Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 18 September 20 >

September 19[edit]

Category:16th century in Arakan[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 as nominated (alt A), without prejudice to proposing a further alternative change after the rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
Alternative A, rename since all content of this category specifically refers to the Mrauk-U Kingdom. Note that Arakan was the name of the region, the name is not specifically limited to a certain period in history or limited to a certain kingdom.
Alternative B, with the limited amount of content another possibility is an upmerge to Category:Mrauk-U Kingdom and Category:16th century in Burma or (for the second nominated category) to Category:Mrauk-U Kingdom and Category:16th-century establishments in Burma. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: may I suggest Alternative C: keep this at "Arakan", specifically in order to refer to the region rather than restrict it to the kingdom? (Even though the kingdom did last for >300 years, the region name will be more useful for the centuries when the kingdom started and ended.) The word "Arakan" seems to have been used in historical sources, and I would be inclined to use it for periods up to the 19th century.
Alternative D: another option is rename to Rakhine, to match the current official name for the state/region. I would be inclined to use this only for the 20th and 21st centuries, even though I have proposed a parent structure named History of Rakhine (which seems to have your support below). – Fayenatic London 21:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, about Arakan or Rakhine, if I understand correctly (per Rakhine_State#Etymology), Arakan is simply the European colonial term for what always has been called Rakhine by local people. In that sense, in the 16th century Rakhine makes more sense. Second, about the category structure, it would be quite strange to have a Category:16th century in Arakan in parallel with Category:Mrauk-U Kingdom while the former should really be a subcategory of the latter, and I cannot recall a precedent for a category structure like that. If possible (and in this case it is possible) we use the name of the contemporary polity in the lowest level century categories while we sometimes use a current polity at a higher level in the tree. I am also very doubtful about creating a whole tree by century for the region, especially for the period before the Mrauk-U Kingdom. There are currently very few articles about the period before the Mrauk-U Kingdom and it looks as if this earlier period is quite misty because the articles Arakan and History of Rakhine each provide very different points of view for that period. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the similarity between Cape Verde and alternatives C/D in terms of logic, but it is probably too confusing when the names are completely different. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2018 (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:Historic Hotels of America[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: listify, then delete category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category titles are very similar. I discussed this with the category's creator here, who told me "Historic Hotels of America is a program by the National Trust for Historic Preservation". Unfortunately, the category has been added to articles that make no mention of the "National Trust for Historic Preservation", and which already have a "historic hotel" category on them. I also asked the category's creator if they would be willing to change the name of the newly-created category, but they were not. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NONDEF. Note that historicity of hotels is very subjective and we already have the tree of Category:Hotels by time, so one may well argue that the target Category:Historic hotels in the United States is redundant as well. But that may be further discussed in another nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • listify I'm dubious that the target category should even exist but at any rate it makes obvious sense to convert the subject category into a complete list of all the hotels NTHP lists. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you fully understood that the category is named after a program by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and that the category only includes the properties that are part of that program? It's not your typical random list. It's an equivalent of, say, Category:The Leading Hotels of the World. Thierry Caro (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle and Mangoe: Because of the possible misunderstanding, would you review this once again? Thierry Caro (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • At second thought, Mangoe's alternative of listifying and deleting is a better solution than the nomination. A list is appropriate even while it does not concern a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the fact that NTHP has created a list of historic hotels is rather trivial when we're talking about one of the hotels in question; this isn't some "Hotels owned by the NTHP" or "Hotels on the NRHP" category, but "Hotels the NTHP thinks are historic". We shouldn't generally go categorising articles based solely on an organisation's opinions about them; if this is ever appropriate, it demands the opinion of something much bigger than the NTHP. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2018 (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.

Early centuries in Myanmar[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: split content between new Category:Pyu city-states and new Category:Pagan Kingdom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: these categories contain only 9 articles (repeated) between them. The articles e.g. Pagan Kingdom refer predominantly to the historical territory as Burma (including Lower Burma, Upper Burma) rather than Myanmar. This nomination would leave "Myanmar" in the name of the parents e.g. Category:Centuries in Myanmar, but use Burma for all periods that ended before 1990.
  • Note: in 2015 I nominated the BC categories for speedy renaming the other way (see near the end of the page here). As "Burma" is used for C13 – C19, I now think that was a mistake. Pinging user:Avicennasis and user:Sawol who participated in that Speedy discussion. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at least there should be consistency, which is achieved either as nominated, or the other way around (renaming C13-C19 to Myanmar). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no longer applicable after discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that - certainly a much better solution than naming those Myanmar.GreyShark (dibra) 09:04, 21 September 2018 (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:History of Naypyidaw[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.. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Naypyidaw is a newly-constructed capital city, begun in 2002, so these category layers are unnecessary. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 19 September 2018 (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:Kingdom of Arakan[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: split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arakan is the northern coastal part of Myanmar (Burma), and now forms Rakhine State. According to the article History of Rakhine, Arakan has had many kingdoms over the centuries (see also List_of_Arakanese_monarchs), so the nominated category could be considered ambiguous. The category pages for Kingdom of Arakan and Mrauk-U Kingdom state that they were "associated" with each other; they seem to refer to the same period, the great Arakanese empire/Kingdom of Mrauk U 1431–1784, so there should not be two categories for the same period; Category:Kingdom of Arakan should redirect to Mrauk-U Kingdom. There is scope to expand a history category, named after the main article History of Rakhine, with more century siblings alongside Category:16th century in Arakan. This would allow us to improve on the current structure which has Category:Mrauk-U Kingdom under multiple century categories from 15th to 18th century in Burma. – Fayenatic London 10:00, 19 September 2018 (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:1530s in Myanmar[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 just to the Asia categories (given the action that was taken during the discussion). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small categories, containing only two articles between them. There are no other decade categories in Category:Decades in Myanmar until 1750s.
Copy of Speedy nomination
I initially nominated these (see above) for speedy renaming to "Burma" in common with the parent and other categories from 13th to 19th centuries (Category:Centuries in Myanmar). This was referred for full discussion since the two articles refer to Toungoo Kingdom rather than Burma/Myanmar. However, I do not think it would be helpful for navigation if we broke up or renamed the chronology categories for history of Burma according to all the preceding kingdoms that existed for overlapping periods, see e.g. Template:Burmese monarchs – certainly not by decades. For these two, I now think that merger would be better than renaming. – Fayenatic London 09:22, 19 September 2018 (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 including the term "Tai–Kadai"[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: speedy rename WP:C2D. – Fayenatic London 08:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename "Tai–Kadai" to Kra–Dai for the reasons discussed at Talk:Kra–Dai languages four months ago which led to the move of the article. In short, the term "Tai–Kadai" is flawed ("Kadai" is an outdated term for the Kra languages; "Dai" is merely an alternate spelling of "Tai") and more importantly becoming outdated, as the prominent scholars recently favor the term "Kra–Dai". This change is long overdue, and the present inconsistency with the changes to the mainspace is confusing and unnecessary.  — Jaspet 06:08, 19 September 2018 (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.

Conflicts by millennium, century and decade up to 1000 AD[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 at 2018 OCT 7 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Nominator's rationale: rename/merge as follow-up on this previous discussion. In Antiquity and Middle Ages "conflicts" and "military history" nearly coincide in terms of Wikipedia content. In the previous discussion there was a preference to use the somewhat broader term "military history". This nomination only considers the period up to 1000 AD, because from there on the conflicts tree starts diffusing by year, so for the period of 1000-1499 there will be another follow-up nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim!, Oculi, Icewhiz, and Peterkingiron: pinging discussants in the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support -- This implements my vote for reverse merge on the previous discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and create all the targets as parent categories. There will be articles on military history in the XXXs which are not conflicts. Oculi (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and create all the targets as parent categories. I agree with Oculi's reasoning. Dimadick (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not whether there will be articles on military history in the XXXs which are not conflicts, the question is whether in these distant periods we may expect a reasonable number of articles per category (i.e. per century or per decade) that are not conflicts. Currently that is not the case at all, for example we only have 11 articles about military alliances in the entire antiquity. WP:OVERLAPCAT does not require that categories are 100% overlapping, it just requires a large overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are treaties as well. Look at Category:1957 in military history: there are many items which are neither conflicts nor alliances nor treaties. It is not 'overlapcat' at all - any subcat always overlaps completely with a parent cat. A conflict is best categorised as a conflict. Oculi (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of content in 1957 is entirely incomparable with ancient and medieval times. We have about 60 articles about treaties from the 5th century BC up to the 10th century AD, that is on average 0.3 articles on treaties per decade category. Of course any subcat always overlaps completely with a parent cat but here we have a case that the amount of content of the parent cat almost completely overlaps with one subcat, and this is what WP:OVERLAPCAT is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2018 (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.

Conflicts by year up to 1000 AD[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly only one article per category. If there is no consensus for the above nomination, the first target becomes instead e.g. Category:70s conflicts as it is currently named. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2018 (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:Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members[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: speedy delete WP:G4; see previous discusison at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_28#Category:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_cast_members. – Fayenatic London 11:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT – Muboshgu (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be WP:SPEEDY deleted understand under WP:G4.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I hadn't noticed it had existed before. I'll leave that to another admin. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2018 (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/2018_September_19&oldid=949397773"