Category:Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War[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, in spite of the awkwardness of the parenthetical disambiguator in some of these titles. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given the American Civil War context, there can be no reasonable doubt that the U.S. state is the referent of "Georgia". The "(U.S. state)" disambiguator is unnecessary and awkward in this context, and therefore should be removed from these category titles. — Jaydiem (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only should it stay in line with all other Georgia categories, but we have articles like Prussia in the American Civil War and Australia and the American Civil War, which means the impact of the war wasn't exclusively domestic, and it's reasonable to make sure that these are about the U.S. state. kennethaw88 • talk 00:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kennethaw88: No one is claiming that the American Civil War was "exclusively domestic". The fact that there are articles about its relation to Prussia and Australia is no reason to disambiguate the name of one of the obvious belligerents from a relatively obscure area of the Caucasus that was politically a mere region of the Russian Empire at the time of the conflict. — Jaydiem (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Keep consistency with current naming method for Georgia, and the current head category name. Further, several of the categories would become ambiguous, as ethnic Georgians need to be considered. (and any US-descended ethnic Georgians who went back to Georgia to make their own museums about the war) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@65.94.169.222: OK, let's consider "ethnic Georgians" then. Are there any actual, notable examples of "ethnic Georgians" being involved in any of the categories at issue here? Are there in fact any museums located in the Republic of Georgia that are dedicated to the American Civil War? If not, then there is nothing to disambiguate. — Jaydiem (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article, it's a category. We name categories to be consistent with each other. The potential for confusion due to the Georgia issue is good enough to keep it this way. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@65.94.169.222: You didn't answer the question. Are there, or are there not, any notable examples—even one—of what you claim there could be "confusion" about? Find one, and you win the point; otherwise, your "potential for confusion" argument is mere hand-waving, completely without factual support. — Jaydiem (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not handwaving, it is how we handle potential ambiguity in category names; we look at potentials. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is even a speedy criterion for renaming subcats to follow the head category name, viz C2C. So the reverse of the suggested renames would be speediable. I don't find it even slightly ludicrous myself: decide on the main category name and use it throughout the tree without agonising at length and in detail about each individual twig. We do it for bands and their albums, members, songs etc, and for the various Georgias, and much else. Oculi (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is that all subcats of Category:Georgia (U.S. state) (such as the ones in the nom) will also use the format "Georgia (U.S. state)". It's really quite straightforward. Oculi (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed the claim that Category:Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War is at the top of its own tree. It should be noted that its topic is related more closely and specifically to Category:American Civil War than to Category:Georgia (U.S. state). I would also like to see you respond to the two additional points I made below, as Comments. You yourself have described consistency as a "general rule" that is "usually" followed—both of which characterizations allow for reasonable exceptions. I assert that the present case constitutes exactly that. — Jaydiem (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep Our naming convention with the Georgias is ludicrous, but it's consistently ludicrous. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: So this is a case of rigid-consistency-for-the-sake-of-easier-administraton trumping common sense, eh? *sigh* — Jaydiem (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also can't find a policy line about this -- there should really be one -- but consistency in this way does seem to be a longstanding and well-established practice. I'm sure I've railed against it myself, at one time or another, but consistency has its benefits, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Folks, you are also overlooking the fact that during the American Civil War, Georgia was not a U.S. state—it was a member-state of the Confederate States of America. Think about it! So there is an argument to be made that if these categories really must be disambiguated, the disambiguator should be "(CSA)", not "(U.S. state)". My point is not so much to advocate for that to be done, but rather to point out that it's nonsensical to insist on "consistency" as an absolute rule to be enforced without even reasonable exceptions. — Jaydiem (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the standard is to still use (U.S. state) (see Category:1861 in Georgia (U.S. state)). Having such a short-lived entity doesn't justify creating a whole new category tree. As long as these are part of the Georgia (U.S. state) scheme (see comment above), there's no reason to change it. kennethaw88 • talk 23:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't your proposal, your proposal is to strip disambiguation. If you want to close and reopen the proposal for changing the disambiguator to C.S.A. or C.S. state, then you may find a different set of opinions coming up. And as to whether the disambiguator U.S. state is the right one, or C.S.-something would depend on interpretation, at the time some considered secession illegal, therefore, the state would still be part of the U.S.A. de jure. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are also overlooking the fact that the first category listed in this nomination—Category:Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Civil War—has its main article at Georgia in the American Civil War (no disambiguator). And the other four nominees are subcategories thereof. Therefore, this nomination seeks to align the category and subcategory names with the name of the associated main article. — Jaydiem (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The use of the disambiguator is ubiquitous, because there is also Georgia (Country). Sometimes, categories need disambiguators where articles do not, e.g. Birmingham. However the likelihood of confusion in this case is small, because it is American civil war. I might be willing to concede the cahnge in this case, but this must not be a precedent for removing (U.S.State) elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Georgia was de jure a US state during the Civil War, as were all states in rebellion, Similarly, are we going to discuss the downing of the Malaysian plane as occurring not in Ukraine but in the People's Republic of Donetsk? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We use the U.S. state modifier on all Georgia categories. Anyway, some of these. like the US Civil War Museums, could easily come to be in the nation of Georgia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Renaming categories like [[:Cateogry:1861 in Geirgia (U.S. state) to Cateogry:1861 in Georgia (CSA State) might work. However, how would we treat things occurring in areas where the slaves had been liberated by Sherman and his associates. How would we treat incidents that were slaves acting for freedom and basically acting out the fact that as part of the US they had been emancipated by Lincoln? Do we want to create separate categories for events in Biafra and every other break-away region lacking international recognition?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is. The existing category names match the names of dozens, if not hundreds, of Georgia (U.S. state) categories and there is no valid reason to change these categories and break the category structure which serves WP well. 100% consistency means we don't have to deal with these rename proposals very often and can quickly dispose of them. Hmains (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2014 (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.
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:upmerge. There is consensus to not retain these categories but upmerging is required to ensure that these articles are not removed from the event category trees altogether. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a really poor way of categorising cyclists. We should not create categories for non-defining characteristics, and I don't think that the specific year in which people rode in a Tour is a defining characteristic (although that the rode in the Tour in general would be). If the problem is that Category:Tour de France cyclists needs forking, I would suggest nationality would be a better way of handling this.
If this is kept it sets a weird precedent in my opinion; why end at just the Tour de France? Why not extend these to all three Grand Tours? In which case, most elite cyclists will ride 10+ of them in their career -- that's a huge amount of clutter on their pages. Hell, even if we do just keep it to the Tour, Alberto Contador has ridden 7. Lance Armstrong rode 13! That's an enormous amount of clutter.
The only other sporting events I'm aware of which fork like this are the Olympics and World Cups, both of which occur every 4 years which limits the clutter. I know of no other annual sporting event which is categorised like this. We already have lists which cover this topic by year, for the record: List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Tour de France, et al. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is required, by all means please delete the categories, once the riders have been merged into the senior category, Category:Tour de France cyclists. I was following through with what had already been done for the 2013-2014 riders. I expect that there's still around 10,000+ riders to add from the previous years, so consensus would be welcome before any more is done. Regards, EP111 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realise you didn't create all of them -- thanks for the heads up. I've left a note on the other creator's talk page now. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 08:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delete of all categories. 2010-2012 articles have now been moved to the upper category, as a fall-back position. I also oppose categorisation by nationality, as I agree with Marcocapelle, in his oppose alternative proposal, below. No clear rationale has been given to keep either by year or by nationality. Category:Tour de France stage winners, Category:Vuelta a España stage winners and Category:Giro d'Italia stage winners will also need a similar decision to be made, in order to maintain format. EP111 (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're actually not supposed to empty categories that are up here: "... please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision," from WP:CFD. But a bit late now, ah well; at least it was only the ones you created, I guess :) But for future reference. Bots take care of all the messy stuff at the end. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that by nationality would be a better way to break this down. That way, you only have one Tour de France category per cyclist (assuming no one emmigrates). RevelationDirect (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose alternative proposal to categorize Tour de France cyclists by nationality. Please note that cyclists as a whole are already categorized by nationality which is perfectly fine. But with this alternative proposal one would get, for example, Belgian cyclists being subcategorized into Belgian cyclists in the Tour de France. However, Tour de France cannot be regarded as a defining characteristic of any Belgian cyclist, as they ride dozens of races per year. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point, but it's going to be an absolutely enormous category with 198 guys riding every year. Do you have any thoughts on how best we could deal with that? WP:DIFFUSE/WP:DUPCAT aren't particularly helpful in deciding what should qualify as a non-diffusing category, so I remain unconvinced that this is one such situation. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 08:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If some editors think that we should really keep this information in Wikipedia, then I would suggest that they listify Tour de France cyclists by year and create Category:Lists of Tour de France cyclists that contain the yearly lists. Same for other races. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that does the job, so there is no problem with deleting the categories as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't address the problem of individual cyclists, which are already listed in Category:Tour de France cyclists. Are those riders also to be removed from the category, leaving the decidedly odd situation of a category not populated by the actual Tour de France cyclists, or should the category be more fully populated? If it should be more fully populated, then how should it be done? EP111 (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same same. Listify (if desired) and delete category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree that the examples are similar. Football players usually play for only a couple of clubs in their lifetime, and in longer periods after each other, so then they might be regarded as a defining characteristic of that player. That doesn't apply to cyclists, with dozens of races every season which are scheduled for the entire cyclist community, not for a cyclist individually. So a race can't be a defining characteristic of an individual cyclist. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are similar enough. That would imply these categories should also be deleted as not in line with WP:PERFCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Buttons to Push Buttons: Another option is to use the Template:Category TOC (or even Template:Large category TOC once the category gets beyond perhaps a couple of thousand entries), within the Category:Tour de France cyclists. That would do away with the need for either categorisation by year, or by nationality. Each letter would then be limited to perhaps 500 navigable entries, though they'd still all appear within the one category. EP111 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are annual, plus the usual WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Do you not see any issue with Jens Voigt having 17 of these such TdF categories (if these were filled out for every year) compared with 11 total categories of every other type? If not, I guess we just plain disagree, but it feels like textbook overcategorisation to me. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 11:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another alternative The main category will be very large, when fully populated (in the region of 10,000 articles). However, neither subcategorisation by year or by nationality has been fully agreed to. Therefore, apply Template:Category TOC to Category:Tour de France cyclists and directly populate this category with the cyclist articles, instead of using the subcategories listed for deletion. Then, delete the above listed categories, once their articles have been transferred. EP111 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do: Category:2014 FIFA World Cup players. But at least with events that only occur every 4 years it's a manageable amount of stuff at the bottom of each page. A better football comparison to this would be having equivalent such categories for all the Premier League seasons, and the thought of what Giggs's page would look like is, uh, kind of ludicrous really. Whether or not the WC/Olympics ones are suitable is a separate issue, imo. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Could be listified if not already listed. Note: Some of these categories are currently empty. DexDor (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment competing in a Grand Tour is a defining characteristic in a pro-cyclist's career, so whatever happens, the cyclists should be categorized into some subcategory of the Tour/Giro/Vuelta. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are performer by performance categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Tour de France cyclists and suggest dividing by nationality instead. Participation in each edition is not really a defining feature, but having participated there in general certainly is. Division by nationality helps navigation by reducing the central category and greatly reduces the number of categories on a biography (George Hincapie would need 17 year categories!). We have a workable format in a similar situation in the form of Category:Commonwealth Games competitors for Scotland. SFB 21:32, 11 August 2014 (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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 09:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category Muslims by period currently has only one childcat (namely, medieval) and no single articles. Besides it is not likely that the category Muslims by period will be expanded, since the amount of articles on Muslims in more recent times would be too much to categorize. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does the viability of this category differ from, say, Category:Christians by period? I'm just asking because it does contain Category:Christians of the Late Modern era, which is sub-divided for 19th-century Christians, 20th-century Christians and 21st-century Christians, which are then sub-divided further. The nominated category appears to be the beginning of a similar top-level container category for Muslims, yet is being singled out for deletion for a reason that is not yet clear to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The container is more difficult for Islam because none of the four major periods as listed at History_of_Islam#Major_periods have their own article yet. Category:Jewish history by period is similarly threadbare, with the exception of its ancient history (which Islam does not have). The idea of the category is fine, but I'm dubious of its navigational benefit when the respective article base has not yet been written. SFB 16:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I can't find a guideline or essay (is there one?) but it's my understanding that our rule of thumb is a main article be possible -- not that it must currently exist. However, that may not be the shared view. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most categories don't have their own head articles, many are subsections of other articles. Many are just organizational, which is the point of categories, to organize. As we do this for Christians, we already know how to treat the modern age.-- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:DEADLINE. It's a useful and innocuous way to link from Category:People by period and there may be more contemporary categories to join the sole subcat, at a later date. WP:OC#SMALL suggests that we may retain "such categories [that] are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme," and I'd say that's what we may have here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is a similar Christian category. --Tarim2 (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. Concerns and questions above seem to be reasonable. A question that I have in return: how would you classify people in the first place? From Category:Medieval Muslims I was assuming that any medieval Muslim who happens to have an article in Wikipedia would be classified here, and the same goes for Christians, probably. But then it becomes a sort of non-notable characteristic, doesn't it? Which is maybe not such a big problem in the Middle Ages (there are relatively few articles in Wikipedia about medieval people) but I don't yet see how you would maintain this in modern times. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a problem, as we commonly WP:DIFFUSE vastly populated categories by year, decade, century, simply to aid navigation. Category:21st-century people, for one, has many subcategorizes in which this structure is maintained in modern times. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm raising the point is that I think in more modern times people are categorized by religion to fewer extent. As a random example, in Category:20th-century American Episcopalians there are only 46 entries, that's a very low number! So in Christianity at a certain point in time there is a shift from classifying anybody with that religion to classifying only a subset of people (based on what criteria?). In the Muslim tree this problem doesn't exist, because (it seems) all Muslims in the Middle Ages have been classified as such, while none of the Muslims in Modern times are classified as such, which I think is a clearer way of classifying people by religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent per nom -- This category has a single subcat, which spreads out into a useful tree. The problem is not with the existence of the tree by with an unnecessary level in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. If we must have religion cats, the fewer the better. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is useful to subdivide groups by period. Before 1500 it is often hard to subdivide people adequately by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really mean to oppose the proposal? The proposal is to have Medieval Muslims as a direct child of Muslims, rather than as a grandchild with an intermediate layer Muslims by period, so it seems to me as if the proposal doesn't contradict your rightful comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Consistency - AFAICS every other category for templates ends with the word "templates". DexDor (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposition of Sillyfolkboy. --Tarim2 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2014 (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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 08:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There has been a longstanding consensus at CFD that we delete categories that categorize bio articles by membership in a U.S. college fraternity. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and long-standing consensus: social orgs are not defining (is anyone notable for being in this fraternity?). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not categorize by fraternity membership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2014 (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.
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.
Delete Distributor is not a defining aspect of art. Lists are much better suited to presentation of this information, given distribution's diverse and territorial nature. SFB 16:56, 1 August 2014 (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.
