countries were formed while Iraqis, Peruvians, Belgians, etc. describe citizens of fairly modern states. Just as Atahualpa is not a medieval Peruvian emperor so is Al-Kindi not a medieval Iraqi astronomer.--Kathovo talk 13:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Italy and Germany were countries long before they were states is the point. Johnbod (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This category and a mass of other pre-1920 Iraq categories ought not to exist. Recent precedent suggest that we should not have categories for countries before they existed. The problem in this case is that what we ought to have is three separate categories for Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra provinces. We eliminated all the Turkey categories in favour of Ottoman Empire. When I made a similar nom for Syrian categories, the preference was for "Ottoman Syria", being defined as for Damascus province, which was somewhat larger than the present Syria. Since the proper solution would thus be to split by province, I think the answer must be Keep for the moment with a view to splitting and then deleting the presernt tree when a new one has been created. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The categories for Ottoman Egypt and Ottoman Syria follow existing boundaries for Egypt and Syria without trying to follow historic changes. Re the proposal to split Iraq into historic categories for Baghdad, Mosul and Basra, the Basra and Mosul categories will be rather underpopulated, going by the content of Category:Histories of cities in Iraq which has a small category for Mosul and one article for Basra. Another subdivision is the Shahrizor Eyalet or roughly Iraqi Kurdistan. But Iraq was unified under the Mamluk dynasty of Iraq in the 17th and early 18th centuries until broken up by the Ottomans in 1831. In any case the Ottoman divisions of Iraq date from the 16th century Ottoman conquest and would not apply to the medieval period. Re countries of Europe like say France and Germany, events and people are divided by the present boundaries; so the category for people in 12th century England or France includes the Normans who moved from from Scandinavia in the 10th century, and only arrived in England in 1066, just as the Varangians arrived in Russia from the 9th century. Hugo999 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anachronistic as it is. Try deleting Eastern European categories based on these arguments! Johnbod (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern European countries are nation states, medieval Serbians are people of the Serbian ethnicity regardless of whether they were born in what is now the Republic of Serbia. You would have a point if we had medieval Czechoslovaks or medieval Yugoslavs. Nowhere outside Wikipedia you will find a description of Johannitius as a medieval Iraqi mathematician. We do have categories Category:People of the Abbasid Caliphate and Category:People of the Umayyad Caliphate, wouldn't make more sense to populate those cats instead of creating anachronistic ones?--Kathovo talk 20:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as deliberate falsehood. It's useful and true as Medieval American people would be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is unacceptable anachronism. If Iraq was more than a post-WWI construct, there would probably have been less war there. I would have likewise spoken against Category:Medieval Yugoslav people, if Wikipedia had existed in 1985. Category;Medieval Austrian people if it exists needs to go. Austrian as a true nationality really only post dates 1750, and I am really being to bold in back dating it. In many ways the concept of Austrianess as a nationality and not just affiliation with a country only post dates WWII.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2014 (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.

Films by country and year[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: Double upmerge all to year categories and nationality categories; delete first 2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Full list of categories
Japan
India
Nominator's rationale: Following on from a recent discussion that resulted in deletion of categories by country and year, I'm nominating these for the same rationale. Per WP:FILMCAT, categorizing by an intersection of date/year and county is not encouraged and should involve project discussion before such an endeavor takes place. Theses two counties (a partial job for the latter) are the only two using this structure in the parent category. If the film isn't already in the parent of year and country, they should be upmerged too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge and deletion per Lugnuts rationale. BOVINEBOY2008 16:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all to both "Fooian films" and "YYYY films". There is a clear consensus both at CFD and at the FILM Project that these intersections are inappropriate, but the action should be dual upmerger rather than deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 4 January 2014 (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:Zakerzonia[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Because Zakerzonia is an informal name, it is hard to imagine how this category would be populated. Moreover, the point was to give a name for a territory with a very specific demographic profile. But that demographic profile has changed following the expulsion of Ukrainians from Poland to the Soviet Union so Zakerzonia is not a good basis of categorization today. Pichpich (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator is right that informal areas are in general a poor basis for geographical categories, but they may have some more specific uses. A category based on this area could in theory be a good way of grouping articles relating to the expulsion of Ukrainians from the area, but AFAICS the current coverage of that topic is not detailed enough to have produced any such set of articles. If the coverage does expand in the future, it would be better to have a more specifically named Category:Expulsion of Ukrainians from Zakeronia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 11 January 2014 (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:People from Venice (city)[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: there appears to be a slight consensus and better arguments to keep. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was disambiguated back in 2011 but there's no real reason for it - the Italian category has 400+ entries, while the Californian one only has 11. In the main namespace, there is no such disambiguation, the primary topic is Venice in Italy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there is ambiguity, not only with other Venices but also with Category:People from the Province of Venice. There was an earlier cfd which kept (no consensus) many such, but others have been speedily renamed (despite ambiguity with provinces). Oculi (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, why do we care about that here? The expression "People from Venice" clearly primarily means one thing to our readers and there's no obvious benefit from disambiguation. Heck, that province isn't even listed on Venice (disambiguation). Who is going to see "Category:People from Venice" and be confused by seeing no entries unrelated to the city? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The overwhelming primary meaning of Venice is the city in Italy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oculi, in addition, there's the historical Venetian Republic, which controlled more territory than just the city/lagoon. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to avoid ambiguity with Category:People from Venice, Los Angeles and Category:People from the Province of Venice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Despite this Venice being the original, it is unfortunately nnecessary to retain a disambiguator to avoid miscategorisation. The classic case for this is Birmingham, whose categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands. However, in English, the name Venice is normally reserved for the city, with the province being known by its Italian name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is also a need to disambiguate from people associated with the Republic of Venice, not actually from the city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - the category name should match the name of the article about the city, as well as the name of the city's main category, unless some new ambiguity arises from it - which it doesn't inj this case. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:33, 15 January 2014 (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:Unpowered aviation[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 as nominated. -Splash - tk 22:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The distinction between unpowered flight and unpowered aviation escapes me. How can anything "fly" unpowered without some form of "aircraft"? That's not flight, it's just free fall. We have no {{Cat main}} for this category. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you fail to notice soaring then. Note that many things fly unpowered that are not man-made, so if there is to be a distinction between natural unpowered flight and man-made unpowered flight, then there should be a category separation. For man-made unpowered flight, we have hang-gliders, which can soar on thermals, and orographic winds, and weather patterns. For non-manmade flight, many things in the natural world are lofted on the winds and fly across great distances, such as specifically designed seedpods, airborne spores, etc. Not to mention flying squirrels, which glide and do not enter freefall due to their aerodynamic surfaces. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find both categories pointless and I think they should both be deleted. Is a kite unpowered or wind-powered? Is the drifting of a thistledown or bacterium flying or mere parachuting? These categories are just trivial rag-bags of otherwise unrelated ideas, each with its own perfectly adequate category tree. But there is a distinction: birds, bats and insects can fly but are not part of aviation, so if either category is to be kept then we must keep both. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comments OK, I see the distinction that momentarily escaped me: "flight" includes animals and "aviation" does not. As far as I can tell, we have just one article which incorporates both animal and man-made flight: Unpowered flight. I don't think that this minimal intersection is sufficient basis for adding another layer to the category structure. Yes, we could have a WP:container category named Category:Unpowered flight, which only contained the Unpowered flight article and two sub-categories: Category:Unpowered aviation and Category:Animal flight. This is better handled with a single category for all the man-made stuff that has a {{cat see also}} for Animal flight. It's analogous to using a hatnote instead of a full disambiguation page, e.g., see the hatnote that I added to Powered aircraft. Just as we eliminated the old Powered flight article, we should eliminate this WP:overcategorization. A line from that former article explains my neglect of the birds: I'd say that the term powered flight is also sometimesusually used excluding the natural world - e.g. "The era of powered flight was opened by the Wright brothers.", which is supported by what links to that title. I did find that The Origin of Birds (book) linked to the term and corrected that article to link bird flight instead of powered flight. And yes, Category:Soaring is a soft redirect to Category:Gliding, bird soaring is part of Category:Animal flight, human soaring, hang-gliding, parachuting, etc. are all still covered in the merged category, and any human "soaring" without any man-made equipment is just making a suicide jump. I don't think I missed anything there. In response to your helpful comments, I did make some adjustments: category definition, main topic for Animal flight and secondary topic for Animal flight Wbm1058 (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And I just added List of soaring birds to Category:Animal flight and Category:Bird flight. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I thought that the extra layer served a useful function, by grouping the categories on unpowered aviation, which would otherwise be dotted around Category:Aviation. However, Category:Unpowered flight is already in Category:Aviation, so I see no need for the 2 layers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 19 January 2014 (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:Timelines of spaceflight[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: RENAME to Category:Spaceflight timelines, and recommend generally tidying the parent category, too. -Splash - tk 22:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More natural syntax W. D. Graham 00:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_3&oldid=1136102568"