Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 21 September 23 >

September 22[edit]

Category:Foldable smartphones[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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The title is wrong. The content is phones with flexible displays that may be folded, not for all smartphones that are themselves is foldable. There are several smartphones that do not have flexible folding screens that are foldable in a different manner, like a foldout keypad (ie. the Sidekick), foldout speaker (ie, some PalmPilots), foldout microphone, foldout antenna (ie, some satphones), or other device. 65.94.169.16 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A folding smartphone with a keyboard, and 2 rigid non-folding screens
  • Comment the current content of the category is only folding flexi-screen smartphones except for the DUO, and has the parent category Category:Flexible displays, which suggests the original intent was only for the flexiscreen variety. Duo-screen folding phones have been around for a long time, and none of the other except the DUO inhabit this category, suggesting that the DUO and NEO should not inhabit the category. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nomination proposes a narrower scope of the category, the alternative is a broader proposal. If broader, better keep it at Category:Foldable mobile devices because Category:Foldables or Category:Foldable devices are unnecessary broad. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed regarding limits to the broader. The intent was not to include wallet or paper in the category. -2pou (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every flip-phone would thus be eligible to inhabit the category as "foldable mobile device", as would all clamshell portable computers (ie. laptops, netbooks, etc) That seems unnecessarily broad. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you indicted the level of precision by stating flip-phone. The term foldable has been the term used for smartphones that utilize a hinged flexible display. The blocked user's argument is null as the Surface Duo is utilized as a smartphone regardless of its tablet size. This is nothing new as we have been utilizing phablet devices for years. My vote is oppose. – The Grid (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:12, 22 September 2020 (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:Outlines of human activities[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 18:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Human activities is a bit narrow here. Category:Wikipedia outlines contains subcategories, grouped by topics. Topics are very similar to Category:Wikipedia templates by topic, but "Society and social sciences" is missing. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I have added Category:Society as a parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I think I just made up the title one day because everything was stuff humans do. If "Society" fits the naming scheme of similar categories that's probably a better reason than my original titling. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:19, 23 September 2020 (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:Country templates by topic[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 Category:Country templates by topic to Category:Templates by topic and country and Category:Country navigational boxes by topic to Category:Navigational boxes by topic and country. (I hope that I have interpreted the discussion correctly, as it was a little unclear. Ping me if this close is off.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Country templates by topic consists of different categories named "<topic> templates by country". So rename the parent of these categories to be more clear. See also discussion at Category talk:Templates by country. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2020 (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 executed by guillotine by Nazi Germany[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) 23:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2C. All other categories listing people executed by country notate the country first and not the method. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question shouldn't it be "People executed by (country) by the guillotine"? I thought that way because guillotine seems to be used as a noun rather than a verb in these titles. A topic for another CFD perhaps. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For consistency. (Neutral on Inter&#38's suggestion to add "the" but that should be proposed across the board.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2020 (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:11th century in Egypt[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. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An anachronistic overlapping category for Fatimid Caliphate and though there is an option to create a new tree for Fatimid Egypt province, that would probably be mostly a duplicate. Fatimid Caliphate ruled from Cairo from 969 until the rise of Ayyubids in mid 12th-century.GreyShark (dibra) 11:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Egypt was clearly the center of the Fatimid Caliphate, and in medieval countries we do not usually diffuse by province (btw was there a Fatimid province called Egypt at all?). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Since we do not know about the existence of the Fatimid Egypt Province and it could likely be WP:SMALLCAT, I prefer merger.GreyShark (dibra) 14:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this would break a consistent hierarchy of chronology categories about Egypt from Ancient to modern times. Place Clichy (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such consistent hierarchy. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_30#Roman_Egypt, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_6#Centuries_in_Roman_Egypt discussions.GreyShark (dibra) 08:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see in these discussions any reason to create intermediate subcategories such as Category:20th century in Ottoman Egypt or the proposed target. What is defining for these chronology categories is Egypt (as shown by the content and subcategories there), not the regime changes. There is therefore a consistent hierarchy, marginally mined by some disruptive efforts. Place Clichy (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "Roman" Egypt and "Ottoman" Egypt are redundant additions for century categories, but Fatimid Caliphate was the name of "Egypt" at the time. The fact that Egypt (or the Fatimid Caliphate) was at times a bit bigger than modern Egypt is not very relevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egypt redirects to the Arab Republic of Egypt, which is a modern creation, not Lower Egypt which is a geographic article. If categories were about Lower Egypt, there would be no problem regarding "regime changes" (or cultural, demographic changes); however Egypt is about the Arab Republic per WP:COMMONNAME and hence categories about Egypt are dealing with Arab Republic of Misr. There was no Arab Republic prior to 1952, so categories should be branded accordingly. We had multiple discussions on this issue and there is a strong consensus on Turkey, US, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq and other categories, Egypt is not an exception.GreyShark (dibra) 07:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Egypt redirects to the Arab Republic of Egypt it is actually the other way around. You cannot argue that the term Egypt used before 1953 refers to anything else than the country called Egypt. Even in medieval times, the term "Egypt" is widely used, e.g. in Seventh Crusade which prominently features Location: Egypt in infobox and uses language such as Egypt was the object of his crusade. Egypt is one of these terms than keep being used through a very long period of time as geographical designations for a region, such as China. Of course borders and regimes do change, but this is not a reason not to use widely accepted and understood geographical terms. Under this argument, we should probably not have any chronology categories at all (I could probably debate that). If using the word "Egypt" bothers you so much to describe the long-term country, I suggest you request the renaming of the main article to Misir. There is no such "strong consensus" agreeing with what you are arguing (i.e. if I understand correctly, that the name of any extant country should only be used in the name of any category, chronology or otherwise, in a context where the regime and the borders of that country are identical with the present). Also, "Fatimid Caliphate" is actually not a very good idea for Egyptian categories as the Fatimid state was centered around present-day Tunisia for a good part of its history. Place Clichy (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome to express your opinion, but this is a minority position.GreyShark (dibra) 14:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, @Greyshark09, it seems that Place Clichy's view has at least as much support as yours. But more importantly, in a consensus-forming discussion you should make reasoned arguments about the topic, rather than indulging in what appears to be a form of sneering majoritarianism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Place Clichy, Egypt underwent regime changes but never vanished from the record. Dimadick (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what do you mean by Egypt (disambiguation)? Is it the Arab Republic of Egypt or Lower Egypt? Which of those "never vanished"?GreyShark (dibra) 20:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already voted support, just want to add an analogy here. In Category:Centuries in the Netherlands we do not have Category:17th century in the Netherlands but instead we have Category:17th century in the Dutch Republic. The Dutch Republic's area was not identical to the area of the current Netherlands, but it was close enough, and in addition the political center in the Dutch Republic was the same as currently in the Netherlands (namely in The Hague). A similar reasoning applies to Egypt and the Fatimid Caliphate in the 11th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The nominator's campaign to rebrand each era in the history of Egypt is disruptive to navigation, by removing consistency. Yes, Egypt underwent many regime changes, but the category names do not need to reflect those changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: what is your opinion about the analogy with the Netherlands / the Dutch Republic in the 17th century (see my earlier comment)? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: that is interesting. So what would be your general point of view regarding centuries by country, would you prefer to use modern country names only, or else where would you draw the line? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, I start from my understanding of chronology categories as deriving much of their value from being part of a series. The reader should be able to use them to navigate simply and clearly between the different eras, without being surprised by name changes or led to a dead end because the different series have not been linked. The nature of the regime in a particular era is one of the things that the reader should be able to learn through navigating the chronology categories, rather than something they need to know in advance.
I don't want to suggest some simple formula to determine cut-offs. There are to many permutations of circumstance to make that viable. But I do want us to remember that per WP:CAT, the primary purpose of categories is navigation. That navigational purpose is assisted by consistent naming, and undermined by unnecessary precision (see WP:PRECISION).
Look for example at Category:Years in England: about 800 by-year categories, all named "YYYY in England", with the same consistency in the year and decade categories. Mow imagine that someone chopped it up by era, renaming sections of it as "Norman England", "Plantagenet England", "Tudor England", "Stuart England", "Cromwellian England", etc. That would be a navigational nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we agree that there is a trade-off between precision and consistency. But there is a big difference between the examples. In all of the England cases you mentioned, the common name of the country remains England, it does not change to Norman England etc. (Norman is an adjective, not part of the name), hence the trade-off between precision and consistency is trivial in this case, we can always use England. The same applies to ancient Egypt, Roman Egypt, Byzantine Egypt etc., in all these cases the common name of the country (or region, or province, whatever) is Egypt, hence the trade-off between precision and consistency is trivial, we can always use Egypt. So that is one side of the coin.
However, historians would not refer to Egypt in the 11th century as Egypt but as Fatimid Caliphate. (The fact that the caliphate stretched to Libya and occasionally to Syria is not very relevant, ancient Egypt had equally varying borders.) Likewise, historians would not refer to the Netherlands in the 17th century as the Netherlands but as the Dutch Republic. In those cases, in my view, precision of common name should prevail and 'Fatimid Caliphate' and 'Dutch Republic' should be used. An encyclopedia should not use a name that is not used in real life. By the way, those alterations would just impact the specific century, because the parent category remains Category:Centuries in Egypt and Category:Centuries in the Netherlands respectively, and there aren't any centuries lacking in the tree (it is just the name that differs), so the navigational harm is limited. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I think that there is some confusion here. I am not suggesting changing how these periods are described in the text of articles, and I would strongly oppose any such proposal. This is about navigation, specifically about how we signpost categories ... and signposting needs consistency rather than historical precision. Categorising the Dutch Republic under "Netherlands" is not inaccurate or misleading, and satisfies WP:PRECISE. The explanation can be included in text on the category page; it doesn't need to be in the page title.
Also, the notion that a consistent parent category solves the problem is counter-factual in two ways:
  1. It surprises the reader, who thinks they are following a category tree only to apparently find themselves somewhere else. Online readers speed-read and make very quick judgements about whether to continue on a page or a path. A feature like an avoidable name change is very likely to provoke a rapid WTF response, and a reader who abandons of the category.
  2. Changes of name are utter nightmare to handle in the category tree. They add huge complexity to category header templates, and even with that complexity require a lot of work to set up, which rarely happens; but without category header templates, they are a huge task to set up manually, and are very rarely implemented properly. I know that all your work with categories is thoroughly well-intentioned, but it seems to me that you repeatedly advocate structures which add a lot of complexity and inconsistency ... and that you pay too little attention to the fact that we simply don't have a big enough team of experienced and co-ordinated categorisers to build and maintain this level of complexity. For example, just one change of name requires the creation of up to 60 category redirects. How often is that implemented properly? We need to stop building categories as if we had an infinite number of skilled, experienced, co-ordinated editors to implement avoidable complexity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree to the extent that we should not make it unnecessary complex, that is exactly why a split in Norman England and Byzantine Egypt should be avoided. But at some point the trade-off between precision and consistency will be in favor of precision - I guess even you would not advocate having Category:15th century in the United Kingdom - and I really think that with Fatimid Caliphate and Dutch Republic we passed that line. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have left an invitation to participate in this discussion at the talk page of WikiProject History. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. The Fatimid Caliphate was more extensive than Egypt (in the 11th century it included most of Syria, the Hejaz, and Cyrenaica), and "Egyptian" is not the same as "Fatimid". A Fatimid official or general could be Armenian, Turkic, Sudanese, Greek, Iranian, etc. in origin. Indeed, most of the Fatimid officialdom (and hence, most of the entries in the "People of the Fatimid Caliphate" categories, were not native Egyptians. Constantine ✍ 19:59, 6 November 2020 (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:8th-century BC establishments in Spain[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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 20:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A WP:SMALLCAT categorization, currently utilized for establishment of Malaga, which at the time was in fact part of Phoenicia. It makes sense also to make it category:8th-century BC establishments in Phoenicia, but there is no category tree for that yet, so Europe for now. Spain was established in 1479, so 8th century BC there was nothing nearly resembling Spain in existence. GreyShark (dibra) 11:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny though that Category:Phoenician colonies in Spain is in fact anachronistic - there was no Spain at the time of the Phoenician colonies. Perhaps we should consider either "Former Phoenician colonies in Spain" or "Phoenician colonies in the Iberian Peninsula" / "Phoenician colonies in Europe" to deal with that.GreyShark (dibra) 10:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Phoenician colonies in Europe already exists. At some point it will become impossible to rephrase the modern geography to ancient geography, e.g. what to do with France before it was called Gallia, and even "Europe" is anachronistic. I would not bother about these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Europe is not anachronistic, because it is geographic definition. European Union on the other hand is anachronistic, it doesn't make much sense to say Phoenician colonies in the European Union, though in Europe it is fine.GreyShark (dibra) 06:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that Europe does not have a government is a historical coincidence, it does not make the term Europe less anachronistic. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Category:8th-century BC Phoenicia would be sufficient? Phoenician colonies were part of Phoenicia as much as Roman colonies were part of the Roman domain. That is until becoming independent states, like Carthage did.GreyShark (dibra) 06:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would the name form of Rome be better (i.e. Category:6th century BC in the Roman Republic) to give Category:8th century BC in Phoenicia? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2020 (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:Dallas Woods songs[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 and withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one member in the category which is a redirect. No navigational help to readers. Richhoncho (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Richhoncho and Asmodea Oaktree: Pinging above users out of courtesy. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. The only reason for the nomination has ceased to be. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2020 (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/2020_September_22&oldid=988382124"