Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 16 June 18 >

June 17[edit]

Category:Chaudhry Abdul Rehman Khan[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: already speedily deleted WP:G6 by C.Fred (talk · contribs). – Fayenatic London 16:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Chaudhry Abdul Rehman Khan to article Chaudhry Abdul Rehman Khan
Nominator's rationale: Article was improperly moved to category space without discussion or credible explanation. Need admin to move it back to article space, and preferable move-protect it pending any proper naming discussion. Dl2000 (talk) 22:47, 17 June 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:Ex-ex-gay 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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This has been tagged for possible inappropriate labelling of people since 2010 and indeed doesn't look useful or defining. Brandmeistertalk 12:29, 17 June 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.

Ancient year and decade categories in China, Italy and the Roman Republic[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 per Option B. – Fayenatic London 10:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Option A: merge to year categories "in Asia" and "in Europe"
remainder of option A
Option B: merge to global instead of continental year categories
Remainder of option B
Nominator's rationale: merge to century categories per country (in both option A and B) per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly all these categories have only one article without a reasonable chance of expansion.
Note 1: this is a continuation of the previous nomination of June 9. In the previous discussion there was some support for an option skipping the continent category layer, so this has been added in this discussion as option B right from the start.
Note 2: on the talk page there is a list of container categories that naturally become empty if this merge is accepted. Though they haven't been tagged, it would be helpful if the closing admin deletes them too upon closing this discussion.
Note 3: all articles of years and decades in 201-280 in China are already in the tree of Category:Three Kingdoms which is a subcat of Category:3rd century in China so they don't need a double merge.
Pinging editors who participated in earlier discussions @Oculi, Tim!, Nyttend, Peterkingiron, J 1982, Neutrality, Inter&anthro, and Le Deluge: feel free to comment on this new nomination too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B - global system. Neutralitytalk 17:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A There's enough content in Asia to warrant the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B -- These are remote periods where we have no history at all for many countries. China is a big enough place not to be merged into Asia, which is a somewhat amorphous concept: we know something of China, India, the Persian Empire, etc, merging to Asia loses specificity. I cannot quite see what I am supposed to be choosing between on the Italian categories, which I would have preferred to see as a separate nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B - Segregating by continent implies a parent "by continent" category that is a WP:SMALLCAT by definition, and we don't really gain much by the segregation. A global 512BC category is fine.Le Deluge (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the earlier similar nomination has been relisted here. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:51, 30 June 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.

Ancient and medieval Macedonia[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 all. – Fayenatic London 11:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge because
  1. it's odd to have a modern country category and a historical region category next to each other while they both have the same name and a substantial geographical overlap
  2. we'd better remove the "(region)" disambiguator, thus keeping it deliberately vague whether we mean the historical region or the area of the current republic. This way the current republic can keep its category tree like other countries.
This is a new nomination based on this earlier discussion; pinging the participants of the earlier discussion @Peterkingiron, Laurel Lodged, Tim!, and Fayenatic london:. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the rationale being surprisingly ill-informed. In principle, I find the "Ancient-era modern country X" categories silly and redundant, but apparently they are a thing in Wikipedia, and one should not mix things from different eras that mean different things just for simplicity's sake. I would support simplifying to "Ancient Macedonia", for instance, but not for the reasons stated, and not through a merge as proposed: the actual area covered by ancient Macedonia before its imperial phase does not really exhibit "substantial geographical overlap" with the modern Republic, which has more to do with Paeonia. Likewise, "Roman Macedonia", at its largest extent, covered most of modern Albania, large parts of Greece and parts of Bulgaria as well, and at its smallest extent, the province of Macedonia Prima corresponded roughly to Greek Macedonia, and Macedonia Secunda to the southern three quarters of the modern Republic of Macedonia. Frankly, the "X-era modern country Y" categories are rather ill-informed; Scupi (modern Skopje) for instance was never in Roman Macedonia, but in Moesia Superior and then Dardania, so definitely not "Ancient Roman Macedonia history in the present day Republic of Macedonia." as written in the category. Constantine ✍ 08:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just generally, borders of countries unavoidably move in the course of centuries. For example France was much smaller in the high middle ages than it is now. Yet for no other country we make category distinctions like we now have for Macedonia. Second, to my best understanding, the current Republic of Macedonia belonged to the ancient kingdom of Macedonia since Philip II (i.e. for the larger part that we have sources and articles about the ancient kingdom); and it belonged largely to Macedonia Salutaris in the Roman period. If that understanding is correct then there is not much wrong with the proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing France with this is apples and oranges. France has a continuous political history since Merovingian times. Names and a general geographical location aside, there is nothing in common between Philip's kingdom and the modern Republic. That is the whole crux of the dispute between Greece and the RoM, after all: the (inadvertent for the general public, but very deliberate on the part of the RoM) equation of "modern" Macedonia with ancient Macedonia (which, ipso facto, also implies a claim on Greek Macedonia) by sole virtue of the name. From what I can see here, Greece is right to be worried. Please read the rather comprehensive articles we have on the subject, they are quite informative. Constantine ✍ 10:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names and a general geographical location aside? This is a category tree about name and geographical location in that particular combination. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is two category trees, one about a modern political entity on the one hand, and one on a geographical location and a series of historical entities on the other, with both sharing a name. To clarify, I am not opposed to getting rid of the "X-period of Y" in principle, but I am opposed to merging them while "keeping it deliberately vague whether we mean the historical region or the area of the current republic". You want to merge the content of "Ancient-era Republic of Macedonia" into "Ancient Macedonia"? Fine by me. But then do it consistently, with the target category being about "Ancient Macedonia", not the "ancient era of the RoM". Therefore a) also merge Category:Ancient-era Macedonia (Greece) into it, and b) do not retain the parent categories that imply a relation with the modern Republic (History of the Republic of Macedonia by period, Ancient history of the Balkans by country, Ancient history by country). The same for the other ones too (e.g. merge Category:Medieval Blagoevgrad Province‎ and Category:Medieval Macedonia (Greece)‎ as well). By going only after the RoM categories, you inadvertently promote a very specific agenda. Constantine ✍ 09:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do we currently have comparable categories for the surrounding countries? For example, I suppose Tirana was Macedonian of old, but of course it's not in the nominated categories. If we had detailed articles on its history (unfortunately we don't; even History of Tirana is a redirect to Tirana), would the ancient ones go in an Albanian tree or a Macedonian tree? I can see the benefits of categorising the ancient Macedonian articles together, regardless of the country in which they're located (one tree for "ancient by country of current location" and another for "ancient by country of ancient location"), but maybe that would be extraneous. Nyttend (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Things like "Roman-era Republic of Macedonia" are technically and encyclopedically inaccurate, as back then Macedonia was not officially a republic (to my knowledge), it's like "Roman-era Republic of Italy". The suggested names are also succinct. Brandmeistertalk 12:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed The current names point to ahistorical entities. It's a retro land grab by a people that did not even exist at that time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We cannot keep the present highly anachronistic categories. This difficulty in this area of Europe is that Roman-era and modern boundaries are completely different. We might possibly keep the present categories (or something like them) as dab-cats e.g. Category:Ancient-era in Republic of Macedonia and Category:Roman-era in Republic of Macedonia, but see should refer the reader to the category for the historic polity(ies) e.g. Paeonia (kingdom). I am insufficiently familiar with the political georgraphy to know what the correct targets are. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed - i see no sense in this earlier discussion, which created this nonsense.GreyShark (dibra) 06:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the decision at the last proposal was bad. A clear consensus had emerged around the alternative. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:18, 20 June 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:Prostituted children[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: speedy merge C2D, reverting out-of-process move. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I was asked this in my user talk page: (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Anthony Appleyard. What should I do about this? I was about to list it at WP:Requested moves, but, while previewing my post, I got a message that the page is not for category moves. I was pointed to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Either way, I think that the move should be reverted because it was undiscussed and I don't believe that the rationale provided by Doseiai2 is valid. I tried to revert the move myself, but something is preventing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]

where the pointer "this" points to this category page move. (The majority of this category's members seem to be not names of people but events and groups related to prostitution.) Doseiai2's move edit comment for the category page move is "Doseiai2 moved page Category:Child prostitution to Category:Prostituted children: fixed language that victimizes". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, the category hardly contains any biographies of children or youth who were prostituted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- much the same thing. (Well done, Anthony - you got to the right place). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 18 June 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:Article namespace templates[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. ℯxplicit 00:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains only one page, and it is a subcategory. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:18, 17 June 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_June_17&oldid=1074283092"