Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 25 April 27 >

April 26[edit]

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people by location[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 13:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge per WP:NONDEF and WP:SMALLCAT. The voivodeship where these people were born/active is not defining for any of these people. We sometimes categorize people by a non-defining country subdivision if the parent category becomes too big, but that problem does not occur here at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a huge difference between subdivisions of current countries versus subdivisions of former countries. In the latter case it nearly requires WP:OR to determine from which subdivision someone was, and besides when it's long time ago the subdivision is in most cases entirely irrelevant for that person. 13:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This could be discussed in case by case basis. For some people, their province origin might be quite important. For example, Ducal Lithuanian category refers to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and I have known some Lithuanian editors who felt rather strongly regarding making it clear that a person was not just "Polish", but a Lithuanian from the Grand Duchy as well as a "Pole" from the PLC, through I note we don't seem to have a corresponding category for people from Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. (Ping User:Renata3 here, so we can hear more from a Lithuanian editor here on the usefulness of the Ducal Lithuanian category, for example). OR shouldn't be a problem, as long as we know date and place of birth. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus and Renata3: It would be less of a problem to distinct Polish from Lithuanian people, but the categories above are much more granular. Knowing date and place of birth is not enough to determine voivodeship, it may also require the study of ancient maps which is OR. People in these categories are not simply known for being from a voivodeship, which is why NONDEF applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seeking a clearer consensus; and separating one to a separate discussion, below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have added WikiProject banners to the talk pages, seeking to generate alerts. Forgive me if any of these are inaccurate. – Fayenatic London 19:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Poland-Lithuania was a polity that lasted over 220 years, though in part shorter periods due to the first two partitions. WP seems to be short on bio-articles on its politicians and other people. The Voivodeships are effectively its counties. Are we really saying that it is wrong to have county bio-splits for this polity, just because WP has failed to collect an appropriate quantity of articles? Category:People of Grand Duchy of Lithuania is certainly an appropriate rename; and I suspect there may be some redundant levels in the tree, which should be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voivodeships in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth aren't comparable to counties, they are just administrative subdivisions. We categorize by administrative subdivisions if otherwise the categories grow too large, but that's not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2017 (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 from Wolyn Voivodeship[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 with diacritic to Category:People from Wołyn Voivodeship. – Fayenatic London 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On further inspection, it should match the parent Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–39), so the name will be Category:People from Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–39). – Fayenatic London 09:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: separating this from the others above, and refactoring the nomination for clarification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:07, 26 April 2017 (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:Ships named after Manuel Belgrano[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. I have listed the ships at Manuel_Belgrano#Legacy. – Fayenatic London 19:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —swpbT 19:27, 26 April 2017 (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:Canada–the Gambia relations[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 France category. – Fayenatic London 19:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Need to define the convention of Category:Bilateral relations of the Gambia. These are presently only two of Foo-the Gambia relations categories as the other subcategories are of the form The Gambia–foo relations‎. There are two articles Bangladesh–the Gambia relations and Malaysia–The Gambia relations. The title of the Malaysia one ought to be reversed anyway but there is no clear capitalisation preference. Tim! (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any bilateral relations pages, whether categories or articles, that drop "the" entirely? For example, "Canada–Gambia relations" is what I'm meaning. Nyttend (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename France, both parent and grandparent category use "the Gambia". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2017 (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:Concentration camps in the Yugoslav Wars[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, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per Category:Internment camps. I would strongly suggest that the sub-categories, which categorize camps by nationality, be scrapped, and instead articles be categorized into Category:Croatian War internment camps and Category:Bosnian War internment camps.Zoupan 05:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While it may make sense to split the subcategories in a different way, they should be nominated as well in order to get anything done. It's probably best to open a separate discussion for this. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2017 (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 books about colonialism[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: reverse merge. – Fayenatic London 19:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the two categories are not different enough to keep them separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- All seem to be history books. The exception is ''Orientalism'' (book) which may be about a concept or the influence of trade with the Orient on Europe, and not about colonialism at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge Per the arguments of Peterkingiron. These seem to be book about historical colonialism and may not cover other aspects of the topic. Dimadick (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2017 (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:Pre-Islamic North Africa[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. – Fayenatic London 19:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, current name is anachronistic and a bit POV. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom This seems to cover anything from the emergence of Ancient Egypt to the 7th century. The period is not defined by Islam. Dimadick (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom --Lenticel (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2017 (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/2017_April_26&oldid=1075704884"