Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 3 March 5 >

March 4[edit]

Category:4th century in Iraq[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: split, which in this case in practice means rename to Sasanian Empire, and merge millennium categories. – Fayenatic London 20:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A grossly anachronistic category, which was recreated in 2016, following preceding deletion cleanup. The content is including only a single subcategory of establishments referring to the Mar Behnam Monastery, which was established in contemporary Assyrian province of the Sasanian Empire. There was no such country as Iraq in the 1st millennium CE.GreyShark (dibra) 18:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. However, you have not understood me at the below thread - i do not support the idea that we can tag anachronistic categories like Category:4th century in Great Britain, but i also do not support the idea to tag articles by geographic areas. For that purpose Category:4th century in Great Britain should be renamed/split to Category:4th century in the Roman Empire or Category:4th century in Roman Britain and Category:4th century in Britannia.GreyShark (dibra) 06:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't appear to have a consistent policy on the relationship between geography and history. There are plenty of categories about places in countries which didn't exist at the time. Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Official policy has not yet been established, but "legally speaking" - almost all proposals to eliminate anachronistic categories have passed in recent years, setting a fair precedent. Take a look at 2013 discussion on Syrian categories,2014 discussion on Syrian categories, 2016 discussion on El-Salvador and there are plenty others. Editors should refrain from creating anachronistic categories, due to political sensitivity (just imagine if all pre-2014 Crimean categories will now retroactively be renamed to "in Russia") and Wikipedia's aim to create stability (if Scotland quits United Kingdom would we be required anachronistically retag all historic events in the area of Scotland as "in Scotland" instead of "in the United Kingdom" or "in the Kingdom of Great Britain"?)GreyShark (dibra) 07:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the one article has no reference to the Roman Empire, the territory at the time belonged to the Sasanian Empire. So we'd better not put this article in the Roman Empire as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - the one article doesn't belong to the Roman realm, but Romans had control over what is now North-Western Iraq at some years of the 4th centuries, so for instance Siege of Singara was taking place in nominal Roman Empire (currently not tagged as "in Iraq").GreyShark (dibra) 06:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment One problem is that chthe borders between the Roman Empire and the Sasanian Empire underwent frequent changes due to the nature of the Roman–Persian Wars (54 BC-629 AD). For example the Siege mentioned refers to the fortified settlement of Singara. The settlement was first mentioned in Roman hands c. 114 AD. It was abandoned in 117, recaptured by the Romans in 197. It apparently remained Roman until the Sasanians captured the settlement c. 359/360. Two different empires held the area in the 4th century. Dimadick (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct - this is why i suggest a split into two categories.GreyShark (dibra) 18:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about renaming to Category:4th century in Mesopotamia, which would avoid the problem of territory changing hands. Alternatively we categorise it both as Roman and Sassanian; for the Roman aspect, is there a province name? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting a Mesopotamia category only if we're sure we can populate it decently. It's no use keeping this separate for just one single establishment. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose the idea to use categories not based on geopolitical entities - there was never such a country as "Mesopotamia". There is no problem to split between Roman and Sasanian domains since we have only a couple of articles - one in Roman and another in Sasanian domain. Period.GreyShark (dibra) 08:05, 12 March 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.

Great Britain the island vs GB the state[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: do not rename; no consensus to delete. Perhaps the Events (including Trials, Disestablishments and Establishments) should be renamed with "Kingdom of..." but I don't find sufficient consensus here to implement that (to include their many sub-categories) from this discussion. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This scheme seeks to disambiguate the island of Great Britain from the state created in 1707 - the Kingdom of Great Britain. The state existed for less than a century yet is has a slew of categories over many centuries. This is simply ahistorical. The state should be confined to just 2 categories by century (even though it only existed for a single year in the 19th century). The remainder of articles and categories are proper to the island. I've also proposed the creation of a number of castegories to fill out logical gaps in the current arrangement. The fact that the current schema stops at the 18th century lends credence to the idea that it is in reality viewed as a proxy for the state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islands which is in scope has been notified. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom which is in scope has been notified. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Query So are you saying that you'd want to delete the island categories? If so, which ones? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the notion to have timeline categorization of a geographic location (British isles), but of course support the rename of "Years in Great Britain" to "Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain" for the years when the kingdom existed (1707-1801) and "Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (until 1922); for current United Kingdom state it should be of course "Years in the United Kingdom".GreyShark (dibra) 07:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – container (largely) for England, Scotland and Wales, complementary to Category:Centuries in Ireland, the island. Oculi (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Britain is a place - actually includes a number of islands. Great Britain is a political idea, not an island, nor even a collection of islands. If these categories are to be renamed they should be of the form Category:Britain.Rathfelder (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Query If the proposal succeeds, a scope note for the islands cats could be written to say that it includes the near islands. Much like the category for Ireland does not say that it includes the Aran Islands or Achill; they're assumed. Would be happy with that? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively I can also live with User:GreyShark's suggestion to delete all period by island categories. In this case the GB island categories are mostly just containers to host England, Wales and Scotland, so they don't add too much. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thoughts exactly. For categories preceding the establishments of the Kingdom of Great Britain we should have contemporary containing categories "Years in the Kingdom of England" (1035-1707) and "Years in the Kingdom of Scotland" (843-1707).GreyShark (dibra) 07:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for clarity, deletion would in this case of course not apply to the 18th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the primary meaning of Great Britain is the island, not the Kingdom of Great Britain. Nominator should get in the habit of notifying category creators of nominations. Tim! (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main article about the island is Great Britain. And the term is actually rather old. Ptolemy, a 2nd century geographer, called the island great Britain (μεγάλης Βρεττανίας - megális Brettanias), to disambiguate it from little Britain (μικρής Βρεττανίας - mikris Brettanias), which was a term he used for Ireland. The Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1801) was a short-lived political entity, 94 years. We do not need an entire category tree about it. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have Irish territories to disambiguate them. Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose There is no need to distinguish between the Kingdom and the island which is exactly the same size. The Catholic dioceses refers to the period after 1850 only. Since the CAtholic Church is organised by country, I am not sure that a GB category is useful, though it is probably better than a UK one as the Catholic Church is organised on an all-Ireland basis. Some of the problem is with the existence of anachronistic categories for England, Wales, and Scotland for periods before they were respectively united, so that this series has been created to parent it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming: the kingdom and the island were geographically the same, so there is no need to disambiguate between them. Whether some of these categories should exist at all (as Greyshark09 says they should not) is a separate issue on which I don't really have an opinion, but as long as the categories are here then they should keep their present names. Opera hat (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. They were only the same for a period of less than 100 years. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vote[edit]

This is my attempt at summarising the main themes that seem to have evolved over the course of the discussion. To assist the closing editor, please vote for your preferred one. Or add another if you think that I've missed out on one. @Greyshark09, Oculi, Rathfelder, Marcocapelle, Tim!, Oculi, Dimadick, and Peterkingiron: Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(A) Re-name per nomination to disambiguate the island from the political entity.
(B) Keep as is. Ambiguity between the island(s) and the former political entity is fine.
(C) Keep as is. It's a useful container for the England / Wales / Scotland categories.
(D) Keep as is. Both B and C are true.
(E) Keep as is but rename the 18th century category since the island(s) has the primary meaning.
(F) Delete all period by island categories except the 18th century category which would then be scoped to refer to the political entity alone.
(A)
(B) Opera hat (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(C)
(D) Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Tim! (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(E)
(F) Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC); Marcocapelle (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Rathfelder (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC) GreyShark (dibra) 19:48, 28 March 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:Fictional victims of torture[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. (Anyway, how come Picard wasn't in it? "There are four lights.") – Fayenatic London 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not a defining trait. With majority of the characters in this cat, the torture is just used as part of a single plot point, but has no lasting affect on the character. JDDJS (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Being tortured is often a defining event in a character's story and informs their actions, i.e. Barbara Gordon or Tobias Beecher. Also, if one were to consider this unimportant, logic dictates they would have to say the same of categories like "victims of child abuse" or "victims of sexual assault". What would be the rationale for deleting those?
Treybien (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fictional characters can be categorised by franchise (e.g. Star Wars, James Bond) and (in most cases) by their occupation. Categorizing characters by events in their storyline is likely to lead to some articles being in many categories and categories that are very incomplete. See previous CFDs (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_3#Category:Fictional_tobacco_users). DexDor (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several characters are defined by the torture they have endured in their main storylines. Uncle Tom spends much of his novel tortured by Simon Legree, in Legree's futile attempt to break his spirit. He is eventually tortured to death. In his only (original) major appearance, Thoth-Amon spends time as a tortured slave and is afterwards driven by a desire to kill his slave-owner. Milady de Winter has been permanently branded with a fleur-de-lis mark following a stay in prison. The mark is the cause of a murder attempt by her own husband, and later for her "execution" at the hands of her enemies. The torture marks and defines them, it is not incidental. Dimadick (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In neither of those two examples is torture even mentioned in the lede! Being, for example, a Robert E. Howard character is a defining charcteristic. DexDor (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Lede is poorly written and does not mention the origins of the characters. Dimadick (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP: TRIVIALCAT. Both of the "keep" votes thus far have simply tallied a few exceptions without in any way denying the rule. And whether or not torture is significant to character arcs, this category is an arbitrary intersection of characteristics which provides no useful navigational purpose, like the already cited Fictional tobacco users.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- non defining, WP:PERFCAT. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 12 March 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:Media files requiring de-merge[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, this is not contentious. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "de-merge" is awkward, prefixing with "Wikipedia files" as is norm for maintenance categories. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:24, 4 March 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:British Army appointments[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 here. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Means exactly the same thing, so a complete duplicate category. I think the latter title is the better of the two (see Category:Military ranks of the British Army‎), but wouldn't object to a reverse merge if preferred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The scope is not quite the same one is about offices to which people are appointed, the other about ranks, some specialist ones. However the distinction is a narrow one. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you mean. I'm not suggesting appointments should be merged to ranks. They are different things. I'm suggesting two categories about appointments which differ only in the wording of their titles should be merged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support merger per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The two categories have different scope. The first is for specific posts, usually pretty senior ones. The second is for generic job roles, so e.g. someone might hold the rank of Warrant Officer Class 1 but the appointment of Regimental Sergeant Major. I agree that the two category titles are confusingly similar, but I think it would be better to rename Category:British Army appointments to something else first, and then redirect the old category title to Category:Military appointments of the British Army. Opera hat (talk) 06:58, 25 March 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_March_4&oldid=1074282881"