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:renameMER-C 11:57, 16 April 2015 (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. --slakr\ talk / 04:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. No reason for the by decade category to generally contain only one overview article. Note the similar discussion on March 17. Some content cleanup is still pending but should be completed in the next week by moving articles to the buildings tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: bad faith nomination. Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1794 was in the 1790s architecture tree, for example, until the nominator removed it with no good explanation. When you all-but-empty a category out of process, don't come here and pretend that the categories aren't being used. These categories are obvious parents for individual year categories (e.g. "1794 architecture") and related categories. Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this discussion was a consensus supporting this activity, it is clearly not in bad faith. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename all to Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1500s, which looks like being the outcome of the otehr discussion. Architecture operates in styles, which at some periods lasted several decades or even longer - Georgian, Regency, Victorian, and Edwardian, being UK examples. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And since the styles span multiple decades in general, best to only list the styles in the centuries. What remains here after moving the building articles to that tree is overview articles for architecture which are likely not best categorized in the buildings tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge for all 17th century decade categories per nom and previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all 18th century decade categories and instead nominate the year categories for merge to the decade categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge also for 18th century decade categories. I now noticed in the nomination of 10 April the issue between years and decades has already been discussed. As pointed out in that discussion, it doesn't make too much sense to group by decade if the only content is year articles; in that case a much bigger category (i.e. a century category) is a lot easier for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we may not know the exact year for example Coach and Horses, Mayfair only tells us it was 1740s architecture. Tim! (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2015 (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:keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: inclusiveness is better than creating more categories. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Current Proposal I think the fictional categories should mirror the real-world ones (except where there aren't equivalents, like cyborgs). I have no opinion on merging the real world categories for cartoonists and illustrators but oppose merging the fictional ones in isolation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RD. I would also like to urge the nominator to get a username if they intend to participate in things like CFD as otherwise we don't know if 2 different IP addresses are the same person or not. DexDor(talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (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. The member pages each state that they are districts of Al-Hasakah, the capital city of the Al-Hasakah Governorate; but perhaps they are technically sub-districts, see Districts of Syria. – FayenaticLondon 17:24, 12 June 2015 (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:merge or de-categorise if the target category is inappropriate. – FayenaticLondon 19:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This was proposed and largely supported back in February, but had not been tagged and was closed due to lack of tagging. The current name has lots of problems. "Islamophobic" is inherently a value-judgement, POV-pushing phrase. It is designed to avoid any real discussion with those who disagree with Islam and the way it is practiced. It is also way over user. I have been designated as such based on the fact that I say essentially what I have said so far in this post. Although that was by RationalWiki, A site dominated by people not known for nuance or understanding it when used by others, especially those they have decided to villify. There is another problem here, the Islamophobic category askes us to determine motive, we need to be able to determine that the person acted out of animus. The Violence against Muslims only asks us to determine who the victims are. In the recent killing of 3 Muslims studying at Universities in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, some have insisted the actual motivation for the killing was parking disputes. While others think it was motivated by anti-Muslim bias, others might posit it was a generalized bias against all religionists, so not inherently anti-Muslim. It is clear violence with its victims being Muslims, it is not in any clear way "Islamophobic" especially since the term not only lacks an agreed upon definition, but is not even agreed upon as a legitimate descriptive term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom These "phobias" are dubious clinicalisms anyway but a measure of the level of ambiguity is that each category contains the other. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. Of the three entries, none of the victims are actually Muslim. One is Hindu, one was mostly atheists and liberal/progressive kids, the other involves buildings. Therefore the proposed name would be inaccurate. I have subsequently clarified the category with a note at the top and the removal of the mutual linkages. Hhplactube (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close. "There are good reasons to hate Muslims" is not a policy-compliant move rationale. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since both contain each other, keeping things as they are amounts to the assertion that "all violence against Muslims is motivated by hate/fear." Some change is required. Mangoe (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purge, then merge per nom. One, maybe two, of the three articles shouldn't be in a category regarding attacks or violence directed against Islam. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and in one of these categories the attacker said she did the attack since she thought her victim was "Hindu or Muslim". This is not an anti-Muslim incident per se.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The "Violence" category is adequate to list all attacks on Muslims worldwide. It is useful to track all attacks. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2015 (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:split/rename. MER-C 11:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Split as ambiguous. Move the sub-categories to a new Category:Assamese-language writers but merge the articles into Category:Writers from Assam. If anyone wants to re-categorise any pages after that, e.g. prose writers who are not in the sub-cats but whose literature is of particular importance to the language, then of course that will be fine. – FayenaticLondon 13:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to point out we might also want to consider writers who are ethnically Assamese people but neither resident in Assam nor using the Assamese-language. However on reading the article on the Assamese people I realized that who is and who is not covered by this term is a very debated subject. The fact that pre-British colonial Assam was two main regions, with one under the rule of the Tai-Ahom who were an ethnic group, related to the main ethnic group in Thailand, who had conquered this area in the 13th-century and ruled over a polity where the majority of the population was of Indo-European origin just complicates the whole matter even more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Fayenatic london's recommendations. Quis separabit? 16:29, 13 April 2015 (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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 19:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no clear distinction between the criteria for a page being in this category and being in the parent category. Creating a Wikipedia:Book containing editor help pages might be useful, but this category would not be needed to do that. DexDor(talk) 06:23, 8 April 2015 (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. MER-C 03:46, 2 May 2015 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are not about police stations; they are articles about railway stations. Some of the articles (example) don't even mention the BTP. DexDor(talk) 05:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Stations with British Transport Police offices if we keep this. I do not think these are police stations in the normal sense: if people are arrested, I think they are rapidly transferred to the custody suite of the local police station. However, I do wonder whether this is not in the namture of a performance (having police office) by performer (railway station), category, which we would not usually allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely as non-defining. Neutralitytalk 22:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I've looked at this several times and I just don't how this is defining, even in its proposed renaming. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2015 (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 15:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The parent category is Category:997 in Germany. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a discussion about the parent category first?—if the parent is renamed, the nominated category could be renamed speedily to conform. (Or, at the very least, both categories could be nominated for discussion together.) I note that there's quite an extensive set of categories in Category:10th century in Germany (and even earlier in Category:Centuries in Germany: Category:734 in Germany, Category:819 in Germany, etc.). I'm not sure it makes sense to pull a single subcategory out of this entire mix for renaming. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole system is way over developed with no thought for the historical accuracy. In cases like this asking for a discussion of everything generally stops any discussion at all. The general consensus on such matters seems to be we should reflect the reality of the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like this asking for a discussion of everything generally stops any discussion at all. Not if all the ones deemed problematic are nominated together. Multiple category nominations are not unusual. It makes no sense to me to change one subcategory in isolation while leaving the overall context unchanged. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
developed with no thought for the historical accuracy: I don't know that that's true. There's a parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_9#1723_in_Belgium regarding one instance of a whole raft of categories I created. Having sketched a possible historically accurate system on the back of an envelope (Gallia Belgica/Lower Lotharingia/Duchy of Brabant/Burgundian Netherlands/Habsburg Netherlands/etc.), I decided usability dictated an anachronistic use of "Belgium" (following the sources that are "Histories of Belgium") in preference to a more aesthetically and intellectually pleasing tree. What swayed me were the very problems of usability and maintainability that Good Olfactory and GermanJoe touch on below with regard to Germany. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - looking briefly through the Category:Centuries by country tree, those categories commonly include topics "in the territory, which is country X in modern times". But a parallel category of Category:Centuries in the Holy Roman Empire already exists. You should add both categories (Germany-related and HRE-related) for article topics related to the "German" part of the Holy Roman Empire. See War of the Three Henries (977–978) for an example of such a topic. Fixing this ambiguity any other way would require a complete overhaul of the German (and other European) country history trees. GermanJoe (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here [1] is hopefully the link that will shed more light on the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But to be fair, Johnpacklambert, we do need to acknowledge that different discussions have gone different ways on this very issue and it has largely depended on the place in question. For some Germany categories that did not go the same way, see here, here, and here. (Unless you have forgotten, I am sure you are aware of these, since you were the nominator.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons I have stated above—this should be considered in a broader nomination. At the end of the day, I support what User:GermanJoe has said. I see no reason why both schemes cannot legitimately exist—one which reflects the modern country, and one which reflects the historical jurisdiction. People researching the "history of Germany" or "German history" will be still be interested in things that happened before Germany existed; German history did not begin in 1870. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with previous comments that we cannot do this one category in isolation. For the more general discussion, categorizing both by Germany and by Holy Roman Empire is probably going to lead to quite a big overlap. Can't we just have final rungs named after the Holy Roman Empire which are parented to History of Germany higher up in the tree? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we need an RFC, so the nom is not damned if you do too many or damned if you do too few. There was no "Germany" in 997, unless we're going to start imposing ahistorical modern borders to long-ago events. Certainly, the asteroid that offed the dinosaurs was one of the most significant events in the history of Mexico, but alas it gets nary a mention in any history of Mexico I've read. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the year 997 and those before it are often covered in books on the history of Germany. Mary Fulbrook's A Concise History of Germany (Cambridge) (which was the first result I got when I typed "History of Germany" into Google Books) begins a section on "the beginnings of German history" by discussing the Romans' views of the barbarian tribes in Germania, and goes from there ... Later, it states, "for some historians, the election of the first German king, Conrad I, Duke of Franconia, marks the real beginning of the history of 'Germany'". This was in 911. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason I suggested to have final rungs only named after the Holy Roman Empire which are parented to History of Germany higher up in the tree. One can speak of the 'beginning of the history of Germany' as a retrospective interpretation but one cannot speak of '997 in Germany' as a year/country combination that factually existed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that would be one way to do it while avoiding a double categorization system. From my view, it would not be the only acceptable way of categorization. In addition to the obvious factual approach, most histories of specific places are treated retrospectively by historians, and it's a very popular way of organizing history. So I think that there would be at least three legitimate ways of doing it. The trick is getting a unified approach, which is the reason I suggest that we really need broader nominations that at a minimum discusses an entire jurisdiction at once, rather than one category in isolation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issues here are totally different than those of the existence of Germany in the early 19th century. That is a period of time when there was an official German Confederation, and after the Holy Roman Empire was eliminated. In the 10th-century the Holy Roman Empire existed, and to try to delineate the modern boundaries between say Germany and the Netherlands is just unworkable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, it's quite easy, though—especially when the event in question occurred in a still-extant city. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically I can imagine we make a distinction between a Holy Empire category for imperial history and a Germany category for local history within the current German boundaries. That would be similar as designating Category:12th century in the Netherlands to local history. But for Germany I'm a bit hesitant, would editors understand that difference? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a very good suggestion of a way to deal with these issues, and a compromise that could probably gain a theoretical consensus, but you're right that the trick is having the system understood and applied evenly. It would definitely require a massive effort across all jurisdictions to propose, agree to, and implement it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the only way to get this idea work in a maintainable way is to allow Category:Year in Germany only as a container category to Category:Year in Thuringia and so on with 15 more German states categories. But then, more likely, decades or centuries should do the job instead of years. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might be that Germany is one of the harder instances of working this all out, since there have been so many German states and it took so long for them to coalesce into a single "Germany". To many historians, the fact that this took so long to come to legal fruition does not mean that "Germany" only sprang into existence when the legal state of Germany did. If I were undertaking to overhaul the category system in this area, "frankly" (hwaaa-hwaaa ...) I would start with easier cases, which are all other countries, and I would save Germany to the end. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly skimming through the complete timeline of this territory since the Romans, I counted between 6 and 12 different polities (depending on how accurate one wants to define a category). I pity anyone, who has to refactor the current stucture (if a consensus is formed to use contemporary category names). GermanJoe (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I'd say we shouldn't always categorize by contemporary polity but only preferably do so, provided there is sufficient content. A good example of when it's entirely impossible to categorize by contemporary name are the prehistory categories by current country. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Parallel Germany and HRE categories already exist: Category:Centuries in Germany and Category:Centuries in the Holy Roman Empire. The HRE tree was added in 2012 (not sure if there has been a discussion about those changes somewhere). But the Germany categories were kept and are still widely used. A clarification of the intended usage for both trees could help, and a thorough cleanup after consensus was found (if anyone is willing to go through the complete category schemes). But anyway, we should not change single sub-categories, and need to address the perceived problem with the whole structure in a wider context. GermanJoe (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I hope this is a sample nomination. The consensus has been that we should categoirise by the contemporary, not the current polity. I would howe4ver have preferred that we stated with the more major categories, leaving such excrescences as establishments to be dealt with in due course. In some cases, it will be appropriate to sub-categorise by the princely state. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Current categorization is ahistorical. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt at a compromise is admirable, but I think grouping articles by the HRE for national articles or Germany for local articles would be difficult to maintain in practice. You acknowledge that by having Germany as a container category but I don't see any advantage of grouping the 12th century by modern German state boundaries instead of national boundaries. The basic disagreement here is whether to group German linguistic/cultural area as Germany even though it wasn't a nation state yet and I think that's an either/or proposition. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting suggestion, but I don't see how to maintain such a structure in practice. As you can see by that nomination, we can't even agree on the distinction between HRE and Germany ;). For smaller entities such discussions would happen more often and would be even more complicated. I think it would be better to focus on broader categories (including Germany ...) for earlier periods. GermanJoe (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also a discussion here regarding the century establishments (and disestablishments) for Germany from the 11th to the 18th century which would follow this precedent and thus reduce the uniformity concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting here, rename to Category:997 establishments in present-day Germany along with the rest of the structure (decades, centuries) and putting the top categories (probably century ones) under one big Category:Establishments in the Holy Roman Empire without duplication of the dates. Then you can review the Germany by history structure and see these while also being able to see what was under the HRE at that time (which would include the other areas that are currently in present-day France, etc. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The HRE and Germany are much the same thing. Furthermore, the adjective normally used for HRE id "German", just as British is the adjective for UK (as well as GB). The extent of some countries has varied from time to time. It is thus not bizarre to include the Dutch and Belgian provinces of HRE in a German category at those periods when they were part of HRE. WP policy has been that articles should be categorised according to the contemporary, not present polity, so that the present boundaries of Germany are not relevant to the subject. Similarly Stettin and Silesia were clearly "German" in the medieval period, though both are now (or now largely) in Poland. My vote is to merge HRE categories to Germany. However, the particular category under discussion should in principle to merged to its century, but that will be better addressed as part of a wider discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly doubt if HRE and Germany can be considered as the same thing, it's more like a shared-name commonality than anything else and even that applies only to the later part of HRE history after emperor Maximilian I adopted the title of Germaniae rex. Netherlands and Switzerland left HRE relatively quickly after so they have little to do with this German title. Then skipping to the 19th century, current Germany is not a successor of HRE but has rather emerged as a result of the expansion of Prussia (or alternatively one might argue that HRE eventually split into Germany (Prussia) and Austria). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another possible alternative: Keep both "nnn establishments in Germany" and "nnn establishments in the HRE" as parallel systems, but define each "in Germany"-category as sub-category of its "in HRE" counterpart (in addition to the current category relations). That would accomplish a few things: 1) both established systems could be kept to provide a HRE- and a Germany-related timeline 2) Germany (as regional country term) would be clearly categorized as a part of the HRE for those periods, but still be in a distinct category tree 3) redundant categories would be avoided 4) Austrian, French, Belgian, Swiss ... establishments could be put into the HRE-category, without putting them in a "Germany"-related category as well. - Just some random thoughts for other solutions to this mess. GermanJoe (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not super enthusiastic but in the end it could be an acceptable compromise. In fact this idea is already applied in Category:Roman Empire in which - if you go deep down in the category structure - you will encounter some subcategories by modern country, e.g. Category:Roman roads in Romania. (However, honestly I would rather prefer to always have modern geography higher in the tree than contemporary geography so in the former example I would rather propose to rename Category:Roman roads in Romania to Category:Roman roads in Dacia.) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my edits are on content, with some small involvement in deletion discussions. I have very little experience of category discussions, but am surprised that the basic criterion is not "What do our sources do?" In this case they do both: there are histories of Germany, and there are histories of the Holy Roman Empire (and while most of what is now Germany made up most of what was then the HRE, the two are in no way synonyms). I can see advantages to avoiding anachronism, and also advantages to being user-friendly (and can very easily imagine "What other medieval stuff is there in what is now Germany?" being a question a user would turn to categories to answer). In actual fact, Roman names like "Germania", "Italia", "Belgium", "Pannonia", etc. continued in use (or were revived by Latinate authors) to designate geographical areas without being the names of specific polities within those areas, so there are chroniclers who will refer to something happening "in Germany" or "in Italy", even though there was no country at the time called Germany or Italy. Can we not similarly use "Germany" as a geographical term (where will I find this thing?), and "HRE" as a political one (what state was it then a part of?), both categorisations being perfectly valid? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a side-note, I see the same names again and again in the few category discussions I've run into. There is clearly a small group of people dedicated to bringing order to categorical chaos (for which kudos). A claim has been made that "consensus" is to use the political boundaries and names used at the time, but actual practice appears to contradict this, and probably reflects users adding the categories they think would be useful, without being aware of category discussions going on in the background (I myself ,when creating articles, look for relevant categories, and when I can't find them I make them, without ever having been aware that there are any particular guidelines). I wonder whether there isn't some way to get broader community input? Making a decision for a year here in one place, and a year there in another place, and extrapolating from these points to a general rule, strikes me as the worst way to achieve genuine consensus. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andreas Philopater: Thanks for your observations! It's very recognizable that relatively few editors are continuously involved in category discussions. The tagging of a category, while proposing it for deletion or merger, is most probably meant to attract the attention of a broader audience (i.e. audience with a particular topic interest but not with a specific interest in categories) and this is sometimes effective, sometimes not so much. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andreas Philopater: I appreciate your input. Currently the only requirement for a CFD nomination is to tag the category but I've wondered if requiring a notice to the creator and a WikiProject would bring in more voices. Also, to your point about how other editors will know about a consensus here, maybe we should consider creating a WP:ANACHRONISM editing guideline. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Holy Roman Empire seems (from the article) to cover 800-888 then a gap to 962, while "centuries in Germany" goes back to the 3rd century. And the article also notes that while the Kingdom of Germany is the largest component of the Holy Roman Empire it also included the Kingdoms of Bohemia, Burgundy, Italy etc. Hugo999 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it goes back to the 3rd century is a clear indication that centuries in Germany are strongly needed until the emergence of any stable polities that capture Germany (probably from 843 when East Francia emerged). However the nominated category is after 962 so that shouldn't have much impact on the general discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article Kingdom of Germany is really unclear about whether a kingdom with that name has existed at all, or was it only the title Rex Teutonicorum (King of the Germans) that has existed since the 11th century. The existence of a polity with the name Kingdom of Germany isn't well-documented anyway. For example Conrad I of Germany says: Though Conrad never used the title rex Teutonicorum ("king of the Germans") nor rex Romanorum ("King of the Romans"), he was the first king of East Francia who was elected by the rulers of the German stem duchies..., so I'd take it from there that East Francia evolved into the Holy Roman Empire without a Kingdom of Germany in between. So that's a weak oppose against using Germany in a category name in the context of a Kingdom of Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2015 (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:conditional rename, provided that the nominator User:Johnpacklambert or another editor follows this up shortly with a nomination of the year categories (otherwise, this close will be reversed). – FayenaticLondon 15:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale During this period Texas was an indepedent Republic. We should have a distinct name for the category at this period. This would be somewhat similar to the categories like Category:1856 establishments in Utah Territory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose as pettifogging. It's one thing where there is a considerable discontinuity (e.g. the Holy Roman Empire cases above) but Texas the state and Texas the republic are different phases of the same thing. A modified hatnote is sufficient for clarity. I would also point out that renaming implies creating "Texas Republic in 1846" categoried given that annexation took place in mid-year. Mangoe (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are not the same thing. The Republic of Texas never had effective control south of the Nueces, thus events happening in Laredo were happening within territory that was still part of Mexico. Texas claimed to the modern boundary, but lacked real control that far.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, do these categories refer to de facto jurisdictions or de jure ones? For instance, I think it would be strange to not allow something that happened in 2014 to be categorized in Category:2014 in Somalia if it happened in Somaliland. (Somalia had no de facto control over that territory in 2014.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This nomination would make things better than the current category names. I agree with GOF though that nominating the parent years and then handling the sub-categories as speedy would be the best path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevelationDirect (talk • contribs)
Support, including renaming the 'Years in' parents. We should try to use the contemporary names for such categories. kennethaw88 • talk 04:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Please follow this us with a change on "years in" categories. I am surprised at the number of counties that claim to have been establised in the same year as the republic. Did none have some prior existence as communities of Mexico? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While there is some disagreement over the naming scheme for these types of categories, there is absolutely no precedent for this suggestion. Either use Republic of Texas, or don't. kennethaw88 • talk 02:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd like to suggest something else but if not, support Republic of Texas then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mangoe. Comment on discussion between JPL and GOF: a change in the exact border of a country is a very poor reason to change the category name, if we would do that in European history, categorization would become a nightmare. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2015 (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.
