Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 31 February 2 >

February 1[edit]

Television shows based on comics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Television shows based on comics

Mayors of places in Missouri[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) 22:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 2-3 articles in each category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per small cat guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now While these places would typically have had more than five councillors, most would be non-notable. No objection to recreating later if any ever exceed expectations and get to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2021 (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:ISIL terrorist incidents in Libya in 2015[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: dual merge as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as WP:SMALLCATs. None of the Category:ISIL terrorist incidents by country have subcategorisation by year. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:44, 1 February 2021 (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:Aristocracy of Mantua[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) 22:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles. Unclear what the distinction between nobility and aristocracy is supposed to be. No other categories of Italian aristocracy, not anywhere else except Japan. Rathfelder (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2021 (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:Syria in the Roman era[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. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT, similar to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#Category:United Kingdom in the Roman era. However, these may not be as clear-cut as Cyprus (below), as the ancient and modern borders are not identical. If approved, note that parent categories should be copied across; and it may be helpful to redirect the old pages, keeping the history, to avoid re-creation. – Fayenatic London 09:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. They seem like natural titles, and would match the names of the main articles of the categories (at least, once "Egypt (Roman province)" is moved to "Roman Egypt". I don't see variations in the borders as a significant problem in this instance, although I'm willing to be convinced if someone can provide a compelling reason for the distinction. P Aculeius (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Roman province and the modern state do not overlap. Parallel category trees are required. Laurel Lodged (talk 14:45, 1 February 2021
  • Looking at the maps, they certainly intersected. Did you mean that one did not entirely subsume the other?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The borders were different, but the categories are largely overlapping. Dimadick (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say the same for "Syria in the Ottoman era"? After all, the Ottomans had provinces that were quite similar to the modern state of Syria. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original province Syria also contained present-day Lebanon, the later province Coele Syria did not. I am not sure if Category:Roman Syria is only supposed to contain the former (in which case the merge is problematic because then the target ends just before 200AD) or also the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Egypt, this is at least a lot clearer than Syria. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Berenice Panchrysos which was in the province of Egypt but is in the modern state of Sudan. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Egypt, Oppose Syria Roman Syria had different borders to today's Syria. Antioch, now in Turkey, was the capital of Roman Syria are we now going to remove all the modern Syria parents from the category so we don't try to move Antioch from today's Turkey to today's Syria. And there's more, of course. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both WP:C2D — Category:Roman Egypt was just speedily renamed in the other direction as of 2020-09-26 07:24:13. It would be nice to have some stability.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: part of a comment I posted below under "Cyprus" applies to this discussion as well. P Aculeius (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the 115 Antioch earthquake? You'd find that in Roman Syria. Obviously you wouldn't expect to find it in Syria since Antioch is in Turkey. Which is the very point that I have been trying to make all along. Similar. Not identical. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why anyone would be surprised to find Antioch and related articles under "Syria in the Roman era", since Antioch was the capital of Roman Syria. Obviously it's possible to have parallel categories for Roman Syria and modern Syria in Roman times—but what's the point of two categories that overlap in 80% of their coverage, just because the geographic borders are slightly different? They're both about Roman sites and culture, not modern ones, so why would we limit the scope to modern borders? It would be like having a category for colonial Virginia that excluded all of the areas that are now outside of Virginia—despite the fact that colonial Virginia included all of what is now West Virginia and Kentucky, and potentially most of the Northwest Territory, including the lands of the Virginia Military Survey. If you just want a list of Roman sites in modern Syria, there's a category for that. But I don't see much utility in having both "Roman Syria" and "(Modern) Syria in Roman Times" with slightly different contents, depending on whether you're using ancient or modern borders. P Aculeius (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: Re "I don't see much utility in having both "Roman Syria" and "(Modern) Syria in Roman Times": the only reason that two close terms exist is because of bad renaming decisions in the main articles. So "Roman Syria" should really be "Syria (Roman province)" or, more accurately, "Assyria (Roman province)". It would then be obvious that the other related category - "Syria in the Roman era" - was about the modern state. The current confused categorical names could be clarified by a change in the article names. This nomination is all about cart-before-horse or cleaning up a mess made in the article space. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that both articles have good titles now—and would not support "Assyria (Roman province)" in any case, since I don't believe that was the Roman name, and it would risk confusing the place with a pre-Roman empire. Consistency is overrated—sometimes it's desirable and sometimes it isn't. When it results in some articles having less desirable titles simply because they would be consistent with others, insisting on it veers toward the pedantic.
But you've already given the answer to this discussion: whether the article is titled "Roman Syria" or "Syria (Roman province)", it would contain the same contents; consistency suggests that a corresponding category have a similar title, unless there's a compelling reason for it to have a different one, and it would contain the same contents no matter what its title. If we limited the contents of the category to "(Modern) Syria in the Roman era", then that would require its corresponding article to be "(Modern) Syria in the Roman era", not "Roman Syria" or "Syria (Roman province)". But since you agree with "Syria (Roman province)", which is a synonym for "Roman Syria", you can't really object to moving the category to a matching name on the basis of consistency, nor can you object to the scope of the category on the grounds that ancient and modern Syria had different boundaries.
You can of course create an article on "Syria in the Roman era", with content sufficiently distinct from "Roman Syria" to justify having a separate article; and you could then use this category title for things associated with it—linking of course to the category for Roman Syria, and explaining the distinction. If you can demonstrate the need for the article, then nobody should object to a matching category. But as this one matches the Roman province, it only makes sense for it to have a name that more clearly reflects its contents. P Aculeius (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of these things is not like the other Here's a small list of things were in "Syria (Roman province)" that are not at all or only partly in "Syria (Arab Republic of)": (1) Category:Palmyra; (2) The provincial capital Antioch, today in Turkey; (3) Seleucia Pieria; (4) Antigonia (Syria); (5) Al-Mina; (6) Iturea and Trachonitis (tetrarchy); (7) Tyre, Lebanon; (8) Berytus; (9) Baalbek; (10) Law school of Berytus; (11) Zeugma (Commagene); (12) Samsat. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Things in "Syria (Arab Republic of)" that were not in "Syria (Roman province)": (1) Al-Hasakah Governorate; (2) Deir ez-Zor Governorate; Others, anyone ??? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of which is relevant to whether the category for Roman Syria/Syria (Roman province) should have the same name as the main article for the category. If you want a category for Roman topics related only to modern Syria, it should be based on an article about modern Syria's Roman heritage, not on the Roman province of Syria. P Aculeius (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2021 (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:Cyprus in the Roman era[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:Roman Cyprus. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT, very similar to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#Category:United Kingdom in the Roman era. Note that parent categories should be copied across; and it may be helpful to redirect the old page, keeping the history, to avoid re-creation. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I can't see any particular reason for distinguishing the two, and the latter seems like a simpler, and perhaps more natural title, plus it will match the title of the main article. P Aculeius (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Roman province and the modern state do not overlap. Parallel category trees are required. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • They "do not overlap"... in time? in location? in your humble opinion?? – Fayenatic London 14:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please - let's keep it civil. Even in the case of Cyprus, it can be said that the two entities do not have the same territorial extent. While the modern state of Cyprus claims jurisdiction over the whole island, Northern Cyprus says otherwise. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • But that is a recent development. Rathfelder (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Precisely. Hence the need for parallel tree structures - one for "Ancient Foo civilisation/province sites found in Modern State Cyprus" and another for "People, buildings and towns associated with the Ancient civilisation/province of Foo". Does it hurt that there is a large overlap in Cyprus? I think not. Would it hurt if the opposite logic was applied to Ukraine? Yes it would. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The distinction is not about Ancient Cyprus. Its Cyprus since 1974. Rathfelder (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Agreed. There is a difference between the modern state of Cyprus (post 1974) and the ancient province of Cyprus. Not much - only North Cypruse which is not under their de facto control. But the difference is 'huge for, say, Ukraine. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No clear distinction. Dimadick (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, modern Cyprus also contains North Cyprus, so there is no geographical difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no clear distinction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — we really shouldn't be categorizing modern countries as parts of ancient provinces, or vice versa.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what you want, then your vote has the opposite effect. Category:Cyprus in the Roman era is simply a list of towns, buildings sites etc that happen to be situated within the modern state of Cyprus. They happen to relate to the Roman Empire in this instance but there could just as easily be similar categories for any other conqueror of Cyprus through the ages that has left remains. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going back to the argument about Category:United Kingdom in the Roman era -> Category:Roman Britain, the modern state name was mixed with the ancient name. Roman Cyprus will be about the place as named in Roman times, without any reference to modern Cyprus.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @William Allen Simpson: But that definition places it outside the scope of the category. The scope is clearly for the current modern state, not for sundry places in Roman times. There is too much muddled thinking in these nominations. They should be withdrawn pending a full decision on the entire parent tree. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laurel made these parallel trees in 2018 with very few entries. In 2019, it was nominated for deletion as empty. Currently has only 3 entries. Laurel also made the target category in 2016. Now, we're reviewing this work item by item and thus far saying NO. That's why we created CfD. Once we have demonstrated rough consensus, we can nominate the rest at speedy-cfm.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think it would be fine to have "Wales in the Roman era" or "Luxembourg in the Roman era", either as subcategories or stand-alone categories (depending on what else exists). But in those cases, it's clear that a modern place is intended, and not a Roman province. I don't see much point in distinguishing between ancient and modern Syria, since there's some degree of identity between them, even though the borders have changed over time (is there any useful purpose for having "Syria in the Roman era" refer to the borders of modern Syria? Surely any article with this title ought to include, not exclude Antioch). P Aculeius (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for making the distinction, even when it's blindingly obvious, is for the sake of consistency. The parent category was refreshingly consistent before it went maverick with the "Roman Britain" renaming. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2021 (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:Gabbard family[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) 22:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON and WP:SMALLCAT. An unneeded eponymous category that only contains two articles. There is no one else that could possibly fit into this category. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2021 (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:Dr. West's Medicine Show and Junk Band songs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Category:Dr. West's Medicine Show and Junk Band songs

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Double Dragon[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) 22:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders visited imperial China, or vice versa, the Order of the Double Dragon was given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Rudolf Prince of Liechtenstein, Albert I of Belgium and Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia are not remotely defined by this award. (Later, the award was occasionally given to Chinese recipients but the only non-royal Chinese person in this cat is Li Hongzhang.) The category contents are already listed right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2021 (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:Australian Operational Service Medal[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) 22:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C2F, WP:FILECAT, and potentially WP:OCAWARD
I'm not quite sure what the intent of this category is: it contains one eponymous article (Australian Operational Service Medal) and 4 image files that are already in that same article so it doesn't aid navigation. I added those image files to both Category:Images of awards and Category:Images of Australia though. If populated, this category would be WP:OCAWARD because it's an automatic service medal issued to all military participants. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2021 (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/2021_February_1&oldid=1006083299"