Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 28 April 30 >

April 29[edit]

Category:Documents by 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: keep with no prejudice against a nomination focused on renaming. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Am I missing something here? This seems to be a non-defining category. Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: If you meant to nominate the whole category tree, you need to add the 3 years to this nomination and tag those subcategories. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we go down this path then there are at least 3000 new categories to be created. Would this be useful?Rathfelder (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are going down this road we need to think about the structure. My point is that the year of a document, in itself, is seldom defining. Documents relate to a geographical location (always?), they use a language, and mostly they relate to at least one identifiable subject area. So for example "Religious documents in German from Bavaria in 1869" would be a useful category. But putting "Graffiti in Russian from Moscow railway tunnels in 1869" in the same category wouldn't be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Year is defining feature inside Category:Documents. Stefanomione (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - While I understand the arguements above, document without an adjectival modifier is simply too broad to categorise by. I just did a cursory look and these appear to be intra- and inter- government/national state documents. I know we try to avoid famous or historic, so how about just "government documents"? - jc37 10:03, 4 June 2016 (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:Films by Samoan Directors[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete because (i) categories in Category:Films by director nationality are meant to be container categories for films by director, and (ii) because the two directors of Bars4justice are both categorized as American film directors rather than Samoan. If the contents are restructured with a sub-cat e.g. for films by Queen Muhammad Ali (if she can be rightly described as Samoan), then speedily rename instead to lower-case Category:Films by Samoan directors. – Fayenatic London 11:41, 29 April 2016 (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.

Late Roman Greece and Anatolia[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. MER-C 12:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT, it does not make too much sense to have a separate tree by Roman province or region for such a short period, while most content is in a 4th/5th Roman/Byzantine category already. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. The distinction is unclear and we do not an article defining what is "Late Roman". Dimadick (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, merge, but a lot of western provinces were divided under Diocletian. Did that also happen in the EAst? We may need provincial categories for such late Roman provinces. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2016 (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.

Late-Roman-era 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: merge/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT, it does not make too much sense to have a separate tree for people for such a short period, while biographies are in a 4th/5th century Roman/Byzantine people category already. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on Category:Late-Roman-era people. Despite having a clunky & infelicitous title, this category does represent a real grouping in the mind of students & experts of the Roman Empire, into an earlier half & a later half, which is divided -- depending on the expert -- at a point from the beginning of Septimus Severus's to the end of Constantine the Great's reign, with many settling for the Crisis of the Third Century. Institutions & social groups are very different between the two, & anyone using the Category system to find people would be overwhelmed by needing to wade thru a large, undifferentiated grouping. -- llywrch (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently this category contains 4th- and 5th-century Romans, which is different from the period you're mentioning (the 3rd century). So that introduces a secondary reason to merge, because "late" is apparently subjective. I definitely don't agree on the overwhelming argument, because the people you're looking for are nicely categorized in Category:3rd-century Romans. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2016 (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:Organizations based in Namibia[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. (non-admin closure)~ RobTalk 03:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TIES. Namibia is a Commonwealth nation, closely connected to South Africa. More child cats of this category use the "organisation" spelling. Many prominent organisations in the country use the -ise spelling, such as Namibia National Students Organisation, National Unity Democratic Organisation and Namibia African People's Democratic Organisation AusLondonder (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice little misleading attack there. The National Unity Democratic Organisation favours "organisation" over "organization". See the document you linked! In that document you yourself linked, it uses "organisation" 51 times compared with organization just twice. The official Government of Namibia website spells it "organisation" as does the New Era. You have deliberately linked to two articles using the "z" redirect to mislead editors. AusLondonder (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing misleading here is your own selectiveness, pushing the "-ise" spelling even in very dubious contexts that are not part of the Commonwealth, not particularly influenced by British English, even less siding with one British spelling variant over the other. Re NUDO: One would expect the title page of a document to be more thouroughly checked than cursory mentions. But either way, I can't see one or the other spelling being uniformly used or prevalent, so I'm still not convinced. --PanchoS (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Namibia is part of the Commonwealth; I'm not sure if you were referring to another incident, but your comment can be read to suggest that Namibia is not part of the Commonwealth. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was referring to other incidents. Didn't vote here and won't. --PanchoS (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It's pretty standard on WP to use "-ise" spellings for Commonwealth countries' categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, as the evidence of the groups' names themselves does favour the conclusion that the s-spelling is more standard in this context. However, the z-spelling should be retained as a categoryredirect to catch potential misfilings. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2016 (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:Organizations based in Zambia[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. MER-C 12:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TIES. Zambia is a Commonwealth nation. More child cats of this category use the "organisation" spelling. Many prominent organisations in the country use the -ise spelling, such as the Zambia Union of Nurses Organisation (ZUNO), Zambia State Insurance Company, Chibolya Education & Health Organisation and Hope Organisation Zambia AusLondonder (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the case of Zambia, British ties have been sufficiently strong to favor the "-ise" spelling. --PanchoS (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It's pretty standard on WP to use "-ise" spellings for Commonwealth countries' categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2016 (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:Neferirkare Kakai[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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON and WP:SMALLCAT
Neferirkare Kakai was a 25th century BC pharaoh we know largely from inscriptions on his pyramid, Pyramid of Neferirkare. This category consists of those two articles which are already cross-referenced and, until we get a new archaeological discovery, it is unlikely to grow. (The other 3 categories have that same pharaoh/pyramid dynamic except the pharaoh articles aren't included for some reason.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Furius as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Ancient Egypt. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RevelationDirect I partially agree with this assessment in that so far these categories seem useless. But contrary to what you say, I see plenty of room for growth: indeed this category could very well include all articles on queens, princes, princesses and administration officials who lived during Neferirkare's reign as well as the priests who served in his mortuary cult and this would add up to quite a number (these articles already exist!). Thus I see this category as a potential tool to regroup articles about people who were contemporaries. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The categories can be expanded to include the following:
I'm not clear whether it would be necessary to rearrange the location and name of these categories if they are to be people associated with style categories (but I note that many pharaoh cats are already used that way) Furius (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, and I can see a further few names that can be added to Furius' suggestions above. This would certainly clarified who lived at the same time as who. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Furius: Thank you for detailed reply as the creator. What you're proposing are mostly (but not entirely) family categories which we do have for some groups of notable people. The challenge here is, especially for the early dynasties, the relationships are often inferred and overlapping. Khentkaus III is a good example since she is probably the daughter of Neferirkare Kakai. And if we put here in her father's Pharaoh category, wouldn't we also put her in her likely husband's and her likely son's (or likely grandfather's and likely grandson's)? What do we gain grouping Khentkaus III by 3 or more overlapping pharaohs versus by 1 dynasty? RevelationDirect (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination, and oppose alternative per WP:OCASSOC. Note that these people are mostly categorized in a dynasty category already. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't used the dynasty categories in a while, though I have at times tried to populate them and add them to parent categories. The basic category scheme is to place any royal family member to the dynasty/category he/she belonged. So it is not exactly necessary for navigation to have a category for every Pharaoh. However non-royal Egyptians are often left out of these categories. And in some cases it is unclear if they are related at all. For example the article on Ahaneith specifies that she was connected to Pharaoh Djet, but that it is uncertain whether she was his wife, a female relative, or a female official in his court. She has still been placed in Category:First Dynasty of Egypt. Dimadick (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose "dynasty" here could mean the royal family or the historical time period when they ruled. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion / Keep the category: I think we should keep these categories; they can easily expanded as shown above. I think it is a shame that the creator of these categories did not do that. In general it seems very useful to have all people, buildings and whatever of one king under one category. -- Udimu (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion / Keep the category: I see the category "Neferirkare Kakai" or any category attached to any given pharaoh not as a way to regroup members of the familly of the pharaoh (since indeed relations are often uncertain) but as a way to regroup contemporaries. WP:OCASSOC does NOT apply here because contrary to modern figures, such as John McCain mentioned in the OCASSOC example, i) knowing that some people were contemporaries is actually important in archaeology (especially so far back in time); ii) being contemporaries is not a vague criterion and in many case is known with enough certainty so as to confidently include say Khentkaus III in the "Neferirkare Kakai" category; and iii) there are few peoples to be put in the category but enough for it to escape WP:SMALLCAT as shown by Furius. Thus we should not blindly apply OCASSOC merely because it looks like it describes the type of this category. Neferirkare Kakai is not John McCain. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iry-Hor: I'm sympathetic to fixing people in their historical context but want to avoid having biography articles in 3+ pharaoh categories. Would expanding the use of Category:25th-century BC people and other century categories accomplish what you're looking for without the multiple categories? RevelationDirect (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RevelationDirect it would not in fact for two reasons: first absolute dates are generally unknown and in all cases far from certain. As you can see in the articles e.g. on Djedkare Isesi, the absolute dating of any given person can vary by more than 60 years so that it is factually impossible to decide who was a 25th century BC person. Instead relative dating is well established, that is, who lived at the same time as who. Second, such a broad category would be much less precise, for example would you consider yourself a contemporary of Queen Victoria? Yet category "25th-century BC people" would mean just that. Indeed Victoria could be classified as a 20th century people (having died in 1901) and, if you are more than 16 years old, then you too could be. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RevelationDirect: Dating people to the 3rd millenium BC by centuries is almost impossible. The stable fixpoint in Egypt, in terms of relative chronology is the king, so it makes perfect sense to keep these categories. The dating by centuries is still very much a matter of debate in research and can vary heavily (mainly as we do not know the length of the First Intermediate Period). -- Udimu (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful replies. We just happen disagree because I'm concerned about categorizing people under multiple pharaohs based on being contemporaries. It is a challenge to categorize people though when the historical record is so thin. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination: I've given this some thought and I think the nominator is correct. Note that a number of other Pharaoh categories exist which use this system (e.g. Category:Khufu, :Djedefra, :Sneferu) and that RevelationDirect's concerns already arise to some degree - e.g. Hetepheres II. This seems that an inevitable consequence of (1) the vagueness of "active" and (2) the fact that dating by Pharaoh is often not much surer than dating by the Julian calendar. Categories are a very powerful tool, but they are not good at handling uncertainty. This suggests that they are probably not the ideal tool for indicating the dates of Ancient Egyptian individuals - something that can be annotated, like a List of people of the #th dynasty of ancient Egypt might be a better tool for this.
In addition, the parent categories for these pharaoh categories are, inevitably, Category:Pharaohs of the #th Dynasty of Egypt - this creates the expectation that all the articles within their subcategories will be Pharaohs - and they are not.
Finally, it seems to me that there are more useful ways of categorising the (not insubstantial) number of people within individual dynasties, which we are missing if we focus on trying to categorise them by date. There is no Category:Queens of the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt, no Category:Viziers of the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt, etc. This might be a much more useful way to divide the attested people up. Furius (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Egyptian history is normally split by dynasty, not by century BC, at least in the Old Kingdom. Accordingly, we should have a hierarchy:
Old Kingdom Egypt
Fifth dynasty Egypt
People of Fifth Dynasty Egypt
then split by office - Pharaoh, Queen, Vizier, etc. if there is sufficient content to warrant this. I do not think we have adequately (or even inadequately) dated history for anywhere else, so that I would suggest that we delete and salt all century categories for that remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok for the category "People of the #th dynasty of ancient Egypt" and indeed all categories based on absolute dates should be deleted. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2016 (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/2016_April_29&oldid=1075704699"