Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 7 July 9 >

July 8[edit]

Category:Snapchat[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The company was renamed last year; more appropriate that the pages are categorized at a cat for the publicly traded parent company Snap Inc.. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added WikiProject tags on the category talk page, this may lead to some more participation in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator's rationale. Completely appropriate and sensible move. Soulbust (talk) 21:31, 20 July 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.

Large (or potentially large) "Companies by stock market index" categories[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 all. Timrollpickering 12:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete large (or potentially large) "Companies by stock market index" categories (and related "by former index" categories) as overcategorizations. I think there is strong consensus that components of notable stock market indices having few members, such as the DJIA or CAC-40, have their index membership as one of their defining characteristics, but a some point as the index gets larger, index membership is no longer defining for the company: there would be no Category:Wilshire 5000 companies, for example, and we deleted Category:S&P 500, albeit for a different reason, here. So the question is this: should there be a (necessarily arbitrary) size of the index membership that is the cutoff? I propose the answer is "yes," that the cutoff number should be 100 companies, and thus the above categories should be deleted. (Because they change more frequently, the cats for larger indices also become much, much harder to maintain: not a primary driver to delete, but something also to keep in mind). UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SZSE Component Index was notable for just 50 companies. But and then it was expended into 500. It had sub-index SZSE 100 which suitable for nominator's rational. CSI 300 Index also had a sub-index CSI 100 Index which just need to subcat the companies before possible deletion. Matthew_hk tc 23:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To clarify, note that Category:Companies in the SZSE 100 Index still exists and would remain under this proposal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If these indices are anything like FTSE 100, the constituents change slightly every few months, so that a current constituents category would require a lot of regular maintenance, probably with those removed being moved to a former constituents category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, only two companies were able to identify and added to Category:Companies formerly in the CSI 300 Index. I think those two companies were also belonged to CSI 100. For SZSE Component Index and SZSE 200 Index i can't even maintain the full list in articles SZSE Component Index and SZSE 200 Index Matthew_hk tc 16:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now piece of hardwork to populate Category:Companies in the CSI 100 Index Matthew_hk tc 10:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all partially done cleanup on CSI 300 index. The rest of the entries, either the actual entry for the company was not created (Port of Yingkou) or no citation given in the article to support it is part of the index. Matthew_hk tc 00:25, 20 July 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:Amazon Alexa skills[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 the first two, no consensus on Roku software. – Fayenatic London 23:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete all per WP:NOTDIR and non-defining; being an Alexa skill, Google Assistant action or Roku software is not a defining characteristic for any of the companies or applications that have these cats (Capital One? Domino's Pizza?) UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I was the creator of this category) I don't see how this is any different from Category:IOS software, and all of the other categories in Category:Software by operating system. Alexa is an operating system with millions of users, no different from any other operating system category. Daylen (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon Alexa is not primarily known as an operating system; in fact unlike iOS or Windows 10 the term "operating system" appears nowhere in the text of the Amazon Alexa article. And almost every company has a website, but we don't add Category:Websites to every company's article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Roku OS is a operating system, and I don't see how the category is any different from Category:tvOS software or Category:Xbox One software. Daylen (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is no RokuOS article. It is not a notable operating system. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first two categories, those characteristics aren't even mentioned in most of the articles that are in the category. I'm unsure about the third nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:06, 22 July 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:Redirects to numerals[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 21:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Like the one below, this one is backwards also, and renaming is easier than re-catting. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone is able to explain the purpose of this tracking category. The creator of the category hasn't been active since 2014 and the category isn't tagged for any Wikipedia project so the chance that someone is using this category isn't too big. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    By default, all of these redirect categories are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So do you happen to know if there is any active usage of the both categories? By the way, I've added the Wikiproject tags to these categories just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A good person to ask would be Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RCAT. Firstly, these are not "backward", they are just right. When one reads the explanations on the category pages, one finds that the definition of "numeral" here is "number" rather than the linguistics definition of "a word that represents a number". Knowing how "numeral" is defined seems crucial to how these categories are laid out. As for purpose, it seems obvious that these are for tracking and maintenance of redirects that are either worded numbers or numerical-number symbols. Who tracks them? Probably bots now, although I'm not exactly bot-savvy, so I don't know, maybe there's a list of bot projects or something similar that would tell us about this? It seems to me that a good deal of care should be taken with maintenance and tracking categories, because either renaming or deleting them may have far-reaching effects. They are supposed to be populated by templates that would also need to be renamed or deleted, and so on.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Paine Ellsworth; there is no reason to expend the effort to change a reasonable existing structure. bd2412 T 17:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
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:Redirects from numerals[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. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost all of the pages in the cat. are, or contain, numbers, and it is the targets that are (or contain) numerals. Switching both cat names is easier than re-catting all of the redirects.UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone is able to explain the purpose of this tracking category. The creator of the category hasn't been active since 2014 and the category isn't tagged for any Wikipedia project so the chance that someone is using this category isn't too big. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By default, all of these redirect categories are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RCAT. Firstly, these are not "backward", they are just right. When one reads the explanations on the category pages, one finds that the definition of "numeral" here is "number" rather than the linguistics definition of "a word that represents a number". Knowing how "numeral" is defined seems crucial to how these categories are laid out. As for purpose, it seems obvious that these are for tracking and maintenance of redirects that are either worded numbers or numerical-number symbols. Who tracks them? Probably bots now, although I'm not exactly bot-savvy, so I don't know, maybe there's a list of bot projects or something similar that would tell us about this? It seems to me that a good deal of care should be taken with maintenance and tracking categories, because either renaming or deleting them may have far-reaching effects. They are supposed to be populated by templates that would also need to be renamed or deleted, and so on.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  14:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Omar Ghrida (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I wonder why the nom went ahead before the close of this discussion and created an as yet unnecessary category?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on your long and well-reasoned !vote, I sensed consensus was developing that the creator of the original cat. meant number when he wrote numeral. I did not want to tag any additional redirects with the incorrect template, and correct template led to a red cat., so I created it (and modified the nom. accordingly). Sorry for any confusion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, but I'm still confused. The original creator meant "numeral", because by definition, a number is also called a numeral. In point of fact, "number" is just as vague as "numeral" because both terms could apply to the symbols (1, 2, 3...) or to the words (one, two, three...). Let's leave these as they are, because there really is no reason to change "numeral" to "number". The former works just as well as the latter. If this is all too vague, then what we might want to entertain would be to fit the term "symbol" into both names, such as Category:Redirects from numerical symbols and, for the item just above this one, Category:Redirects to numerical symbols.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  20:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Paine Ellsworth; there is no reason to expend the effort to change a reasonable existing structure. bd2412 T 17:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
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.

Old maps[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, merge and delete per Option B. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, per country there is too little content to keep old maps apart from (history) maps in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some -- "Maps of history of" are WP images to illustrate articles. The old maps series is for historic maps and I would prefer Category:Historic maps of the United Kingdom, etc. The Roman category covers a small number that survive from the Roman era, over 1500 years ago, and should not be merged with anything. The UK one currently contains medieval maps. Merging that with what WP-ans have drawn is also wrong. In the UK case the answer is populate, as there are a lot of early modern maps. China and Korea are small, but I expect there is potentially more to go into them. However some others have only one article and may need to be merged to Category:Historic maps in Europe without prejudice to re-creation, if a national category can be decently populated. Historic maps are potentially a significant historical source, and the urge to merge should be resisted. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed we could dedicate the proposed targets to image categories (that would require renaming the target and would require some purging) and keep the continent subcats here.
Option B
This is how the alternative proposal could look like. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 10 July 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:Manga-influenced comics[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) 06:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Manga *are* comics. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on the article history of manga, the post-World War II examples are certainly comics in the modern sense. I am rather less certain how to treat the application of the term "manga" to older works, such as the Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga (12th century). Dimadick (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete This doesn't appear to be an established trend for categorization and indeed "influenced" can be subjective. Just as a side note, we have the related category Category:Anime-influenced animation, should probably be deleted on the similar grounds that anime are animation too. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail)
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.

Establishments in Great Britain by year[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. ℯxplicit 02:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The entries only relate to establishments in the state known as the Kingdom of Great Britain. They do not relate to the island of Great Britain. Name should follow true parent. See also Category:Centuries in Great Britain which relate to the island. The state did not exist for 21 out of the 22 centuries mentioned.Only the island existed for all that time. Disambiguation is needed. I expect Little Englanders to oppose as they wish to conflate the state with the island, even though disambiguation is clearly needed Some may wish to conflate the state with the island but this nomination seeks to correct such a error.. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tim neglects to mention that the closing Admin of the nomination that he cited said "Perhaps the Events (including Trials, Disestablishments and Establishments) should be renamed with "Kingdom of..."". So that's not showing a lot of good faith by Tim either, is it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) is calling people who disagree with him Little Englanders so one can immediately see this is not a good faith nomination. Tim! (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tim is not shy of litigation himself - see here. Contrary to the impression that he seeks to create above, this topic is not a slam dunk. There is a growing realisation that GB is not synonymous with the KoGB. The cats will inevitably follow this realisation once Wiki can stand up to Little Englander bullying. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be helpful if you tried to reach consensus before creating masses of duplicate categories and actually try to improve navigation rather than hinder it with your political pov pushing grudge match. Tim! (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What masses? The ones that were voted by consensus above as "Keep"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Closing Admin Please note that Tim, following my inclusion of additional supporting material re Centuries categories, has outrageously attempted to subvert this discussion by changing the parentage of that category - see diff here. He has also changed the parentage of the related Millenia category here which I have reverted. Penalties should by applied IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the correct parent for the category, your grasp of categorisation is very poor. You made Category:Years in Great Britain both a subcategory and a parent of Category:Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain creating circular categorisation and have been blocked 3 times in the past for category related edit warring. You probably ought to be topic banned from UK related categories or more generally all categories. Tim! (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I noted the anomaly myself. Hence the need for current nomination. Once it goes through, the circular problem will disappear. BTW, your "correction" could have been done after the closure of the nomination, not during it. The above is little more than Admin bullying. Makes a change from Little Englander bullying I suppose. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laurel Lodged: Tim! is correct. "Centuries in Foo" clearly belongs in "History of Foo" by period. Tim's edit was correct, and it subverts nothing. So I have reinstated it.
And drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, LL. Tim's proposal of a topic ban would have an easy passage on the basis of your conduct in this CFD, and if you want to avoid such a ban, you at the very least should desist from being so combative and strike all the conflict-laden parts of your comments. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an essay, not a guideline. It's nothing more than one editor's view. --23:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am more concerned about your current behaviour than whatever got you blocked those times, which I haven't really looked into. I just noted that categories were mentioned in the blocking admins summaries. Tim! (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there should be consistency in the tree of Category:Kingdom of Great Britain, and "kingdom of" is a useful disambiguator to distinguish the 18th-century polity from the island. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Kingdom of GB is exactly the same place as GB. Kingdom of GB differs very marginally from GB in 18th century, in that there was Parliamentary Union in 1707, 104 years after the union of the crown and government. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finally, an admission of difference. Where there is difference, there is need for disambiguation. BTW, the crowns were in personal union, not political union between 1603 and 1707; there were two crowns, two governments and two states. If it were otherwise, there would have been no need for the 1706 Act. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The sub-categories do indeed cover only the period when the Kingdom of Great Britain, but the geographical scope of Great Britain is identical, so no disambiguation is needed. The shorter name is just as precise, so there is no reason to add extra verbosity to the category names.
    It is most unhelpful that the nominator chose to use the nomination to disparage those who disagree with him. Such comments poison debate and distract from the substantive discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply We have too much history to deny that this is anything other than pot / kettle / black. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, LL, it's not. You opened a discussion with a gratuitous insult to editors who disagree with you; that is solely your choice, and it is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Substantive reply Islands don't establish things - they simply are; states or people establish things. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. There is no suggestion that an island establishes things. The title makes it very clear that it is for establishments which happened in the territory; it makes no assertion of who did the establishing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category is Category:Establishments by country and year. As the title suggests, every entry is a state / country, not a random island. You will find no entry for Greenland or other North Atlantic islands that are not of themselves states. So why would you want to give an island admission to this parent? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a state. We just happen to be using the short form of its name, because no ambiguity is created by doing so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Support reverse merge other "years" categories eg establishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain by year to establishments in Great Britain by year. The only "years" category are in the 18th century, and there are no other "years" categories for the island other than in the 18th century. Hugo999 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Since "The only "years" category are in the 18th century, and there are no other "years" categories for the island other than in the 18th century", then it is the Kingdom that ought to own the years, not the island. @Hugo999: - your own logic points to a "support" vote, not an "oppose" vote. Perhaps you might re-visit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent Note the recent decision at CDF here which also ruled in favour of "Kingdom". Like "establishments", only states can carry out executions, hence the need for "Kingdom of GB", not plain GB. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant precedent. The executions category is for actions carried out by or on behalf of the state, so naturally it uses the state's title. These categories are for things which happened in the territory of the state, regardless of who did the establishing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If these "...categories are for things which happened in the territory of the state..", then why not have the state's name in the title? Why would you want to give the impression that they just happened in a North Atlantic island? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PRECISE: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that".
"Establishments in Great Britain by year" has exactly the same scope as the more verbose "Establishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain by year, so we use the more concise form.
And yes, whichever title we use, these are indeed things which happened in a North Atlantic island. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal The tree hierarchy from grandparent to child is "Events in state Foo" → "Establishments in state Foo" and "Years in state Foo" → "Establishments in state Foo by year". For example, Category:Events in the United Kingdom → Category:Establishments in the United Kingdom and Category:Years in the United Kingdom → Category:Establishments in the United Kingdom by year. The same logic will apply if this nomination succeeds, i.e. → Category:Events in the Kingdom of Great Britain → Category:Establishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain and Category:Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain → Category:Establishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain by year. A tree structure should have a consistent look and feel. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-Rebuttal. That sort of cherry-picking is silly and timewasting. As LL well knows, this at the intersection of several category trees, another of which goes: Category:Great Britain → Category:History of Great Britain → Category:History of Great Britain by period → Category:Centuries in Great Britain → Category:Years in Great Britain → Category:Establishments in Great Britain by year.
As you say, a tree structure should have a consistent look and feel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C-C-R Ah but the tree structure mentioned above is polluted. It is a mishmash of state entities and island entities. Since it has been admitted that the nomination refers to the state alone, then all efforts should be bent to unwinding this unfortunate pollution. Thank you for illustrating the core problem so well. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL, the distinction is irrelevant to the scope of the category, which is both a geographical and a political entity. The equivalent categories for Ireland don't engage in gymnastics of nomenclature for the various names of state which have applied over the centuries; there is also no need for the categories for its eastern neighbour to gyrate.
Plesae re-read WP:CAT, which reminds us that Wikipedia categories are a navigational device.
They are not an exercise in scholastic theology or in mathematical precision, and a lot of CFD time is wasted by your mistaken presumptions that they are either or both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a clear demonstration of the need for disambiguation. One this thread, BHD has emphatically declared that the nominated cat is a state and yet above she states that it also covers the island. If BHD and Tim are unclear as to its purpose, how can it retain its existing name. And no, it's not a Herculean task to fix this. Accepting this nom goes a long way towards disambiguating the two entities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL, for the umpteenth time: there is no ambiguity. There is no ambiguity. There is no ambiguity. There is no ambiguity.
The scope is exactly the same, regardless of whether the title is "Great Britain" or "Kingdom of Great Britain". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep calm. Don't panic. Citing another tree structure: the nominated category has as its parent Category:Years in Great Britain (see nom below) which has as its parent Category:18th century in Great Britain. Now this tree is part of an island-wide tree structure that has 22 centuries. So you see how it gets polluted with just a leap to grandparent level? There is a need to separate the streams. The other elements are or will be in place to ensure a smooth divorce. Keep calm. Don't panic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL, why is there " a need to separate the streams"? Why?
Nothing about the scope of these categories would change as a result of the renaming.
The sole purpose of the extra verbosity is theological neatness. The price for that is redundant verbosity in the names of ~300 categories.
Since there is no gain, extra verbosity is redundant: there is no point in making readers and editors pay the price of that extra verbosity.
That is why I repeat for the umpteenth time: there is no ambiguity. So no need to rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Careful oppose I'm not a subject expert so I have nothing to say about whether the KoGB is the same thing as GB or vice versa. However, the nominator seems to insist that they're different, and even if he is correct, I don't see the benefit of renaming this category, because we'd still need the one the new category sprang from. If the nominator's proposed category is proper - and that's a big "if" at this point judging by the commentary directly above me - it should not be created as a rename from this one. The best I can say is that should the new category's existence be justified entries should simply be moved there, with the old category retained for use as needed. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks for venturing in. It's really quite simple, despite the obfuscation above. Is Kingdom of Great Britain the Wikipedia:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC for this category or is Great Britain the primary topic? BHG above admits that it's about the state. This means that the name of the category should reflect the name of the primary topic (i.e. the Kingdom of Great Britain). That's why the proposal should be approved.Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeke. There is no obfuscation, and it is nothing do with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
This is very simple: the category refers to both the state and the island. Regrettably, LL repeatedly sets out to disrupt the discussion by misrepresenting my position as one half of that.
This category will have exactly the same scope, regardless of which title is used. So per WP:PRECISE, we use the shorter of the two equivalent terms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If, as asserted above, the category refers to both the state and the island, then why are there no child categories for years that do not happen to overlay exactly with the years for which the state alone existed? Coincidence? Unfortunate oversight? Or you can choose to reject the improbable and accept the obvious fact staring you in the face - it's for the state alone and so should follow the name of it's true parent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL, for the umpteenth time: it doesn't matter, because renaming would not change the scope of the category.
As to the notion that the island is not a "true parent" of these categories ... I think it's best that you just talk to yourself about that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, my stance is to keep the original category regardless, with or without the one proposed. Laurel Lodged, perhaps you should read WP:BLUDGEON; in short, it really isn't a good idea to respond to everyone else in the discussion. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:14, 21 July 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 Great Britain[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. ℯxplicit 02:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The category only has years that span the existence of the state known as the Kingdom of Great Britain. It is not about the island of Great Britain. The name should follow the true parent. See also Category:Centuries in Great Britain which relate to the island. The state did not exist for 21 out of the 22 centuries mentioned. Only the island existed for all that time. Disambiguation is needed. I expect Little Englanders to oppose as they wish to conflate the state with the island, even though disambiguation is clearly needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge there is no need for Kingdom of Great Britain categories, Great Britain is sufficient. Tim! (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Allow me to point out the need more explicitly: 1 thing existed for a century, another thing existed for millennia. The first thing ceases to exist, the other thing continues to exist. Great Britain may be sufficient, but Brexit will show us if it's self sufficient. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there should be consistency in the tree of Category:Kingdom of Great Britain, and "kingdom of" is a useful disambiguator to distinguish the 18th-century polity from the island. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • REverse merge Kingdom of GB is exactly the same as GB. Category names should be short, so that "Kingdom of" is a waste of space. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So before the creation of the KoGB in 1707, the island of GB did not exist? Is that what you would have us believe? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. The nominator is correct that that this all refers to the 1707–1800 state known as the Kingdom of Great Britain rather than to the still-extant island of Great Britain. However, for the period when we categorise in this way, there is no ambiguity, because the geographical scope is identical. So Peterkingiron's assertion is correct wrt to these categories: "Category:1707 in the Kingdom of Great Britain" has exactly the same meaning as Category:1707 in Great Britain.
There is also the further issue that the nominated Category:Years in Great Britain is the parent of many subcats using the bare name "Great Britain". This proposed renaming should happen only if all the subcats are also renamed, but they are not nominated. The nomination as presented would leave us with Category:1720 in Great Britain, Category:Establishments in Great Britain etc a subcats of Category:Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain, which makes no sense.
There is also the issue of the already existing Category:Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain and its 3 subcats (Category:1707 establishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain etc), all of which were create two months ago by the nominator. Those are functional duplicates of existing categories, so whatever happens to the rest of these categories, they should be merged to titles of the existing naming convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This nomination was a toe in the water. I wasn't going to go to the trouble of nominating over 100 subcats if the parent was not successfully merged. Clearly if this nom is successful then I will proceed to a mass nomination of the subcats. I agree with BHG that "Category:1707 in the Kingdom of Great Britain" has exactly the same meaning as Category:1707 in Great Britain. However, there is no equivalent for "Category:707 in the Kingdom of Great Britain" and Category:707 in Great Britain because there would never be enough material for a "By year" tree structure for the island. Only the state would have enough material and that is confined to a century. The island - the main "owner" of the GB name - barely has enough material at a millennium level, let alone year level. It would also be ahistorical to claim the 8th century for the state; only the island existed in the 8th century.Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These categories exist only for the 18th century. Discussion of the 8th century is therefore irrelevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CATNAME#How to name the country. The article Great Britain is about the island. The article about the (former) country is Kingdom of Great Britain. An example of the problems of using Great Britain for the former country is Category:History of Great Britain, which includes articles relating to the history of the island despite the hatnote. (And why have a category for the history of a former country? You cannot write much about a former country which is not about its history in some sense.)--Mhockey (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge These categories are always used for political entities, not apolitical geographical ones. The claim that 1720 in Great Britain is in any way ambiguous is just silly. This nomination is taking naming to an illogical extreme, and ignoring common name rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 14 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:Medieval homosexual people[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, with no prejudice for nominating to a non-anachronistic name, if any can be found. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category which duplicates the existing one for no discernible reason. While the potential anachronism may constitute a valid reason to rename the LGBT category to this, it does not constitute a reason for this and the LGBT category to both exist in a "child and parent" relationship — technically speaking, in fact, the term "homosexual" didn't exist until the 19th century either, so it's no less an anachronism in the "medieval" context than LGBT is. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 8 July 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:Homosexual people[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful and unnecessary duplication of Category:LGBT people, on an outdated terminology that isn't sufficiently distinct from the contemporary term. All of the contents here would be quite fine filed directly in the parent category, without needing this as an intermediate extra step. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These categories were created to avoid anachronistic categorisation of pre-modern people as "LGBT", an identity that dates to the 1990s. Al-Hakam II was homosexual, he was not "lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender".
This is just about abusing Wikipedia to play identity politics. This is evident from nominator's implication that "LGBT" is "equivalent" to "homosexual". One is a political movement that developed in the 1990s and is not applicable to the 10th century. The other describes a human sexual orientation and is perfectly applicable to any century provided we have sufficient sources to make a judgement.
I have no problem with categorizing modern people who play identity politics as people who play identity politics, after all we are here to reflect reality. I am simply trying to prevent contemporary identity politics from spilling over to articles on pre-modern individuals. If you have references saying Al-Hakam was homosexual, go ahead and categorise him as "homosexual", but this doesn't give you any license to inflict a 1990s category like "LGBT" on him. --dab (𒁳) 06:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this category as constituted includes the subcategories "gay men" and "lesbians" — which means that it includes thousands of modern people and is not being restricted to "pre-modern" folks. And secondly, the term "homosexual" did not exist in the English language until the late 19th century either, which means that for very nearly anybody for whom LGBT would be an "anachronism", homosexual would be an "anachronism" as well.
Secondly, being gay or lesbian does not automatically imply that somebody is "playing identity politics" (whatever that means). That's a pejorative term which is used to dismiss some people's real issues in life as not really real issues, not an objective or neutral description of reality or a statement that belongs anywhere near a Wikipedia article. "LGBT" categories do not imply that "LGBT" itself is the label that the people in it would necessarily have identified with, or that they were necessarily actively political about it; it implies nothing beyond "this person was one of the things that falls under this umbrella". Category:LGBT is not a political category per se; it's for people who are L, G, B or T regardless of whether they "play identity politics" or just try to get on living their lives. As constructed, all this category is actually doing is putting an unnecessary extra step in between "LGBT" and "gay"/"lesbian", for reasons that are not restricted to the ones you've claimed, as this is simply roping in everyone who identifies as gay or lesbian regardless of whether they lived before the 19th century or in the 21st. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 8 July 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_July_8&oldid=1136462453"