Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 26

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

August 26[edit]

Category:Syrian saints[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 as nominated, and also to Category:Saints from Roman Syria and Category:Saints from Roman Egypt, as appropriate. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The 94 biography pages directly in the Syrian category are Christians, but not the existing Sufi sub-category. The Egyptian category likewise has a Sufi sub-category. These are similar to the Algerian saints category that was discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 26, with a consensus to use "Christian" in the category name. – Fayenatic London 15:27, 26 August 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:1908 establishments in Poland[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: no consensus. This is a revision to the original close, which I have left below. On reflection I conclude that I was mistaken to find sufficient consensus for the renaming to proceed. There has been no consensus since to follow it up with related moves, as discussed at Category talk:1900s establishments in Poland. – Fayenatic London 19:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original result of the discussion was: rename to 19XX establishments in Congress Poland:

The old names can be kept as redirects. There are various precedents for using a historical name as part of a series of categories for locations in a current country where the geographical area roughly corresponds. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note on implementation: I speedily moved the decade establishments parent Category:1900s establishments in Poland, but the year (and disestablishment) categories remain at "Poland" for now. I set up Template:Poland 1900s estab by year and Template:Poland C20 estab by decade to handle the non-standard navigation. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Also nominating-

Nominator's rationale: Categories are an anachronism. Poland was partitioned in 1795 and wasn't again a country till 1918. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep, same as yesterday's nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: There is ample precedent for merging or deleting these anachronism categories. Here are just two examples[1][2]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In retrospect I realize these were easily recategorized to a past category because the geographic history of both territories (Ohio and Northern Ireland) have been very clear and stable: there was first NW Territories with borders that never changed, then Ohio with borders that never changed; there was first Ireland with borders that only changed once when Northern Ireland was split off but otherwise the borders remained constant. With Poland it's a completely different issue, for non-political establishments it almost requires OR to determine whether an establishment was within Poland's past borders because its borders changed continuously. A categorization by current country is much better verifiable than by past country in this case. See also further comment on yesterday's page. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say you try to categorize something occurring in the city of Brest Litovsk in 1932 - will you use "in Poland" (because it was Polish-controlled at the time) or "in Belarus" (now controls it) or perhaps "in the Soviet Union" or a subdivision cat "in the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic" (controlled it for much of the modern history 1939-1991)?GreyShark (dibra) 10:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here Marcocapelle is just plain wrong. Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia have 100% clear boundaries in these years, Poland in no way exists as a seperate entity. This is nationalistic, anachronistic, POV-pushing redefinitions of the facts on the ground. We should strive to categorize by the de facto reality of the time an event occured, and in this case there is no reason we cannot do so, other than POV-pushing against it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split according to the polities of the time. However, some were football clubs of a Polish League, established in 1911, no doubt an element of a nationalist movement that led to the formation of a republic. These clearly have a Polish character and need a Polish football category, which requires adjustments in other category trees. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I normally no longer comment on these, but the comment by Johnpacklambert above is just too much to ignore. All these categories were created, and should continue to exist (the few that still exist and haven't been deleted by the one-sided POV pushing of Johnpacklambert e.a.) alongside the contemporary cats. These categories were not created (at least not by me) from any "nationalistic, anachronistic, POV-pushing redefinitions of the facts on the ground."; these categories show things that were in some year created in what is now Poland, which is what most readers are interested in. Many people want to have easy access to all X by year of establishment, currently located in a country, without caring whether these were in that country at the time of establishment. The current countries are shaped by what happened in that country throughout the ages, both when it was an inpedendent country or part of some other countries. Again, I have no objection to a creation of contemporary categories alongside the current ones, but I don't get why some people are so hellbent to create them instead of the current ones, never mind why they need to ascribe nefarious reasons for the existence of these. "We should strive to categorize by the de facto reality of the time an event occured, and in this case there is no reason we cannot do so, other than POV-pushing against it." Has anyone actually argued against this? The only POV-pushing is done by those arguing against the categorization by current country, which is for some unfathomable reason unacceptable to them in any way or shape. Fram (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, user:Johnpacklambert represents the mainstream opinion here; I do not see how objection to his opinion makes him invalid.GreyShark (dibra) 11:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so the mainstream opinion is that keeping the categories showing historical establishments by current countries is nationalistic POV pushing, and that people supporting these are POV pushing against categorizing by the historical country or equivalent? Then the mainstream opinion is wrong. Thanks for your comment, but I don't see how it adresses any of the points I made. "But it is the mainstream opinion" is a logical fallacy. Fram (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect, by just looking at how articles are actually categorized, that there is a difference between the mainstream here (i.e. on this CfD platform) and the mainstream of editors of articles of buildings and the like who always categorize buildings (including their year of establishment) in a current country. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct - the current situation is that most editors have categorized things by current country and not by contemporary entity, while over the past several years (since about 2013) there has been quite a continuous trend at category discussions to prefer contemporary categorization and get rid of anachronistic cats. There are three reasons that the actual situation on articles and outcome of most category discussions differ - one is that many categories were created prior to 2013, the second is that many editors are still unaware of the general trend of category discussions concerning anachronistic categories and third is that there is yet a structured policy of how to deal with such categories and hence every time we have to revote. I hope we can sometime reach a general policy on this issue.GreyShark (dibra) 09:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per user:Peterkingiron into proper contemporary categories (mostly rename to [[:category:190x establishments in the Vistula Land]]) and keep cat redirects due to the fact that many people consider Vistula Land province 1867–1918, as predecessor of modern Poland.GreyShark (dibra) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that sources are not uniform in the ending date of the Kingdom of Poland or informally Congress Poland, whether it was in 1867 or in 1915, so we could name these categories also after Congress Poland. That would also be more convenient since Vistula Land is definitely wrong from 1867 to somewhere in the 1880s. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way we need to purge out things established in Germany and Austria-Hungary. I just removed an article on something established along the Baltic coast of Germany, which would not even vaguely have been considered Poland at the time by any definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind making an intermediate solution with grouping all 1867-1918 categories together with 1815-1967 categories as "category:<Year-x> in Congress Poland" (Vistula Land was very much a continuation of Congress Poland in terms of governance and territory). In would be much better than referring to those as simply "in Poland", when modern Republic of Poland is very different in all aspects." GreyShark (dibra) 10:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Rename to "category:1908 in Congress Poland" and same goes for similar contemporary "in Poland" categories between 1815-1918. Areas of modern Poland which used to be controlled by Prussia and Austro-Hungary should be properly re-categorized.GreyShark (dibra) 13:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above especially applies to things in East Prussia and Silesia. These areas had not been part of Poland for centuries, in the case of East Prussia at least since 1650, and arguably never, and in the case of Silesia, not at least since the 16th century, and I believe longer than that. Before it came under the control of the Kingdom of Prussia in the mid-18th century Silesia had for hundreds of years been part of the Kingdom of Bohemia. Both East Prussia and Silesia were at the dawn of the 20th-century majority German, so they in no way should be designated Poland. Posen is another story, but East Pomerania had an even longer history as being German, and no one in the 20th-century before 1945 would have ever classes it in any way as Poland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "no one in the 20th-century before 1945 would have ever classes it in any way as Poland." True, but we are 2017. Things were established throughout the centuries in what is now Poland. All these things have shaped (often in very small ways) the history of what is now Poland, and the history of whatever country they were in back then. Your crusade to only have us categorize by one of these two views of history is baffling and disruptive; it doesn't help our readers one bit though. If you feel the need to be pedantic, add a note at these categories which explains your objections and where people can find the historical divisions instead of the current ones. Fram (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia policies and specifically WP:STABLE we should strive to achieve a stable structure of articles. This is very hard to achieve but we should strive to do that. The past is a certain collection of facts, whereas the future is unknown to most of us (except to some people who claim to be prophets). Since we do know when modern Poland and preceding countries controlled various areas, we can categorize those and this will be stable as long as history remains stable. However, countries change and their borders are even more so and hence when Poland changes its borders, an impossibly ridiculous re-editing of all Polish categories should be done per your opinion in contrast to Wikipedia's policies. The stability of the world is a non-existent myth; borders change all the time and even this year a new country may emerge in the Middle East. Take a thought of it, before accusing people of "crusades". And take a note that JPL and myself represent a long-standing consensus here.GreyShark (dibra) 20:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not as ridiculous as it seems, in fact all articles about anything in the transferred areas will need updated categorization anyway. Even with less impactful geographical changes, e.g. recently with the reorganization of the French regions, a huge re-categorization needs to take place in Wikipedia. Also in completely unrelated fields, e.g. if taxonomy in biology changes, Wikipedia categories will have to follow. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I must side with John Pack Lambert on this one. It is anachronistic to speak of a "Poland" at that time. Things were established in the state extant at the time of establishment. There is nothing to prevent each article also having a category saying that it is a thing currently located in Poland. But not established in Poland. It's not enough to say that they were in a general Polish area; that would be like saying that they were established in the island of Great Britain :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Changed vote) Rename to Category:1908 establishments in Congress Poland and purge anything relating to the Prussian and Austro-Hungarian parts to appropriate polities. See Congress Poland, which was effectively a Russian province, though formally a possession of the Russian Imperial crown. The things categorised (including a political movement) reflect growing Polish nationalism, which ultimately led to the post-WWI republic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original proposal. I would be happy with rename to Congress Poland as per Peterkingiron immediately above. An important point that has been missed in the prior argument is that there remained a Polish nation through all the years of partition and even a cursory glance at the articles in these categories reveals that the institutions were (and mostly remain) essentially Polish in character. Taking Skaryszewski Park as an example, Polish or Russian? People who say Poland did not exist are pushing POV. It did exist, not politically of course, but as a nation. CravinChillies 11:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the category read *Category:1909 establishments by Polish people, you'd be correct, but it doesn't. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:10, 31 August 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.

Up to year 1000 in China, England, France and Japan[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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 3. – Fayenatic London 06:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Below is an example, the full list of proposed merging and deleting is on the Talk page
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly only one article per category. The proposed merge mostly adds some 10 articles to every century category, or to every century (dis)establishments category, so the targets won't get overcrowded. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge In some of these cases the category trees are very long and deep for one article. Categories are meant to group like articles, it does no one any good to merge too far down. In the case of Category:502 it is not clear that there is any need to seperate it at all. Clearly not a need to seperate below the level of continent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge etc as nom. These year categories produce long thin twigs that are a hindrance to navigation. However is there not a states established/disestablished that the 502 item should be in? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all as proposed. A monumental effort, to be sure. There is a possibility with so many items that some will be upmerged that would have been left alone if proposed individually, but I think the impact there would be minimal and, in any event, easily rectified. Taking Category:991 in England as a typical example, there is only one event listed for that year (an important battle, as it happens) and so the problem with the category may, in that regard, be WP:OVERCAT. The real problem, however, is that the category is in a sort of splendid isolation. There are ten empty years going forward before the next used category (1001). Going back, it's all the way to 972. There are only ten used subcats including this one in Category:Years of the 10th century in England. I think there is a need for continuity if an annual series of categories is to be justified. CravinChillies 10:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as these countries still exist and one can navigate from the present day to the historic events. Tim! (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination does not completely remove the articles from the history by country categories, it is a merge from year to century. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With only one article per year mostly, and moreover many year categories that are completely empty and non-existing, I can't see how this can have potential to become viable categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 28 September 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:Pages containing London Gazette template with parameter supp set to y[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This hidden category seems pointless. "supplement=y" is one of the options for the the {{London Gazette}} template, which just points it to a slightly different URL scheme. But I cannot see why there is any need for a hidden category. I asked why it exists on the London Gazette template talk page, and got one reply, which was, "I have asked that same question. The reply that I got wasn't, I think, wholly satisfactory, so I have no idea why we are maintaining this category." —МандичкаYO 😜 06:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is discussed on the talk page of the template and it would have been a good idea if user:Wikimandia had asked in that forum why this category existed before putting up for deletion. This category is sorted by issue.

  1. When the Gazette was put online there are were irregularities in how it was done not all the pages that are supplements are indeed supplements and vice versa, this category helps in that analysis. The reason why this is important is because the template has to have the parameter set correctly for false positives and false negatives. see for example 27743/supplement/8529 s 1904-12-13
  2. The second and more important reason is this helps with the analysis of whether a supplement has a number or not. Ie whether it is first second third supplement. As the supplements numbered this can be reflected in the numbering of the parameter "supp=". Prior to the changes to the template this year the template could not display the number of the supplement so all "supp=" parameters were set to yes and did not display the name of the supplement correctly. This category helps with the finding and correctly numbering supplements.

To date one of the the largest set of supplements (in one issue) that I have found that of 1919-05-30, three of the supplements are false negatives so the parameter "display-supp=" is used.

  • issue page supp-number date
  • 31366/page/6754 s 1919-05-30 — display-supp=y
  • 31367/supplement/6755 2 1919-05-30
  • 31368/supplement/6757 3 1919-05-30
  • 31369/supplement/6773 4 1919-05-30
  • 31370/page/6789 5 1919-05-30 — display-supp=5
  • 31371/supplement/6921 6 1919-05-30
  • 31372/page/6937 7 1919-05-30 — display-supp=7
  • 31373/supplement/6947 8 1919-05-30
  • 31374/supplement/6959 9 1919-05-30
  • 31375/supplement/6967 10 1919-05-30
  • 31376/supplement/6973 11 1919-05-30
  • 31377/supplement/6977 12 1919-05-30
  • 31378/supplement/7025 13 1919-05-30
  • 31379/supplement/7045 14 1919-05-30 — last
  • {{London Gazette|issue=31366 |page=6754 |display-supp=y |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31366". The London Gazette (Supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 6754.
  • {{London Gazette|issue=31367 |page=6755 |supp=2 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31367". The London Gazette (2nd supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 6755.
  • {{London Gazette|issue=31368 |page=6755 |supp=3 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31368". The London Gazette (3rd supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 6755.
  • {{London Gazette |issue=31369 |page=6773 |supp=4 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31369". The London Gazette (4th supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 6773.
  • {{London Gazette |issue=31370 |page=6789 |display-supp=5 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31370". The London Gazette (5th supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 6789.
  • {{London Gazette |issue=31371 |page=6921 |supp=6 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31371". The London Gazette (6th supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 6921.
  • {{London Gazette |issue=31372 |page=6937 |display-supp=7 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31372". The London Gazette (7th supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 6937.
  • {{London Gazette |issue=31373 |page=6947 |supp=8 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31373". The London Gazette (8th supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 6947.
  • {{London Gazette |issue=31374 |page=6959 |supp=9 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31374". The London Gazette (9th supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 6959.
  • {{London Gazette |issue=31375 |page=6967 |supp=10 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31375". The London Gazette (10th supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 6967.
  • {{London Gazette |issue=31376 |page=6973 |supp=11 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31376". The London Gazette (11th supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 6973.
  • {{London Gazette |issue=31377 |page=6973 |supp=12 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31377". The London Gazette (12th supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 6973.
  • {{London Gazette |issue=31378 |page=7025 |supp=13 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31378". The London Gazette (13th supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 7025.
  • {{London Gazette |issue=31379 |page=7045 |supp=14 |date=1919-05-30 |ref=none}} — "No. 31379". The London Gazette (14th supplement). 1919-05-30. p. 7045.

So the category helps with numbering supplementary issues and once numbered they are removed from this category. Without this category doing this analysis would be much more difficult. Once found then a regular expression search can be done and all the instances of the templates in articles can be fixed. This can either be done manually, with AWB or a bot. -- PBS (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- if this has a useful maintenance purpose, it should be kept as a maintenance category: it is harmless. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't understand any of what PBS just said but, if this category serves a useful purpose for editors, it should stay until such time as it is no longer being actively used. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep @Editor Wikimandia: do not use my reply to your question at Template talk:London Gazette as a rational for deleting this category. Just because I found Editor PBS's reply to my question inscrutable does not mean that I think that the category should go away. In general, maintenance categories serve uses that may or may not be readily obvious. I think that there is little need to delete such categories or bring them here for discussion just because you and I didn't understand why the category is useful. —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep. I understand the purpose of the category and I consider it not only useful but necessary as, without it, supplement identification would be a (presumably horrible) tedious manual task (okay, possibly a bot-driven one). The importance of the London Gazette cannot be under-estimated but I think the nominator here has nevertheless done that. Proposed deletion cannot be the immediate (knee-jerk) response to misunderstanding of a complex technical process. In short, the process is needed and it works, so leave it alone. CravinChillies 09:00, 31 August 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_August_26&oldid=1079648377"