Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 23 December 25 >

December 24[edit]

Category:Gargoyles[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 to Category:Gargoyles in popular culture. Editors may want to create Category:Gargoyles in fiction as a parent cat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS pinging the participants, @Zxcvbnm, Dimadick, and Marcocapelle:: you may may want to do some followup work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category's original name and the one that makes the most sense. Category:Gargoyles needs to be a redirect to Category:Grotesques. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:24, 24 December 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:Birgenair[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: partial merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nothing in this category. Störm (talk) 18:29, 24 December 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:All Pakistan Muslim League[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: nothing in this category. Störm (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need such category for every subcat. Störm (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a splinter party. I have added an extra category to the main article to prevent it being orphaned. That will also be an appropriate main article for the politicians subcat. This very like what we do with eponymous articles. Nevertheless, I note that other Pakistan parties have their own categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:37, 27 December 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:Iconography of Jesus[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, based on the headers on the category page and based on the articles that are actually in these categories, the difference between the two categories remains too unclear. I've tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you then propose clearer category headers that describe the (envisaged) contrast between the two categories more sharply? Is it a matter of themes versus artworks? Would it be useful to rename the categories accordingly? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a rename is necessary, as the article Iconography explains that Iconography, as a branch of art history, studies the identification, description, and the interpretation of the content of images: the subjects depicted, the particular compositions and details used to do so, and other elements that are distinct from artistic style. The only alternative names I can think of are longer and strike me as unnecessary. The category explanation already states "covers subjects in art that include Jesus and episodes from his life"; I have added the emphasis, and "For specific works, see the parent category Category:Jesus in art and its other sub-categories." – Fayenatic London 12:08, 30 December 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:Parish closes in Brittany[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME and WP:OVERLAPCAT, parish close just means "parish church", the term is used in Finistère, the most western part of Brittany. All these churches are already in Category:Churches in Finistère. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, in case it affects whether this cat is an overlap or duplicate: "parish close" does not mean "church"; it refers to the walled enclosure around some churches. The AHD mentions this use of "close" briefly; the OED goes into more depth (no link as I don't have online access). Eric talk 15:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link on English WP doesn't provide a definition, on French WP there is one online link with the following definition: L'enclos typique est constitué de quatre éléments indissociables : l'entrée monumentale, le calvaire, l'ossuaire et l'église (parfois entourée du cimetière). In other words, it contains the church building and everything that belongs to its property. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, one person states that on his adorable homemade website, but I'd tend to rely more on reference works whose definitions are the result of lexicographical research on the English use of terms. These sources indicate that the English term "parish close" means "enclosed churchyard". Eric talk 16:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose every article in Wikipedia about a church will discuss everything that is in the churchyard, that will not apply to just the churches in this particular category. And in any case there is a WP:OVERLAPCAT issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I'm following you there, Marco. I should add that I'm not defending this category. I haven't had time to look into the overlap issue, but I often think WP tends to go a bit overboard with categorization. Semantically speaking, I would not categorize a church as a "parish close" for reasons I state above. If I thought such a church category ought to be created, I'd call it something like "Churches with enclosed churchyards in Brittany". But it's unlikely I'd be convinced of the need for such a category. Eric talk 17:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – a parish close is not a church. I read the first 4 or 5 articles and each one mentioned a church within the close with a completely different name. If we have articles about quite a few parish closes, it seems entirely sensible to categorise them as parish closes. These are mis-categorised as churches: by Marcocapelle no less. They should be returned to 'Buildings and structures'. Oculi (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an English-language definition of parish close, specifically about the parish closes in Brittany - which is the most relevant to this category: But what constitutes a ‘Parish Close’, exactly? In the strictest sense, it is a church, surrounded by an area of land that might or might not be a cemetery, and enclosed by an outer wall. It needs to include at least five of the following elements: the church, an ossuary (or bone house), a chapel for relics, a stone cross monument, a surrounding wall, a triumphal gateway, a cemetery and a fountain. Bold font is my emphasizing. It is pretty much consistent with the French-language definition above. The fact that the parish closes in Finistère are often referred to by their village name rather than by their church name isn't very relevant imho. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marco, read the first sentence of that page you link: "...its collection of ‘Enclos Paroissiaux’, parish churchyards with flamboyant architectural detail..." The essence here is the two nouns enclos and churchyard. In any case, that's a dot-com tourism site, not a reference work. The English text is in a silly style and not well written. The second paragraph is energetic travel-writing nonsense. Then the fourth paragraph goes on to contradict the first (wrongly) in its first sentence. Plus, no well-behaved anglophone writes (or says) "x needs to include y", especially in the definition of a term. Eric talk 21:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "needs to" puzzles me too, though French Wikipedia says something similar ("L’enclos doit rassembler au moins cinq des huit éléments suivants") with a reference to an offline source, so for sure it's not some random invention. In any case all of the articles are about everything that is on the property of the church, including the walls, including the church proper. Occasionally there is not even a mention of a wall at all (e.g. in Locmélar Parish close). So categorizing the articles in a church category is certainly correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:37, 25 December 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:Birds of Nairobi[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:Birds of East Africa. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a bird species (e.g. black kite) is found in Nairobi Is WP:NON-DEFINING. DexDor (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unless someone brings up evidence that some of the birds are found ONLY in Nairobi, this category is unnecessary.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, the correct name would be Category:Endemic birds of Nairobi. Anyway, 1899 is too recent for substantial speciation to occur, though some birds may be extinct outside of Nairobi. Delete. 108.210.219.2 (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's rare for us to even categorise birds by country - city is surely overkill unless it's a separate ecoregion. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- A city is too small an area for a species cat, unless it is also an isolated island with endemic fauna. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:40, 27 December 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.

Years in Ukraine/Yekaterinoslav Governorate[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 build out as needed. There is no consensus for upmerging to categories with "Ukraine" in the name, and no other approach makes sense to the commenters. So we leave it for now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming::
Nominator's rationale: This is a proposal for discussion; I remain neutral for now.
There seems to be some confusion of purpose about categorising years/decades/centuries in the history of Ukraine. This nomination is to clarify the options.
Ukraine did not exist as a state until the establishment until 1917 of the Ukrainian People's Republic. Nonetheless, Category:History of Ukraine by period goes back many centuries, with a well-developed set of by-year and by-century categories. I have no conceptual problem with that; Ukraine was a cultural region well before statehood, and nation states do not create some sort of historical year-zero. So things established in year X in what is now country Y seems to me to be a useful and logical categorization.
However, there has been a tendency at CfD to delete such pre-statehood categories as anachronistic. On that basis, WP:CfD 2013 January 2 deleted Category:1907 establishments in Ukraine and Category:1911 establishments in Ukraine.
From 1802–1925, most of what is now Ukraine was the Yekaterinoslav Governorate of the Russian Empire. That potentially offers a way of categorising events in that period without anachronism. The current state of Category:Yekaterinoslav Governorate suggests that this approach is only in the early stages of development: only 46 pages apart from a 77-page Category:People from Yekaterinoslav Governorate. It may be that there are more articles waiting to categorised, but for now there doesn't seem to be much interest in categorising the Yekaterinoslav Governorate.
So what to do?
It is silly to have these 2 categories (for one article) as the only members of a Category:Years in Yekaterinoslav Governorate. It seems to me that the options are:
Option A: rename as above, and live with the anachronism (reversing CfD 2013 January 2)
Option B: build out a Category:Years in Yekaterinoslav Governorate tree alongside Category:Years in Ukraine. The scope mostly overlaps, so that would leave many articles with both a Category:YYYY-in-Ukraine and a Category:YYYY-in-Yekaterinoslav. The initial duplication could be done by AWB, but it would need a lot of ongoing maintenance.
Option C: build a Category:Years in Yekaterinoslav Governorate tree to replace Category:Years in Ukraine in the relevant period (1802–1925). That would be a one-off AWB job, but would leave an odd hole in Category:Years in Ukraine/Category:Decades in Ukraine etc.Correction, 2:40, 25 December 2017: when I wrote this, I understood Yekaterinoslav Governorate to cover most of modern Ukraine. I was wrong; YG was about 1/8th of modern Ukraine (see File:Gubernia de Ekaterinoslav - Imperio ruso.png). The rest is split between 8 other Russian Governorates, and a corner of Austria-Hungary. So there is no neat replacement option.
My inclination is to keep things simple, which means sticking with Ukraine throughout. But I want to hear any arguments.
Whatever we decide, I do hope we decide something. It makes no sense to have these 2 categories as loners, and there should be a consensus on whether to develop them or zap them. The worst outcome would be to effort put into building a category tree which was later dismantled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiProject Ukraine has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging the participants in the Jan 2013 CfD: @Marco de T, Fram, Benkenobi18, Peterkingiron, Carlossuarez46, Johnpacklambert, SMcCandlish, and Fayenatic london:. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is likely going to be an overwhelming majority rejecting option A - that is a prediction based on earlier discussions, not an argument. I have been trying to point out in earlier discussions (apparently in vain) that people who categorize establishments may well have a different reasoning than people here at CfD though - different and perhaps not entirely wrong. The reasoning of most people here at CfD is (for the now nominated category): it is a company that was established before Ukraine existed as a state, hence it can't be in a Ukraine category. The alternative reasoning is: it is now a Ukrainian company and the fact that Ukraine didn't exist as a state while the company was established is irrelevant, if only because the company wasn't established by a state altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C: This fixes both the anachronism problem and the duplicate category problem. The Roman Gaul/France example demonstrates that people's heads don't explode when they have to sort some categories that are presently still anachronistically named. We should not play fast-and-loose with the facts. There was no "France" in the first century BC, and in a modern context any business entities are incorporated, towns are founded, people are born and die within a jurisdiction not a vaguely defined cultural region, so "1907 establishments in Ukraine" simply does not compute.

    Such companies and other organizations can also be categorized as Ukrainian in some other relevant-to-now way. E.g., Motor Sich (from Category:1907 establishments in Yekaterinoslav Governorate) is also in Category:Defence companies of Ukraine, Category:Aircraft engine manufacturers of Ukraine, Category:Ukrainian brands, etc., and is furthermore also correctly categorized in Category:Aircraft engine manufacturers of the Soviet Union, etc., for that period of its existence as well.

    This isn't any different from categorizing someone has having been born in Yugoslavia (because they were, even though it doesn't exist as such now), in Category:Yugoslav people or a subcat thereof. If they also lived in the pre- and/or post-YG period, they'd also (not alternatively) be more specifically categorized as Bosnian poets, Croatian scientists, yadda yadda.

    The "odd hole" problem is fixed with hatnotes, e.g. in Category:Years of the 19th century in Ukraine, use {{for|1802–1899|:Category:Years of the 19th century in Yekaterinoslav Governorate}}. Or simply add "Category:Years of the 19th century in Yekaterinoslav Governorate" to Category:19th century in Ukraine Category:Years in Ukraine directly, as well as into ones for Russia (the Russian Empire at that time); and do likewise with the subcats. I note that right now things like Category:1811 in Ukraine have no connection at all to Russian categories, and this is an outright error. Cats. like Category:Years of the 19th century in Estonia‎ are correctly subcatted in Category:Years of the 19th century in Russia (though this has not been drilled down yet – Category:1867 in Estonia is not a subcat of Category:1867 in Russia; should be for 1710–1918, and similarly with some other places like Latvia for the applicable years.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @SMcCandlish:, it seems to me that there is a fundamental error in your argument, which is encapsulated in your statement that business entities are incorporated, towns are founded, people are born and die within a jurisdiction not a vaguely defined cultural region.
Not so. All these things happen at a geographical location, and that geographical location is part of many differently-defined regions (cultural, historical, climatic, topographical, administrative, political, economic). Why on earth do you insist that only one of these is true?
I'll illustrate this with the example of Walsden, which since 1974 has been in the the Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale, West Yorkshire. It is also in England, in the Pennines, in the historic county of Lancashire, in the Calder Valley Westminster constituency, in the Yorkshire & the Humber Euro-constituency, in hardiness zone 8, and so on.
I could offer many more examples, but I hope the point is clear: geographical regions can be defined in many different ways.
Business entities are incorporated, towns are founded, people are born and die within climatic zones
Business entities are incorporated, towns are founded, people are born and die within cultural regions (e.g bible belt, gaeltacht)
Business entities are incorporated, towns are founded, people are born and die within electoral areas (constituencies, congressional districts etc)
Business entities were incorporated, towns were founded, people were born and die within economic zones (rustbelt, Golden Triangle, etc)
Business entities were incorporated, towns were founded, people were born and died in places before there was any formal territorial jurisdiction.
Now, remember what we are trying to do here. Categories on en.wp are not some sort of precise Linnean taxonomy. Per WP:CAT, the central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories. This is about navigation, not classification.
That navigation via a hierarchy of categories is best maintained if we keep some consistent parameters. The de facto reality is that this is how we do categorise geogrphical history. We have categories such as Category:Prehistoric France and Category:Prehistoric Uzbekistan which in narrow terms are of course oxymorons, because the concepts of France and Uzbekistan did not exist pre-history.
We keep them because they make sense to anyone who can abandon literalist textual pedantry. They clearly refer to the "prehistory of the geographical area defined by the contemporary boundaries of the nation of [Uzbekistan/France]".
This consciously anachronistic usage is widely used by academic scholars. See e.g. 71 JSTOR hits for "Prehistoric France", 8 JSTOR hits for "Medieval Ukraine", 6 JSTOR hits for "Medieval Slovakia". Why on earth should Wikipedia reject the historical geography used in reliable sources?
Wikipedia has chosen to make current political boundaries the basis of most geographical categorisations. We even do that for landforms (mountains, lakes, bays, rivers), which are in no way emanations of the state. Why? Because it gives us a consistent set of areas, which helps navigation.
That consistent set of areas is actually near essential for navigation. If a reader wants to learn about an area, it would be a nightmare to find that, for example, towns are categorised only by economic zone, mountains only by geological zone, politics only by electoral area, people only by ethnic group, schools only language etc.
Same with history. If a reader has been browsing Category:Ruritania in the 20th century and wants to explore earlier times in the same place, why on earth would we force them to learn the political history before they can do so? How does it help them to tell them that from 1823–76 they need to look under Zogistan, from 1617–1823 under the Duchy of Xcvbm, from 1481–1617 under Qwertyland and/or Asdfgland (when the areas was divided), and before that there were no stable boundaries so we have no geographical categorisation below the continent?
There's a really simple way to avoid this mess. Just add a hatnote to each anachronistic category saying something like "Ruritania did not become a nation state until YYYY. Earlier events are categorised within its boundaries to help navigation".
However, if SMcCandlish don't want to use an acknowledged anachronism, then please set out what geographical areas you propose to replace the Ukraine categs before 1917. All of them all the way back to prehistory.
It's not simple. e.g. Yekaterinoslav Governorate covered only a small part of modern Ukraine, and only from 1802. What do we do before then? What happens to Category:Ancient history of Ukraine and Category:Medieval Ukraine? What about all the other subcats of Category:Ancient history by country?
I sincerely hope that anyone who wants to demolish the existing structure has an alternative in place. But right now I don't see any clear plan from the anachrophobes which allow us to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not an either-or proposition. Yes, these events happen in geographic locations, but they also happen – in the era after the rise of nation-states – within nation-state boundaries and within narrower jurisdictions they define (which also tend to coincide with smaller human-geography boundaries, and to eventually become them, like counties, and districts, and so on). When we're categorizing by something that's today a nation-state, we need to be mindful of that. And the establishment of a legal entity like an engine manufacturer is more relevant to legal than traditional geographical categorization anyway. The fact that the concept "Ukraine" pre-dates the nation-state of Ukraine is why I suggested cross-categorization. If you're looking for 1857 stuff in the Russian Empire, you should find 1857 in Yekaterinoslav Governorate under it as a subcat., and also find the latter in the cat. for 19th c. Ukraine, since it's both from different perspectives (politico-legal jurisdiction and traditional human geography). PS: If you now don't think Yekaterinoslav Governorate is close enough when it comes to how to categorize Ukraine during Russian rule, why'd you suggest it? ("From 1802–1925, most of what is now Ukraine was the Yekaterinoslav Governorate of the Russian Empire. That potentially offers a way of categorising events in that period without anachronism.") Devil's-advocate nominations are not helpful. It seems to me that the only potential trouble would be for something located in present-day Ukraine which was not in Yekaterinoslav Governorate. We have plenty of situations like like this and heads don't explode (even over something like Alsace-Lorraine), so it's not a serious worry. Outlying, edge-case stuff will get indvidually categorized as needed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't playing devil's advocate. I was trying to keep the discussion focused on providing some way of categorising all these historical geographically, to deter drive-by-anachrophes from rejecting one option without examining whether alternatives are actually workable.
Unfortunately, I misunderstood the size of Yekaterinoslav Governorate when writing the nom. I had read in the 2013 CfD that it was much the same area and relied on that. It was only when replying to you that I checked the maps and saw that it was actually about 1/8th of modern Ukraine. Sorry for not making that change of understanding explicit in my reply to you. I will correct the nom in my next edit, which I should have done sooner.
The issue here is not outlying, edge-case stuff, nor (per your initial comment) is it an "odd hole" problem. It is about all of the history of the area before 1917. If we cut off Category:Years in Ukraine/Category:Centuries in Ukraine before 1917, where do we categorise an event an Kiev in 1901, 1801, 1701, 1601, 1501, 1401, 1301, etc, and in pre-history (since archaeology can often date prehistoric events)? We currently have a solution: YYYY in Ukraine. What's the alternative?
AFAICS, you weren't supporting cross-categorization by year: Option C is about replacement, not duplication. So we need alternatives, unless we just upmerge the entire history of pre-1917 Ukraine to Europe categories.
Describing Motor Sich as a a legal entity like an engine manufacturer seems to me to be an odd focus. The legal structure of a business can be complex, fluid, and cross jurisdictions. It seems to me that Motor Sich is primarily a huge factory in Zaporizhia; the geography of its foundation is mostly a matter of physical location rather than law. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there is an RfC about the general principle at Category talk:Years by country. Although it's been open since October, it's only just been tagged as RfC, so there has not been much comment there yet. – Fayenatic London 23:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer option C. Where there is a former territory that corresponds fairly closely to a current country, IMHO it's best to have a hierarchy for the former name as part of the hierarchy for the current one. Category:Years in Myanmar and Category:Years in Sri Lanka currently show alternative ways of building the hierarchy: there is a Category:Years in Ceylon as part of the latter, but no Category:Years in Burma – instead, e.g. Category:Establishments in Myanmar by year directly contains the year estab categories named Burma. – Fayenatic London 23:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. And we could even have a Years in Burma side tree if wanted, for a specific year range, without creating duplicate individual-year categories with the articles in them; they'd be shared with the Myanmar tree. This would work for people looking back in the history of what is now Mynamar the nation-state, or for people who consider the human-geography place to be Burma and don't much care that the legal entity governing it was renamed to Myanmar within living memory of many of us. Container categories like this are cheap and help people find the more exactly narrow categories that contain the articles they're looking for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree that option C is most desirable if it there is a fairly close correspondence to a current country. For example, there are century trees of Burgundian Netherlands and century trees of Southern Netherlands in the tree of History of Belgium. Unfortunately meanwhile it has become clear that fair closeness no longer applies in this Ukrainian case, and those situations occur quite often. I would therefore advocate to tolerate establishments by current country under three conditions: (1) if it concerns a non-political establishment, (2) if it still exists per today, and (3) if there is no past territory roughly corresponding to the modern country. These conditions most often apply to buildings, but of course it can also apply to companies and other things. We can keep container categories by current country that contain an establishments subcat plus former polities. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:1907 establishments in Russia. Ukraine did not exist in any way at this time on a political level. It was divided into many governorates, many of which went into modern Belarus or Russia (weather or not we follow de facto or de jure modern boundaries of Ukraine). Plus the governorate that included modern Moldavia also covered part of what is today Ukraine, except a small part of modern Moldavia (which is a de facto breakaway Republic), was in a different governorate. Ukraine did not have special status like Congress Poland or Finland in the Empire. Plus the western part of Ukraine was in Austria-Hungary. Beyond this large numbers of people in what is today Ukraine viewed themselves as Russian, and movement between this part of the empire and other parts was fairly high.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C and also categorize by years in the Russian Empire.GreyShark (dibra) 07:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically option C -- Ukraine is an anachronism before 1923. However, we need to acknowledge that the subject matter was in Yekaterinoslav Governorate, by a wider upmerge to a category for that. The governorate must have had a status and importance as significant as a US state, but we will probably lack sufficient content to merit any very detailed categorisation. The targets should be establishments in Russian Empire, years in Russian Empire and Category:Yekaterinoslav Governorate or an establishments subcatof this if there is enough content. If we have enough content to merit splits we can make splits, but the chances are that the need will be quite distant in time. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in this other discussion, User:Doprendek makes a strong plea against what is called option C here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have struck out my former support for Option C, as it has been made clear that this case is not a "fairly close match". I now support Option A plus Category:1907 establishments in the Russian Empire. In such cases, I think we may as well allow dual categories: the historically accurate polity covering the location at the time, and the current polity. I believe this will serve readers' needs and wants. As for the Governorate, there were a lot of Category:Governorates of the Russian Empire, and I do not think it will help navigation to build a hierarchy of small categories for establishments in them. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SMcCandlish, Greyshark09, and Peterkingiron: do you still support building a hierarchy for the governorate, even though (i) it was only a small part of what is now Ukraine, and (ii) the nominator has struck out that option from her nomination? @Marcocapelle and BrownHairedGirl: you don't appear to have expressed your own preferences here. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but only for stuff within that particular jurisdiction; it is not a replacement for years in Ukraine. We don't need categories for years in Ukraine when Ukraine did not exist. Things that happened in what is now Ukraine when it was not Ukraine should be properly categorized as being in the Russsian directorate(s) in which they actually took place. Similarly, we should not categorize things that happened in classical Gaul under categories for France. There are probably a lot of anachronistic, misleading categories to get rid of.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes and stop this anachronism nonsense - there was no Ukraine as a unified administrative unit until 1923 (Ukranian SSR) and no such country until 1991.GreyShark (dibra) 19:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Yekaterinoslav Governorate is nowhere near equivalent to Ukraine, option C is clearly not an option. Option B is not an attractive option either, assuming that this particular governorate just happened to come by in this discussion because it was associated with Ukraine and thus assuming that nobody will actually put effort in expanding a full tree by governatorate after this discussion has been closed. That is also an objection against option C by the way. That leaves option A as the only alternative left. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic london: thanks for trying to wrap this up. As I set out above, I am completely unpersuaded by the anachrophobes, and I think that @Marcocapelle was right to note in his first comment (on 24 December) that people who categorize establishments may well have a different reasoning than people here at CfD.
So my first choice is to keep both paths open per Option B, with Option A a close second. (Option C was an error on my part, due to my not doing enough research, I should never have proposed it. Sorry.)
I suggest that whatever outcome is decided here should be seen as a holding step pending a wider consensus on geographical categorisation of historic events, which I think needs an RFC. That's why I prefer Option B; it keeps both paths open for now. (Sad to see so few responses at Category talk:Years by country#RFC_about_categorization_by_past_or_current_country. I suggest it be restarted at a location with more footfall.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 13 February 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:Non-human characters in video games[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 a almost a container: 8 subcategories and 3 articles. Those in favour of deletion had no clear idea of what to do with the subcats. The nom @ZXCVBNM's claim that "all the subcategories are already in their proper category" is mistaken. 5 subcats would be removed from Category:Video game characters if this was deleted, and no reason was given for doing so. A nomination which answered that question might have a different outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is supposedly part of "video game characters by status", but I fail to see how "non-human" is a "status". Typically, a "status" is something that happened to someone, or their job, not their race. Generally all the subcategories are already in their proper category, and even if this one were removed, they would still be properly categorized. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This belongs under Category:Video game characters by species. It’s here most likely because the correct category does not exist. 2600:387:A:15:0:0:0:BB (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's also a farm for original research. E.g., if you play Morrowind, you'll find a whole big bunch of human-looking races, but they don't correspond to anything in the real world. Within that game's fictional universe, all of them and all the ones we might classify as elves and orcs, originally come from the same stock. Are they human? Are even the ones clearly modeled on the Mediterraneans, Celts, Africans, and Scandinavians actually human? One might argue not, since they aren't actually those peoples but fictional races on another planet in a different universe, and did not naturally evolve there but were created (in this story-world) by supernatural forces. Same goes for the Middle-earth stuff; if you dig into the details of Tolkien's fictional world-genesis, all these races were created by god-angels (Valar), and the Hobbits are a direct off-shoot of humans, which come in at least two and arguably at least five distinct species or subspecies, none of which map onto reality. Which if any of them are human for WP purposes? Nah. I think this category was created with sci-fi games in mind, where people from earth are fighting aliens, and it doesn't correspond to anything sensible beyond that. It even fails for that genre, because a fairly common theme is a far-future scenario in which what was once humanity has forked into multiple species. Let's just not go there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Are you arguing about the distinction between human and other humanoid characters in fiction? We already have a Category:Fictional humanoids, but it is not intended specifically for video game characters. Humanoids are commonplace characters across many genres of fiction. Dimadick (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, since deletion would remove all content from the tree of Category:Video game characters, while the subcats obviously belong there. Containerization might be an alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 1 January 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:Freighters[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: manual merge and leave the category page as a disambiguation page. User:Fayenatic london, thanks for your offer to do the manual work, please go ahead. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was originally nominated at WP:CFD/S but contested on technical grounds (see permalink). The original rationale was: Freighter is a disambiguation page, Freighter (cargo ship) redirects to Cargo ship which begins: "A cargo ship or freighter ship...". Essentially, the scope of the two categories is the same, and the latter is less ambiguous. (Pinging User:Dave souza as the category's creator, and User:Fayenatic london, User:The Bushranger and User:Marcocapelle as interested editors.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
discussion at CFD/S
  • Support There is no article for freighters and the term is synonymous with cargo ship.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment if merged to Category:Cargo ships, the subcats of Category:Cargo ships need to be examined and if the article properly subcatted therein, it should not also be placed directly in Category:Cargo ships. Hmains (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment no objection to merge, seems reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 06:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the term "freighter" can also apply to cargo aircraft. Cargo ship is clear in its meaning. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manual merge, to Category:Cargo ships as I originally suggested, or to more specific sub-categories of it per Hmains. I checked the five beginning with D; two would need merging and three would not. I'm willing to do the manual work. As the Freighters category name is likely to be used again, it should be redirected once empty. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • support manual merge as just described. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but it may be useful to leave a cat-redirect. I doubt there would be much call for a freight aircraft cat; if there is we can make it a dab-category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was surprised to find Category:Cargo aircraft, so a dab-category would indeed be very useful. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:19, 31 December 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_December_24&oldid=872002781"