Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 8 September 10 >

September 9[edit]

Category:Railway stations in the UK opened in 2018[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 to Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom opened in the 2010s. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation - WP:TRIVIALCAT. We have categories for Category:Railway stations opened in 2018 and subcategories of Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom (which drills down to county level or smaller), we don't need an intersection with low potential for growth. There are no other "Railway stations in the UK opened in ..." year categories. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2018 (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.

Roman era categories in modern countries[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 all, except Category:Roman Britain, without prejudice to further discussion on that category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale There was no such thing as "Roman Albania" in Roman times. This category is about the modern state and remnants of Roman culture still visible in that modern state. With the exception of Cyprus, no modern state could be said to be co-terminus with a Roman province. Consistent with other states in the parent category of Category:Roman history of modern countries and territories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looks to me like "Germania" was just a casual way of referring to territories beyond the Rhine. It was not a province in its own right, unlike Germania Superior or Germania Inferior. The same is true of "Roman Britain" which was really called Britannia. There is a category for Category:Britannia that contains all that material. Naturally it overlaps with Category:Roman Britain to a large extent. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that did not see Roman occupation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Germania, which referred to a region that was largely not under Roman control (current Germany and Poland). But for Roman Britain it is different, I guess that the intention of Category:Roman Britain was to cover Brittannia, what else would it be supposed to cover? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides Northern Ireland, most of the Scottish Highlands did not see Roman occupation--beyond the line of the Antonine Wall, the only additional territory was during Agricola's brief excursion and victory at the Battle of Mons Graupius. Most historians do not take Tacitus literally when he claims Perdomita Britannia et statim missa ("Britain was completely conquered and immediately let go"). Goustien (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, with possible exception of Category:Roman Britain; on a quick glance the situation with articles and categories there is murky, and may require a separate discussion. (Even the "root" article, Britannia, starts with Britannia has been used in several different senses OMG). No such user (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Roman Britain is a common term, applied to the province of Britannia, which approximately comprised England and Wales (except Northumberland) but for a short period parts of Scotland. The Northern Ireland issue is not relevant it is part of UK, but not to Great Britain. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Roman Germany and Roman Britain and rename Roman Belgium to Gallia Belgica - following the discussion above i'm now convinced that applying modern boundaries to the past is just a mess and violation of Wikipedia's policy for article stability (any change of modern countries' borders would require changing the contents).GreyShark (dibra) 10:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes of modern countries' borders are rare, and if they occur it will impact the categorization of geography articles as well, so I'm not sure that this is a good reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changes in borders happen all the time - just in the past decade UAE took over parts of Yemen, Turkey invaded Syria, Russia took over Crimea, Palestine became a state and South Sudan ceded from Sudan. I can find plenty more examples.GreyShark (dibra) 12:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the first 3 examples it remains to be seen if borders will change; the State of Palestine does not have different borders than the Palestinian Territories; that leaves 1 good example which happend 7 years ago. And as mentioned before, when South Sudan separated, all wikipedia articles concerning South Sudan had to be recategorized anyway, that is just unavoidable. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Applying modern boundaries to the past" is precisely the point of categories in Category:Roman sites in Africa, Category:Roman sites in Europe and Category:Roman sites in Asia - nothing wrong or unnatural about these. The "article stability" argument is way too broad, since it is applicable to all by-country categories, thousands upon thousands of them - surely one cannot delete them because once in a while borders change. GregorB (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all except Britain. Roman Britain and Brittania are two terms for the same topic. As for Scotland during the Roman Empire, the Romans held areas there on-and-off from the 70s to the 210s, but apparently withdrew to the south duing the reign of the Severan dynasty. Dimadick (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could @Dimadick: please clarify the grounds for making an exception for Roman Britain in the nomination? As far as I can see, it just holds stuff about Roman sites etc in the modern state of the United Kingdom; the correct name for it is therefore Category:United Kingdom in the Roman era. On the other hand, Category:Britannia holds everything pertaining to the Roman occupation - legions etc. Admittedly, there is a lot of overlap in the two. I suppose the category that most sharply differentiates the two is Category:Romano-British objects in the British Museum which is a child of Category:Roman Britain, not of Category:Britannia. That's because the museum exists in the modern state; it did not exist at the time of the Roman province. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2018 (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:Confederate States[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. Timrollpickering 20:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This category was moved out of process on the ground "Renaming category to match U.S. counterpart (i.e. "Category:United States""

However the respective articles are United States and Confederate States of America. "Confederate States" is more ambiguous.

Due to the out of process moves the subcategories are now mixed up CS/CSA. I suggest speedying them after deciding what the parent ought to be called. Tim! (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Tim![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:People associated with Bletchley Park[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. Timrollpickering 20:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, align with more common format in the tree of Category:People by organization. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2018 (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:1st-millennium BC disestablishments in Israel[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 (opt B). Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is another outlier category (see also yesterday's nomination) while the disestablishments tree in Israel normally begins in 1948.
Option A rename to 6th-century BC disestablishments in the Kingdom of Judah.
Option B just delete because the article is already in Category:6th-century BC disestablishments and a separate Category:Disestablishments in the Kingdom of Judah is never going to attract a decent number of articles.
As nominator, I prefer option B, with option A as second best. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an objection against emptying and redirecting the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could live with Option C too. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2018 (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:1st century BC in Syria[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another recently created no-brainer anachronism, using Syria (Syrian Arab Republic) for long long past categories. It was decided back in 2013 that Syria cannot retroactively apply prior to 1945, unless used with a specific suffix like Mandatory Syria or category:Ottoman Syria. Since we do not have a tree for category:Roman Syria and the only article in that category is already under the category:1st century BC in the Roman Republic - propose to delete. GreyShark (dibra) 05:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Parthian Empire was a fully independent state, it obviously contains many more articles than just a province of the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Parthian Empire was a fully independent state, but it was not called Iran or had an extent like that of modern Iran. However, it is perfectly legitimate to have "Iran" chronological categories for this era, beacuause it is undeniably part of the history of Iran. Likewise, Syria has such a long and rich ancient history (not limited to post-WWI borders of Syria) that a time-less chronology tree for "Syria" has potential. Place Clichy (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2018 (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/2018_September_9&oldid=871687910"