Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 10 October 12 >

October 11[edit]

Category:Orientalist fraternalism[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subjective categorization - none of these groups call themselves "orientalist" nor is there any published research defining them as such. MSJapan (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify the main article describes orientalist as " the imitation or depiction of aspects in Middle Eastern, South Asian, African and East Asian cultures" and all of these organizations pretty objectively fit the bill, which would be of interest to many readers. My concern would be whether this is defining, especially since we don't categorize the Improved Order of Red Men or the Order of the Arrow under the Native American category tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (perhaps after listifying). These seem to be about American fraternal organizations, which little association with the Orient, except the name. At best the name is misleading and (if kept) should be renamed to indicate that it is a USA category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Peter, you are correct. The problem with listifying is that we have no source that says these groups are "orientalist". "Orientalist" is also somewhat of a pejorative term, and that isn't at all what these groups denote. There is nothing that says "Shriners are orientalist" or "Grotto is orientalist", etc., so there's no basis upon which to make the statement. MSJapan (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacking reliable sources defining them as orientalist. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not focusing on a defining shared characteristic of the groups. If people can find sources to group these in a list, then they can make a list article, but that will have to stand or fall on having reliable sources like any other article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Orientalist" is a touchy subject/word. We don't want to be putting controversial labels on organizations without some kind of WP:RS--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Football at the 2015 Military World Games[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 three of the articles were already in the sole parent category, Category:Football at the Military World Games, so there was no need to upmerge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category not needed, article at AfD here JMHamo (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 19:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - page representing football articles of the 2015 Military World Games. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Football at the Military World Games - there is certainly no need for a 2015 subcat. Oculi (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete -- These are not the equivalent of the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games, or continental equivalents. Accordingly, the number of articles on the Military Games ought to be strictly limited. An article on football at the 2015 games would be legitimate, but having a category is going too far: it implies multiple articles, which would not be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in line with my comments at the AfD that sufficient sources have been shown to satisfy GNG for the articles contained within this category. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Football at the Military World Games - Per WP:SMALLCAT as this category will never grow beyond its current members. — Jkudlick tcs 13:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Question and answer sites[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename category to use the term websites. This is in the standard usage for all category descriptions. And add hyphenation to the compound adjective question-and-answer. Senator2029 “Talk” 13:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Baltic states / countries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Baltic states. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as it seems that the two categories have the same purpose. I have no preference for either merge direction so I've tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any ideas why there is incomplete overlap in the subcategories of these two categories? Is there supposed to be a true (but now muddled) distinction between them? Hmains (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Before Look2See1 made his usual incompetent changes to them (countries and states), the differences were comparatively minor and probably just the typical result of the divergence that happens with a content fork. States existed before Countries; the latter was created without reference to the former. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly merge -- I think I would prefer "states", which will cover the area when it was subject to Russia and previously Sweden, as well as earlier independence, but I have no strong view. The overlap is too great for us to keep both. However we probably need the other as a cat-redirect to prevent re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Baltic states per main article Baltic states with leaving a {{category redirect}}. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Baltic states per name of main article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Historical 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: delete/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge, we normally do not make a difference between living and historical people; see also this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Everyone who is notable becomes "historic" at some point. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is an attempt to have a current/former split, which we generally do not allow; I know there are exceptions. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1841 establishments in the United Province of Canada[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, plus Category:Establishments in the United Province of Canada by year which will become empty. In contrast, Category:Establishments in Canada by year is well-populated. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have tended not to divide establishment by year categories by formal prefixes eg. Kingdom of France, Republic of France. If there is some special reason for this prefix the article is actually at Province of Canada, so should be at Category:1841 establishments in the Province of Canada. Tim! (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Tim! (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is if it is desirable at all to narrow the scope, given the limited amount of establishments. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a redundant merge; there was a Province of Canada between 1841-1867, which was different from modern independent Canada in terms of territory and political status.GreyShark (dibra) 18:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as "Canada" was the same as "United Province of Canada" at the time. Establishments in Newfoundland (the island, not Newfoundland and Labrador), Rupert's Land, etc. can be put in separate trees, which will be distinguished from this and from each other by hatnotes and periodic checking. Since "Canada" didn't include those places, the scope isn't changed; this is fundamentally the same as excluding Category:1937 establishments in Newfoundland from Category:1937 establishments in Canada (because it wasn't part of Canada), or for those who think of today as Columbus Day instead of as Thanksgiving Day, it's similar to excluding Category:1823 establishments in California from Category:1823 establishments in the United States. Nyttend (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The United Province of Canada was Canada at that time, even though further areas were subsequently added. The Newfoundland issue can be dealt with by using a head note to define the scope and providing a cross-reference to the Newfoundland categories before its union with Canada; equally other provinces. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Grand Duchy of Baden[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep year and establishments-in-year categories, upmerge/delete the decade/century/millennia categories. Note: the year and establishments categories are already parented in the equivalent categories for Germany, so navigation from e.g. Category:1860s in Germany is not lost altogether. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are currently only 5 establishments articles and 6 other articles in the year categories, across the whole history of this Grand Duchy. At most there might be room for a separate category Category:Revolutions of 1848–49 in Baden as a child category of Category:German revolutions of 1848–49. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep establishments by year are divided by country and Baden was an independent country in this time period. Tim! (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are very few countries in the 19th century with a decent number of establishments per year so I don't think this is a good standard. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Establishments by year are divided by country. The trees have been under developed in the 19th-century. It is much too premature to attempt mergers when we have no notion of the scope.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is pretty unlikely that we will ever have some 300 establishments in a small grand duchy like this (calculation: (1870-1806)*5=320), as we now only have 5 establishments. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I favor keeping Category:Establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden by year and having the 8 individual year categories loose in that container. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RevelationDirect: It seems clear to me that your alternative is to support deleting nearly all intermediate categories but not to support (some of?) the nominated mergers. Then just for clarity, is your alternative not to merge the five establishment year categories and/or is your alternative not to merge the eight year categories? Obviously I will (have to) go along with any less radical solution than nominated if there's not enough consensus for the nominated solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with RevelationDirect. It only existed for 113 years, from 1806 to 1918, so the millennium category will always hold just the "2nd millennium establishments", which in turn will hold everything. Merge all the years into "Category:Establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden by year", and delete the centuries-related and decades-related categories, too. If we get a lot more of them, re-splitting by century will be warranted: we routinely split by subnational entity, so having categories like "1902 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden" would be quite appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nyttend: See my question to RevelationDirect. Just for clarity, could you answer the same question? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • Category:Establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden by millennium — delete
  • Category:2nd millennium in the Grand Duchy of Baden — delete
  • Category:2nd-millennium establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden — delete
  • Category:Establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden by century — delete
  • Category:Establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden by decade — delete
  • Category:1810s in the Grand Duchy of Baden — delete
  • Category:1820s in the Grand Duchy of Baden — delete
  • Category:1830s in the Grand Duchy of Baden — delete
  • Category:1850s in the Grand Duchy of Baden — delete
  • Category:1840s in the Grand Duchy of Baden — delete
  • Category:1860s in the Grand Duchy of Baden — delete
  • Category:1810s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden — delete
  • Category:1830s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden — delete
  • Category:1850s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden — delete
  • Category:1860s establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden — delete
  • Category:Establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden by year — keep
  • Category:1812 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden — keep without merging
  • Category:1821 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden — keep without merging
  • Category:1830 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden — keep without merging
  • Category:1848 in the Grand Duchy of Baden — keep without merging
  • Category:1849 in the Grand Duchy of Baden — keep without merging
  • Category:1854 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden — keep without merging
  • Category:1860 in the Grand Duchy of Baden — keep without merging
  • Category:1865 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Baden — keep without merging
  • Here's what I'm thinking on each of them. Is this what you were asking about, or do I misunderstand you somehow? Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Support -- The target should not be "Europe" but "Germany". I forget the precise constitutional history before the establishment of the German Empire, but think that the gap and change in boundaries between the two empires is not enough for us to consider that there was not "Germany" in the intervening period. Possibly, the issue can be resolved by the target being "German states", rather than Europe. I support the deletion of the intervening categories for decades, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making a good point here, Germany at the time was the German Confederation, so a merge to Germany instead of Europe should be alright. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_11&oldid=1074815557"