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:speedily renamed.@Aidan721: there was no need to also list them on the speedy page, as they could have been speedily processed from here; but no harm done. – FayenaticLondon 07:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:USPLACE, all categories using "Los Angeles County" should be renamed to use "Los Angeles County, California" to match all other categories within the scope, and to match all other counties in the United States. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Marked all for speedy rename. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't "death" and "murder" be plural? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, because they are topic categories, not set categories; i.e. they may contain articles related to death, not only articles about particular deaths. – FayenaticLondon 07:25, 23 June 2021 (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: Does not contain much after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_16#Moths_by_non-island_country, as its former sub-cat Category:Moths of Turkey was merged directly to Category:Moths of Asia. I confess that in implementing that close, I overlooked this intermediate category for Western Asia. IIRC the Turkey category contained over 1,200 articles. The remaining contents for Western Asia are a mere 12 pages. Alternatively, if there is a consensus to keep this category rather than merge it, I believe I could find a technical method to repopulate it with the former contents of the Turkey category. – FayenaticLondon 21:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that there were a lot of ins and outs about getting geographical categories for species right, particularly migratory fauna (are there migratory moths? Oh, yeah, of course there are) but I honestly don't remember the details. You appear to be working toward a reasonable scheme, go for it. --Lockley (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Middle East cat per revised nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2021 (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:Spouses of Presidents of the Philippines (etc.)[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 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:Minority Leaders of the United States House of Representatives (etc.)[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.
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2021 (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.
Establishments in the Russian Empire when there was no Lithuania[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.
Nominator's rationale In 1840 Russian fully abolished any uniquness of Lithuania, and made it part of the Northwest Krai. So at these times there is no actual Lithuania, with no boundaries, so we have no way of saying something was in Lithuania or not. Thus we should merge these to the Russian Empire category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tell the Lithuanians their “uniqueness” was “abolished,” and so their history mustn’t be represented in period categories. Lithuania is the country of Lithuanians, and it continued to exist even when some dead emperor had maps redrawn. This request represents a systemization of a statist worldview, telling us that dictators and crowns are significant but nations disappear when they are not represented by one. It is eliminating national and social history in favour of colonialism, just when historians are doing the opposite. It is ahistorical and anti-historiographical, contrary to WP:reliable sources which we have cited in hundreds of articles (including, somehow, a major section about the History of Lithuania#Under Imperial Russia, World War I (1795–1918)), and represents an extremely dated colonial WP:POV and WP:BIAS against the national histories nations that were not represented by states. —MichaelZ. 22:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that has the analogy bass ackwards. It would be like something established in Rome during the Roman Empire being in an establishments in Italy category. The category being a place that currently exists (Lithuania, Italy), not one that no longer exists (Russian Empire, Roman Empire). Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good Olfactory is right. It’s not a close analogy, because we’re talking about the twentieth century and not antiquity, but the Roman Empire is part of the history of Italy (as a geographical country, as a state, and as a nation), and not the converse. Anyway, Johnpacklambert is making sweeping changes according to a system we are not privy to, and the principles should be discussed, because individual cases will lead us each to,our own conclusions, and chaos will continue to reign. —MichaelZ. 14:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we had a much better contemporary political unit to categorize it under than yes I would. You would place Jewish schools established in Tel Aviv in 1939 in Category:1939 establishments in Israel which does not exist because it is just plain wrong, as are these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These categories are under “by country,” not “by contemporary political unit,” so there may be better or multiple ways we can categorize them. This should be evaluated in the context of historiography (e.g., where the 2021 History of Lithuania provides the context for Lithuanian history, rather than a political framework imposed by tsarist colonial authorities in the nineteenth century), and with categories as a findability affordance for readers in mind, and in a broader discussion for consistency. As you refuse to consider any of these things, your effort is not going to work out as you’ve envisioned. —MichaelZ. 14:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The History category is the place to have context and lists about former political entities and states; the categorical space is not designed for that task. Not all former states need to be represented in the category space for every "Established by" category. It would be insane to do that. There would be no end to the number of petty states that would demand a category> Better to have 1 state for "Established by" category and 1 state for "Is extant in" category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mzajac. In the age of imperialism, which is also the golden age of nationalism, distinct nations were under the yoke of larger empires, but they were nations nonetheless in the way we understand them today, though not nation-states yet. These categories are not anachronistic. Place Clichy (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong in this case. There was no recognized sub-unit of the Russian Empire called Lithuania, so we cannot categorize things as in Lithuania because it had no boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious solution to that is to use Lithuania's current boundaries. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or when in doubt (and defining for the article), use both categorization scheme: something established in Strasburg in the 1900s both belongs in German Empire categories (the state in which it was then) and France categories (the state in which it is now). Place Clichy (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With various geographies, there was actually a Lithuania Governorate-General (an accepted alternative name for the Vilnius Governorate-General) for the entire period of 1795 to 1917. Place Clichy (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not how people are applying this category, because if they were we would have lots of things in them that did not correspond to modern Lithuania. If you want to create that category you should let this category be removed, and then go through the resulting Russian Empire category and split out the contents based on the actual things that were under the Vilnius Governorate-General.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have no problem with these sorts of "anachronistic" categories. I do not think it's harmful for us to categorize things that happen within the current boundaries of Lithuania in a dated category that is prior to Lithuania's independence. A place remains a place regardless of who is in charge, and it would be helpful for users researching histories of certain places to have these categories available rather than having to scour a broader Russian Empire category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There is a world of difference between an object that is extant in a state and that object being established by a state. The Colosseum is in Italy; it was established by Ancient Rome. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the defining category names re not limited to a state. It is part of a category tree “by country,” and a country can be a state, a nation, both, or neither. —MichaelZ. 13:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The area at the time was part of the Russian Empire. Your arguments about some mythical "country" fly in the face of historic fact at the time in the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is claiming that things categorized in these categories were all established by the state referred to. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However these things were clearly established in the Russian Empire, so that is the category they should be in. Not some category based on a place that had no defined existence and thus no defined boundaries in the years in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see no good reason the relevant articles can't be in both. It would be great to see some reciprocal understanding. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. That is just wrong. There was no place that was Lithuiania. The things were established in the Russian Empire. Saying anything else is wrong. It was the Russian Empire. We should only place things in one category by place. Unless you think something established in 1899 in the modern boundaries of Israel should be in an Israel relatedxc category than you have to admit that I am right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, it would be great if you could express some understanding of other users' opinions. I can certainly see your point of view, which is why I suggested that categorizing them in both could be done. But you have not reciprocated understanding. I'm not saying you have to change your opinion – that's not what I mean at all – but rather, can't you at least understand and recognize that others' points of view are valid, but that you disagree with them? Instead, you write things like "That is just wrong. ... you have to admit that I am right". Elsewhere you have wondered why users won't engage with you in some of your arguments. This is a big reason why. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This area was under the control of the Russian Empire. Things established there were established in the Russian Empire. Saying they were established somewhere else is a clear case of trying to impose the present on the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a "no". This is why others won't engage with you. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What this all boils down to: (1) Each object should have a single state for it's "Establishments in.." (e.g. Ancient Rome for the Colosseum) and a single state for it's present location such as "Amphitheaters by country" (e.g. the Republic of Italy for Colosseum). It would be insane to categorise the Colosseum for every petty state that ever trampled through Rome over the past two millennia - there must be dozens. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It would be insane to categorise the Colosseum for every petty state that ever trampled through Rome over the past two millennia" I don't think anyone is suggesting we do that. What is being suggested is an establishment category for the state at the time and an establishment category for the present state can co-exist. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are suggesting an even worse plan which is just to impose the 21st-century back on the past and act as if current international boundaries are the absolute way things ought to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense can the modern Republic of Italy be said to have established the Colusseum? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The state did not establish it. That's not what the categories imply. It was established in what is today the state's territory. As I have stated elsewhere in related discussions, no one is claiming that things categorized in these categories were all established by the state referred to. "No, you are suggesting an even worse plan ..." Thanks for telling me what I am suggesting. I think you have misunderstood. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the categories imply. I'm sorry, but that is exactly what the categories imply. I would go further and state that there is no need to draw an inference at all; the plain English tells you what you need to know - establish means establish. Nowhere is it written in any scope definition that establish means established in what is today the state's territory, least of all when a year is attached to that establishment; to say otherwise is to wander aimlessly in WP:OR land. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The cat name is “in Lithuania” not “by Lithuania,” and its parent is “1888 establishments by country,” not by “sovereign state,” by “political unit,” or anything else like that. “Country” has been interpreted broadly and variously in adding articles to these categories, and a larger conversation is necessary before we should accept JPL’s extremely narrow view while he keeps reorganizing individual categories. —MichaelZ. 19:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It's "established in" not "established by". I'm not aware of any other editors who think "established in" implies "established by". If we're going to say that that is the case, much of the contents of these types of categories should be removed, because a huge proportion of things were not established by the state in which they were established. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above two propositions are demonstrably false. If they were true, then you would have many establishments in the United States prior to 1776; no such categories exist. In what state / country was Popham Colony established? - the 13 Colonies. Not the USA? No. Why? Because the USA did not exist in 1607. Is it extant in the current USA? Yes it is. It sits happily in the category Category:Former populated places in Maine. As in the USA, so also for Lithuania. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then it’s demonstrably true that, as I wrote, this has been interpreted broadly and variously. Otherwise JPL wouldn’t be mass-reorganizing all these categories to fit his ideal. Anyway, do we even know that he hasn’t already had his way with those USA categories? The fact is there is no one interpretation, and the community should form a consensus about one instead of letting JPL make a piecemeal mess. —MichaelZ. 15:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to to (re)determine policy about the Establishment tree in general; neither are we here to sit in judgement on JPL, nor to impute anything but good faith to his edits — piecemeal or otherwise. We're here vote on the proposals as proposed. There are other fora for wider questions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed something, because I don't see how the comment that starts with "The above two propositions are demonstrably false." has anything to do with what I wrote immediately above it. Perhaps I am misunderstanding. I was talking about the narrow issue of "established in" vs. "established by", not how it applies to the present-state vs. state-at-the-time issue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The proposition "It's "established in" not "established by" is demonstrably false. It is unsupported by plain English or by the category structure as exemplified by the USA establishments tree structure. There is no such thing as "established in" (in the sense that you and @Mzajac: wish to apply it) ; it is, at best, just a synonym for "is extant in". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1864 map of a Lithuania whose uniqueness Russia didn’t “fully abolish.” It is not. These places are established in Lithuania in several plain-English and encyclopedic senses. In the sense of established in the subject of the article “History of Lithuania,” and in territory belonging to the historiography of Lithuania (as a state and as the country of the nation) according to reliable sources. In the sense of Lithuania as Lithuanian ethnolinguistic territory (which continued to have defined borders). In the sense of Lithuania the country and former state colonized by the Russian empire. In the sense of the territory of modern Lithuania in history. These are all valid interpretations, and the nominator’s restrictive premise “at these times there is no actual Lithuania” and “with no boundaries” in the purely political (colonial) sense are false or irrelevant, contrived, and favour an obsolete WP:BIAS. It reflects a bizarre view of historical categories completely contrary to RS: how many histories of Lithuania just leave out whole chapters because “borders”? None. —MichaelZ. 14:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What a pretty map. I'm a sucker for old maps. Unfortunately, from your perspective, it somewhat undermines your argument as it, quite correctly, identifies the area as the "Provinces Occidental de la Russie". I would have no problem allocating any establishment in the map mapped area at that period to "Category:Establishments in the Western provinces of Russia" or some such equivalent. But wait - that what the nominator actually proposes. Oh dear. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the label Lithuaniens? That is Lithuanian ethnic/cultural/linguistic territory on a map: Lithuania, in common parlance, precisely “the country of the Lithuanians.” Here’s many more from 1840s through 1880s, including better ones, in a slide show. You’re welcome to disagree that that’s what our “by country” cats should represent. Let’s discuss it. But please stop pretending it’s not real, not mappable, not with definable boundaries. People mapped it then. It outlasted empires. They map it today. (And civil tone, please.) —MichaelZ. 19:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not doubt that the map delineates several ethnic/cultural/linguistic territories. It also delineates several religious territories. The "by country" tree structure is not about ethnic/cultural/linguistic territories, it's about countries. However broadly you wish to describe Lithuania at the point time in time, it was not a "country" as commonly understood. That's not to say that the nation or their ethnic/cultural/linguistic existance disappeared; but let us not indulge in wishful thinking or presentism by pretending that it had any of the trappings of statehood or sovereignty. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not indulging or pretending. Merely accepting relevant senses of country (cf. wikt:country), as commonly understood, according to references. Please stop recasting my argument as something I never said or implied. That just prolongs the discussion and mopuddies it, and doesn’t help you get consensus for the change. —MichaelZ. 19:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lithuanians didn't stop existing because russia willed it. just because something isn't as precisely defined doesn't mean it doesn't exist. More over cats of what was established in the current borders of a country even when it didn't exist in its present form are useful—blindlynx (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for historical accuracy.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2021 (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. – FayenaticLondon 09:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator'a rationale This is a bit more open to debate than some later categories, but as applied there is no justification for it. First off, Lithiania had been conquered by Russia at this point. There were still some unique status issues, but this would not at all apply to the modern boundaries of Lithuania, but to a larger area. Also, the institution we have here was founded by Joseph Frank (physician) who was a German expatriate working in the Russian Empire. There is no reason to have this category for just one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a historical category and the Russian empire only colonized and renamed Lithuania and the Lithuanians, it did not wipe them from the face of all historiography. This category supports the major topic of the history of Lithuania, and should remain part of the category tree under Category:Establishments in Lithuania. —MichaelZ. 14:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mzajac. In the age of imperialism, which is also the golden age of nationalism, distinct nations were under the yoke of larger empires, but they were nations nonetheless in the way we understand them today, though not nation-states yet. These categories are not anachronistic. Place Clichy (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have no problem with these sorts of "anachronistic" categories. I do not think it's harmful for us to categorize things that happen within the current boundaries of Lithuania in a dated category that is prior to Lithuania's independence. A place remains a place regardless of who is in charge, and it would be helpful for users researching histories of certain places to have these categories available rather than having to scour a broader Russian Empire category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There is a world of difference between an object that is extant in a state and that object being established by a state. The Colosseum is in Italy; it was established by Ancient Rome. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is claiming that things categorized in these categories were all established by the state referred to. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing in question was established by a German expatriate living in the Russian Empire. So it should be in the Russian Empire category. Case closed, end of story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can legitimately go in both. It would be great to see some reciprocal understanding. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In 1805 this area was all part of the Russian Empire. That is the plain and simple fact of the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that. Please see my first comment above for why I think it can legitimately go in both. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not so much do I want to create it but would I want to delete it if it were created. No, I don't think I would. But I would need to see it in the context of the overall, related category tree to decide. Is it one of an overall scheme for the 19th century or a single one in isolation, etc.? Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well we did delete similar categories because they are horrible. We should not engage in such presentism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2021 (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.
Establishments in Ukraine when most of Ukraine was under the Russian Empire[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.
Nominator's rationale There is no Ukraine during this time. In fact what is now Ukraine is split at this time between from 2-5 countries. In the earliest phase covered here is was split between the domanins of the Hapsburgs (both the Kingdom of Hungary and the Kingdom of Bohemia, outside the Holy Roman Empire, and not functionally one area until about 1802 when the Austrian Empire is formed), the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Ottoman Empire and the Khanate of Crimea. However the one category from that 5 or 6 country phase has one article that is about something that was under the Russian Empire, so the merger of that category to the Russian Empire category is justified. Actually some of the area in the first years was part of the semi-autonomous Zaporozhian Sich which was incorporated into the Russian Empire by about 1765. The 1794 category has one entry that seems to have been established in that year in Novorossiya an area that was started in 1776, but this particular establishments seems to have been in the area annexed from the Ottoman Empire in 1774. The other relates to Odessa which was annexed from the Ottoman Empire. Odessa was formally annexed to the Russian Empire by a treaty signed in 1792. Before that is was part of the Ottoman Empire's Silistra Eyalet, which was based in Dobruja, and covered a large section of modern Bulgaria as well as parts of modern Romania, with Odessa being at close to its north-east boundary. As I said before in the 19th-century modern Ukraine under Russian control was split between about 15 Governorates, with no sense that there was a unified group of these that constituted Ukraine, all the more so because several of them transcended the modern boundaries of Ukraine. Uknraine as it existed in 2005 was not actually formulated in full until the 1950s, and Crimea is de facto not part of Ukraine so to place things happening in Crimea in a Ukraine category where there is no functional Ukraine is not justified. Some of our articles also suggest that Donbas was not part of Ukraine until 1922, and at least parts of it are also no longer de facto part of Ukraine. Uknraine before World War II also for a time included area further east than modern Ukraine, and did not include some areas now in Ukraine along the border with Moldova, so the boundaries are messy. As it is the 1852 and 1886 categories are empty because the only entries in those cateogries were things established in either the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary and so they clearly could not be left in a category that was parented to the Russian Empire. These categories are anachronistic and should not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is generally correct. However, some manual pruning would be necessary for individual article so that they end up in the Austrian Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire as appropriate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is part of the history of Ukraine. Ukraine is a successor to the Russian empire on its own territory, historically, and even legally (UNR independence 1917, recognition 1918, government in exile passed to Ukraine 1992). This is a proposal to prune an entire branch from Category:History of Ukraine by period and turn it into the history of the Russian Federation. A terrible example of colonial WP:BIAS. (Devil’s advocate: split all “YYYY in the Russian Empire” categories from “X in Russia,” because there was no Russian Federation before 1991). —MichaelZ. 19:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you like it or not, the Russian Empire was in charge in this period and there was no Ukraine at the time. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to make history nicer than it actually was (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While you repeat your mantra, Wikipedia’s purpose remains to follow subject-specific WP:Reliable sources, maintain a WP:Neutral point of view, and not favour Russian historiography while obscuring Ukrainian historiography. —MichaelZ. 16:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the fact remains that all these events happened under the control of the Russian Empire. We do not create by country establishment categories for a country in a year in which that country did not exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two things absolutely wrong about that: 1) you are interpreting “country” in an unjustifiably restricted sense that is contrary to the practice of history and prejudiced against certain nations (reliable sources say Ukraine existed, as do contemporary sources, just not in the specific sense of an independent state), and 2) that is not what “we do,” based on many categories I see (is it based on any specific guideline?). —MichaelZ. 13:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, reliabe sources do not refer to Ukraine in 1899. No map in 1899 would show Ukraine, and no map made since that covers that time will include Ukraine. It was as i have said multiple times split between 15 political units, and fully integrated into the Russian Empire. You are not speaking the truth, and i defy you to produce one map showing Ukrtaine in 1899. There was no Ukraine in 1899.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a series of categories, not maps. I understand what you’re saying and I respectfully disagree. You continue to pretend you don’t understand what I’m talking about and presenting straw-man arguments and hinting that I’m a liar. We know Ukraine existed in the fifteenth century because it was recorded in Polish and Latin, mentioned in English by 1651, and appeared in maps by 1618 (if memory serves). The same country of Ukraine exists today, and it didn’t disappear from the face of the earth because some imperial censors wished it. If you can’t assume good faith and discuss your reconceptualizing these categories, then you’re not likely to get consensus. —MichaelZ. 23:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It disappeared from the face of the earth because it was split between multiple other countries and fully integraated into their governmental structures. We do not categorize in general by establishment in vague "nations" but in definable places, especially when definable places are in existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not historically accurate so it's not going to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mzajac. In the age of imperialism, which is also the golden age of nationalism, distinct nations were under the yoke of larger empires, but they were nations nonetheless in the way we understand them today, though not nation-states yet. These categories are not anachronistic. Place Clichy (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother to pay attention to what I said. There was no Ukrainin nation. There was no Ukrainian territory. There is no definable boundary of what Ukraine was at this time. As I said before there were 15 units of the russian Empire that included parts of what later would be Ukraine, but there is no way to call that Ukraine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true, on several counts. There was certainly a Ukrainian nation, although I understand you are not using the word according to its specific definition, because the Ukrainian national revival occurred during this period. There was certainly Ukrainian territory, defined by the nine Ukrainian guberniias in the Russian empire (imperial censors didn’t allow them to be called that), and eastern Galicia, northern Bukovina, and Transcarpathia in the Habsburg empire. It is also defined in detailed ethnocultural maps and by language in the censuses of both empires. History books call it Ukraine, as does our article “history of Ukraine.” You keep repeating these counterfactual and antihistorical claims that Ukraine didn’t exist. I realize you want a nice map drawn by a central government, but history doesn’t work that way, even by your definition, because many historical states had fluid or undefined boundaries during much of their histories. —MichaelZ. 23:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that the Russian Empire and the Austrian Empire controled the area and there was no politcal unit that was recognized as Ukrainian and that the Russian authorities refused to allow any particular area to be classified as Ukrainian. So we have no basis to claim the existence of a unit called Ukraine in these years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19
52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
No, we do not categorize things by the ill-defined ethno-cultural areas in which they occured. These year categories work with the clear indication of the actual politcal boundaries of the Russian Empire in the year invoked.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have no problem with these sorts of "anachronistic" categories. I do not think it's harmful for us to categorize things that happen within the current boundaries of Ukraine in a dated category that is prior to Ukraine's independence. A place remains a place regardless of who is in charge, and it would be helpful for users researching histories of certain places to have these categories available rather than having to scour a broader Russian Empire category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is harmful. It is super, super harmful. It in this case implies a unity across all sorts of boundaries and divsion acrooss no boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can a Wikipedia category be "super, super harmful"? I have seen much bigger problems on Wikipedia (biographies who read like PR/comercials for instance). Please keep thing into perspective John Pack Lambert. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There is a world of difference between an object that is extant in a state and that object being established by a state. The Colosseum is in Italy; it was established by Ancient Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Lodged (talk • contribs)
I don't think anyone is claiming that things categorized in these categories were all established by the state referred to. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those opposed to this have not explained A-what boundaries of Ukraine we should use, the de facto ones at present, the de jure ones, the pre-WWII boundaries of Ukraine, etc. They cannot invoke the boundaries of Ukraine in the years in question, since no entity existed, so they need to tell us what boundaries of Ukraine we are using. Is something founded in Crimea in 1899 established in Ukraine? If yes, then why are we ignoring that de facto Crimea is currently part of Russia and it was part of the Russian SFSR from its founding in about 1920 until the early 1950s. Not one of the people opposed to this merger has explained how we can define what is Ukraine in these years. They have also not said do they want to remove this as a sub-cat of Category:Establishments in the Russian Empire in 1899 and other years and classify this as an ahistorical cateogry with no reference to the boundaries of the time, and put things happening in Lemberg in this category, or do they want to limit Ukraine in these years to areas withing the Russian Empire. The failure to engage with this very big problem is one sign that they have not thought about this issue directly as it relates to the Ukraine. The fact that Ukraine is not other place and these years are not other years is why I created multiple nominations not just one. The fact that the opposers use the same reasoning on very different places shows they have no dealt with the particular issues of the places. One big issue they refuse to deal with is that while ethnic sense was coalescing in the late 19th-century, in Eastern and Central Europe this was not tied to a specific place, and so even if in 1899 people had a sense of being Ukrainian, and Ruthenian, and Romanian, and Bulgarian and so on, putting a place to these senses does not work. In Lemburg and surrounding areas the historic upper class conceived of themselves as Polish, and by 1899 there were many Jews in the area who did not think of themselves as any other ethnicity, and many German speakers who would have either seen themselves as part of the greater German nation, or conceived of themselves as Austrians. In sub-Carpathian Ukraine the issue is even more fun, with the area an integral part of the Kingdom of Hangary, with a slow change from being mainly Slovak to mainly Ruthenian, many Jews especially in Ungvar, an no one at the time would distinguish Ungvar as a sperate unit area from Bratislava, and the boundaries of Upper Hungary to which both those cities belonged were undefined. Within the Russian Empire, multiple governorates transended the modern boundearies, there was significant movement among the upper classes between Kiev, Moscow and St. Petersburg, in the west you had Bessarabia, along the south you had areas that were more Greek than Ukrainian, your Jews had no sense of being any other ethnicity, and what the various slavic ethnicities actually were was contested. As I have said repeatedly, the boundaries of Ukraine changed multiple times between it and Russia between 1920 and 1954, so with no entity of Ukraine in the years we are talking about there is clear defined boundary to use. Those who want to keep these categories have provided no answers to any of these questions, and have spoken in a way that in no way indicates they have any sense of what these questions are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a practical example of something that I chalenge anyone to place in this category. Taurida Governorate. It was established in 1802. However if you place it in Category:1802 establishments in Ukraine I will argue you are 100% wrong, but you create a Wikipedia that is clearly taking a particlular point of view. THe issue is A-there was no Ukraine in 1802, this was the Russian Empire. B-in 1950 only about half of what was the Taurida Governorate was in the Ukranian SSR, the other half was in the Russian SFSR. C-at present about half of what was the Tuarida Governorate was is de facto in Russia, and so it is an impremisble POV pushing act to declare some forever, devoid of culture and political considerations place that is "Ukraine" just because we think the world order in some partcicular year is how the world ought to be. That is what these categories are saying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your view about the entire category tree. That you’ve written a 750-word essay in two paragraphs under a single CFD tells me that a broader discussion and consensus about what these categories represent, in the appropriate place, is necessary. —MichaelZ. 16:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So again, you fail to respond to anything I actually said. This shows both that you are extremely rude and that you are refusing to engage with the actual categories before us. The categories before us represent a time when the russian Empire controlled everything in the area in question. You refuse to accept that reality and are trying to impose events after this time onto how we categorize this time. You are just wrong, because as I have shown over and over again the evidence is 100% clear that this was the Russian Empire, and the naming pattern you want to impose on it in no way corresponds to the actual political reality at the time. You can in no way refute my claim that there were 15 governorates that covered various parts of modern Ukraine at the time, and that many of these trasnceded the boundaries of modern Ukraine. So instead you insult me for actually trying to make a data driven, information informed contribution to the discussion and try to take the discussion elsewhere, because you have no actual way to respond to the 100% clear facts that all these things were established in the Russian Empire and that is the only valid and logical way to cateogrize them, unless we want to create categories by governerates, which there is no will to do. The clear precedent as shown by categories like Category:1955 esablishments in Madras State or Category:1958 establishments in Bombay State or Category:1852 establishments in Utah Territory is that on the rare occasions when we subdivide country categories we do so according to political units that existed at the time, nor according to political units that would be created in the future, which is what Ukraine is to things established in 1899.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We cannot categorize based on some amorphous "nation" that lacked either clear boundaries of political structure. We are not categorizing things by the social and cultural structures that created them, but by the physical place in which they were created, so the fact that there may have been some amorphous concept of a "Ukrainian nation" with a not at all defined space of control does not justify having categories based on the specific location where something was created covering it, especially since the sloppy way this is being done has lead to people placing in these cateogries things that were done by Poles and Germans who in no way, shape or form conceived their actions as in any way connected to this amophous nation. This is exactly why we use the political reality of the time to create categories. We do not have Pakistan establishment categories before 1947 even though the concept clearly existed before that date,and the last thing we want is to create categories that invoke an ill-defined sense of a nation to categorie the establishment of things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is difficult for users to participate in discussions when faced with multiple walls of text. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is another bad faith refusal to engage with the actual discussion. I have mustered lots of evidence showing there is no coherent way to define Ukraine in the years in question, and instead of dealing with it people refuse to even engage. This is down right insulting and condescending. I have shown that there is no way to define Ukraine and provided concrete examples of things that do not fit in the category and make it unapplyable, and there is absolute refusal to engage with it. This is just plain rude and disruptive on their part, and an unjustified attack on good faith efforts to improve Wilipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, please assume good faith. My comment was sincerely pointing out that it is difficult to engage in discussion when users post large blocks of text, some of which is repetitive. I would be more willing to engage with you if you demonstrated some understanding of users' opinions that differ from your own, but I see none. So would there be a point? Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we look at this as applied, and take just a random example. In Category:1899 establishments in Ukraine we have one article. That article is in one category that places it in the present Ukraine, so we do not need this category to link the institution to the Ukraine. It is on an institution that was from its beginning in a building designed for it by a Moscow based architect, so its founding reflects more its presence within the larger Russian Empire, than its specific location in a specific governorate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was created by a Russian architect, a Polish architect, and an Italian sculptor, but funded by Ukrainians. Please apply the same logic to that. —MichaelZ. 03:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is a building, and that building still exists, and that building is in Ukraine. People expect to see it in a Ukraine category, not a Russia category. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To many of us it is not. The whole point of categories is that multiples are possible. —MichaelZ. 03:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely fail to see why this is a horrible option—blindlynx (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Blindlynx: It's horrible because it would eventually give rise to a situation whereby each of 16 states that has ever existed in or around the territory of modern Ukraine would all want their own "established in" category. Can you imaginge the amount of categorical chaos and clutter that would arise? Frankly even 2 "established in2 categories is bad. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does having one historic and one modern lead to this? If anything it's the historic establishment categories that would cause this slippery slope—just look at Category:1918 establishments in Ukraine where close to half of the establishments are states. Not that I have a problem with this given that the whole point of categories is to group things and there isn't necessarily neat overlap between historic and modern sates making multiple categories useful for different things—blindlynx (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah if only it was just 1 historic category. I'm afraid not @Blindlynx:. There could be 16 historic categories - 1 for each state that has ever been proclaimed in Ukraine (I'm using an imaginary number for emphasis). Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the (totally subjective) research I've done the number of possible historic categories is actually pretty low since there just isn't enough articles related to every state to warrant categories for them. Maybe only the top 5 or 6 have enough. If even that many. No one except maybe the Russian Empire was there long enough to establish themselves in any meaningful way. Also, maybe Poland. But from what I can tell they didn't have a huge impact on the area. The exception being the various pre modern city state indigenous groups that don't factor into this. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm missing something no-one is advocating for categories like "1997 establishments in kiyvian rus' " rather one for the political entity a thing was in when it was established and the political entity that controls that territory now. But even if there were the hyperbolic 16 historic categories about establishments in various entities over time they would be useful for looking at the history of those entities—blindlynx (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So if something was established in Crimea in the 19th-century does it or does it not go in this category? By what principal can we place it in Ukraine in the 19th-century?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which something? Defining categories depend on the defined. —MichaelZ. 03:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to subjectively determine what country something was established in in a place that was indisputably at the time under one specific country on a case by case basis. This would make categorization subjective, my plan would make it clearly objective.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do I want us to know things about the subject of an article when categorizing it? Yes. I can think of several ways to objectively determine this, as I’ve already mentioned to you elsewhere. We should have a discussion about it where we hear and consider each other’s views. —MichaelZ. 17:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are buildings that were established in what is today the United States in 1750. That does not mean they belong in a United States category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oppose same logic as Lithuanian merge above—blindlynx (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this and all others which are nominated on the same grounds. Both category trees should exist, the "historical" one for the purists, and the "current" one for the masses. Perhaps they need renaming, although I can't find a better name which isn't terribly wieldy ("cat:establishments in year X in what was then country Y" vs. "cat:establishments in year X in what is now country Z"), but neither category is wrong (never mind "super super harmful" or other such hyperbole). Perhaps we need an RfC to decide once and for all whether both trees are allowed and how they should be named, but until then I oppose the deletion of the much more interesting "current" tree for the sake of dogmatic purism. Fram (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A lot of these establishments exist in the modern Ukraine. Hence, they are actually establishments in Ukraine, not in Russian Empire. They do not belong to "establishments in the Russian Empire" even as a sub-category. Some specific items could be classified this way if they existed only in Russian Empire. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Their currently in the Ukraine. They weren't established there. They were established in the Russian Empire though. So don't support their history and give credit for things they did to Ukraine just because it currently exists and the Russian Empire doesn't? If so, it's rather revisionist and actually nationalistic. If anything the people decrying this as being the eraser of Ukraine's history are in favor of something that actually erases the history of Russia and other states that were in the same area at different times. No way would language be used determine anything important like what group should get credit for something either. Maybe in the 1800s when they were trying to purge Native Americans from the United States it would have been, but that's about it. Adamant1 (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Countries and peoples still have history when their country in its current form didn't exist—blindlynx (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: But of course it would lead to people creating a Category:1816 establishments in Poland category. That's the very chaos that this nomination seeks to avoid. Every linguistic nationalist wants to claim their share of the cake. It must be stopped now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for historical accuracy.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These establishments are in Ukraine now. Readers who are interested in looking up ancient Ukrainian establishments should be able to find them. Articles can have multiple categories; so I don't see why these have to be deleted. Besides I get the feeling that completely arbitrary Ukraine is now being singled out.... Since there was no independent Mexico state in 1697 but there is an Category:1697 establishments in Mexico. If Ukraine would have declared independence in 1810 Ukraine would have existed in 1679????? Just because you did not live in a time when Mexico was not independent and you can remember the time when Ukraine was part of the USSR does not mean that Mexico deserves special privileges..... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not actually true. Some of these things no longer exist. Others have moved. Some even started in a place at that time in the Russian Empire and have expanded a lot. A good number of the articles that would in theory fall under this heading are on subdivisions of the Russian Empire established in a given year within the modern boundaries of Ukraine. Also keep in mind the modern boundaries of Ukraine are contested, and the boundaries of Ukraine have changed multiple times since it was formed in the early 1920s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2021 (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. – FayenaticLondon 09:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale There is no Ukraine in 1676. The place in question is in Donbas, which in the article on Donetsk People's Republic we are confidently told "was added to Ukraine in 1922", the article on Donbas suggests this area was largely under Ukraining control from 1918. As best I can tell this area in 1676 was part of the Cossack Hetmanate which was a vassal state of the Tsardom of Russia at the time. Another possiblity is to merge this to Category:1676 establishments in Russia, but I am not sure we really are confident enough to call this area Russia in that year. Either way the term Ukraine is too highly contested to confidently apply this far back.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If merged, "in Europe" is the best target, considering we are not sure who built the fort. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See my rationale above. Why is this a separate proposal? —MichaelZ. 19:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale to merge is factually incorrect. Ukraine existed in 1676. Here’s a 1675 map entitled “Kingdom of Poland and Duchy of Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolie, Ukraine, Prussia, and Courland,” with Ukraine (“VKRA-NIA”) labelled near the bottom-right corner. See also this modern “map of Ukrainian lands after 1667” (source: Magocsi, 1985) with Ukrainian territories including Zaporizhzhia and Sloboda Ukraine.
The sole article currently in this category is Sloviansk. Its “History” section starts with “The history of Sloviansk dates back to the beginning of the 16th century when the first settlements formed by Ukrainian peasants appeared on its territory.” This category is defining for this article’s subject. —MichaelZ. 18:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MergeSloviansk was not established in Ukraine so this won't aid navigation. Open to any of the merge targets discussed above. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mzajac. In the age of imperialism, which is also the golden age of nationalism, distinct nations were under the yoke of larger empires, but they were nations nonetheless in the way we understand them today, though not nation-states yet. These categories are not anachronistic. Place Clichy (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop spouting this non-sense and actually look at the situation at hand. There was no Ukraine in any meaningful way in this year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As your pronouncements get less specific they are starting to sound borderline offensive. You have made no attempt to understand the concerns of editors who disagree with you. I suggest you take some of this seriously and try to work towards a consensus. —MichaelZ. 23:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have no problem with these sorts of "anachronistic" categories. I do not think it's harmful for us to categorize things that happen within the current boundaries of Ukraine in a dated category that is prior to Ukraine's independence. A place remains a place regardless of who is in charge, and it would be helpful for users researching histories of certain places to have these categories available rather than having to scour a broader Europe category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There is a world of difference between an object that is extant in a state and that object being established by a state. The Colosseum is in Italy; it was established by Ancient Rome. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is claiming that things categorized in these categories were all established by the state referred to. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSloboda Ukraine if you actually look at the article was A-initially settled by Russians B-from the beginning part of the Russian Domains C-This is a seperate proposal, because this is centuries apart from any of the other proposals and the overall target is different than some other proposals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is just grasping for an isolated factoid from the article to make an unsupportable point. Earlier it was inhabited by Tatars, but most of the colonists and refugees inhabiting Sloboda Ukraine were Ukrainian Cossacks and peasants. See the detailed account in IEU. —MichaelZ. 04:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no coherent way to call this Ukraine. Your have way too much over confidence in applying ethnic markers in the 19th century let alone earlier. In the 19th-century a huge percentage of those inhabiting what is today Ukraine considered themselves Jews, nothing more. In a place like Odessa, non-Ukrainians were the vast majority of the population, and if you look at its history there is no reason to connect it with other areas now in Ukraine at all at that point. Before it was taken by the Russian Empire it was in a sub-unit of the Ottoman Empire that was primarily made up of modern Bulgaria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A) I did not apply ethnic markers, I was paraphrasing the sources in the article. B) You are just making stuff up. In the 1897 Russian census, the Ukrainian governorates’ inhabitants were 72% Ukrainian, 9.0% Jewish, 8.8% Russian, 4.4% Polish, 2.1% German, 1.0% Moldovan/Romanian (in East Galicia the population was likewise mostly Ukrainian). C) I welcome you allowing expanding the scope of discussion over your previous very narrow position that only state boundaries mattered. This is progress. —MichaelZ. 22:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukrainian governorates were the ones that became Ukraine, whose borders were drawn based on Ukrainian ethnolinguistic territory, including the continental part of Tavrida governorate (as mentioned in Demographics of Ukraine#Historical data and numerous history sources[1]). The specific figures are from a table with citation in w:uk:Населення України#Расово-етнічний склад. —MichaelZ. 21:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested to know where you got your percentages from. According to Russian Empire Census 17.81% were Ukrainian and they weren't even called Ukrainian at that point. My guess is that you got the 72% by combining the top three ethnicities, Russian, Ukrainian, and Turkic-Volga Bulgar. Since it equals 72%. If so, that's an extremely bad way to argue that most people in the Russian Empire were Ukrainian. More so because the census was done based on what language the person spoke. Which ultimately has nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality. If we did a census today based on language alone it would completely invalid. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your numbers are for all of the Russian empire. Mzajac's claim is for the Ukrainian governorate only. He did not argue that "most people in the Russian Empire were Ukrainian". I don't know if their figures are correct or not, but please don't argue about things they never claimed in the first place. Fram (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all there was no "Ukrainian Governorate" during that time. There was a "Kiev Governorate", but it was ruled by Russian governors. So in no way was it the "Ukrainian Governorate." Secondly, their wasn't a special census just for that region that used a different criteria to determine ethnicity other then language. Plus, it was a census of the Russian Empire as a whole. Not just the area made up of the Kiev Governorate. Ultimately who cares what the largest ethnicity in the Kiev Governorate was or how many "little-Russians" (the censuses term, not mine) occupied the area? 39.4% of California and 52% of the United States is Hispanic. Are you going to claim California or the United States is South America or credit what happens in America to Mexico because 62% of the Latino's who live there are from Mexico? I sure wouldn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming any of these things, I simply pointed out that your reply didn't address the points by Mzajac as you were talking about different things (e.g. you stated "an extremely bad way to argue that most people in the Russian Empire were Ukrainian" while Mzajac did no such thing). Acknowledging such errors would really make these discussions with you easier. Fram (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So your weren't saying there was a "Ukrainian governorate" when you literally said "Mzajac's claim is for the Ukrainian governorate only." Weird. Oddly what you've said so far "did not provide a single new element" to this discussion and here I thought that was something you were concerned about. I really do wonder why your running defense for Mzajac everywhere. Especially in conversation strings that I'm involved in. "I hope it's not trolling." Not that I'm accusing you of trolling. I'm just saying, "it sure looks that way" and I hope it isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I repeated what Mzajac said. That he may have made an error there hardly makes your comments any more correct. You were attacking claims he never made. And I think the remainder of your comments is mixing up an ANI discussion and this one. Fram (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You phrased it in a way that sounded like you agreed with him. If you don't agree with him, then I don't even know why we are having this discussion. Unless your just trying to have a repeat of our conversation on the ANI board. I'm not mixing them up either. Your just doing the same things here that you did there. In the meantime, you could have assumed good faith instead of saying I was arguing and Mzajac could have spoken for themselves if they thought I had miss-interpreted what they said. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"You phrased it in a way that sounded like you agreed with him."? I literally said "Majazac's claim is ... " and then "I don't know if their figures are correct or not". But we are having this discussion because then you replied to him with arguments which didn't address what he said (no matter if what he said is right or wrong), but completely different issues ("an extremely bad way to argue that most people in the Russian Empire were Ukrainian."). If they made mistakes, you should address the actual mistakes they made (like you later did, about the "Ukrainian Governate"), not things you misread or made up. At ANI, I pointed out that you were defending Johnpacklambert by inventing timelines of edits (claiming that they first removed articles from categories and then nominated them for deletion, when in reality they first nominated them, and only 5 days later, when multiple people had already opposed his nomination, did he empty the cat). "In the meantime, you could have assumed good faith instead of saying I was arguing"? Your claim that Mzajac argued preceded my response, so I have no idea why you take issue with my use of the word "argue" here. I have no idea why you are having such a hard time having a rational, fact-based discussion instead of the wild tangents you go off on and which only help to deteriorate the actual discussion. If you would start by reading what people are actually writing, and not what you think happened or was said, we may get some progress. Fram (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The figures weren't the only thing Majazac said that you were talking about. The reason we are having this discussion is because you decided to respond to a question I asked Majazac by saying I was arguing. Otherwise, I'd be staring at my screen right now while waiting for Majazac to tell me where he got the percentages from. If I didn't address what he said, then he could have told me I didn't. I addressed it by stating the numbers I was aware of though. Just because they came from the consensus more generally, not the specific region that's now the Ukraine, doesn't mean I wasn't addressing what he said. I just don't think cherry picking the ethnicity of a hyper local population based on what language they speak is a good way to make broader arguments about who should be credited with what.
Again, just like in the ANI, we are here to give our opinions and that's all I'm doing. So you should stop telling me what I should be doing so "we" can get some progress. It just comes off as supercilious. If you really want this conversation to go somewhere, contribute something that's on topic and not just telling me how I should be acting. If I'm going off on wild tangents at least they are related to the discussion and not just rebuking other people like your doing. This is never going to go anywhere if all you do is tell other people they are doing it wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for historical accuracy.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That does not make sense. This should be "in Ukraine", "in Russian Empire" or in the both. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The links are already in categories related to the Ukraine. Just not ones that assume the topics of the articles were established there. So it's a none issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These establishments are in Ukraine now; it is irrelevant in what state they were founded. I am also not sure how a Wikipedia reader who is interested in finding an 1676 establishments in Ukraine is going to find them in Wikipedia without a Category:1676 establishments in Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 12:39, 24 July 2021 (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. However, the category is currently empty. During the discussion it was stated that the category only contained a redirect for a village. The village name was not recorded below. It may be that the 1596 date was based on "first-mentioned" rather than an actual establishment date, which would be deprecated by the discussion to date at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_27#Establishments_based_on_first-mentioned_dates. Therefore I am assuming that the village redirect was removed from the category in good faith. The outcome is therefore delete for now as empty but with permission to re-create the category if an article is written on a 1596 establishment within the present-day borders of Ukraine. – FayenaticLondon 09:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale There was no entity known as Ukraine in 1596. The Europe category has multiple other articles directly in it for which a more specific categorization is not practical. Modern Ukraine at this point was split between Russia, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, some territories under the Ottoman Empire, and some territories under the Khanate of Crimea, and possibly some other areas under other polities, and some areas in theory under the first 4 that did not really functionally exist in their domanins. I am sure this particular place was in one of the first two categories, but it would take a lot more map observation on my part to figure out which one, and since we have no other things related to either of those polities at present categorized with this year, it is not really worth creating a category for this one place anyway. So it is most practical at this time to place this article directly in the Europe category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Best to delete as the only contnet is one redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See my rationale above. Why is this a separate proposal? —MichaelZ. 19:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category is part of the history of Ukraine and belongs to the tree of category:History of Ukraine by period. Here’s a 1592 map showing Ukraine’s predecessors within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: Ruthenia (Latin “Russia”), Volhinia, Podolia. The effort to recategorize national-history categories into a new state-oriented structure is counter to the post-colonial trend in WP:reliable sources on history, which has been moving away from a statist WP:POV, certainly since 1991 in Eastern European history. We should be moving away from dated historiographical WP:BIASes, not embracing them.
If you want to create categories for Ruthenia, Volhinia and Podolia that would make sense, but imposing a later name of Ukraine on them makes no sense at all. Considering we have nothing else in the Duchy of Lithuania for this year, this category scheme makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete The only thing in this category is a redirect for a village that wasn't established in Ukraine. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mzajac. In the age of imperialism, which is also the golden age of nationalism, distinct nations were under the yoke of larger empires, but they were nations nonetheless in the way we understand them today, though not nation-states yet. These categories are not anachronistic. Place Clichy (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What type of rubbish is this? This is super anachronistic. There was no Ukraine in 1599. Whether there was even a Ukrainian people in 1599 and who exactly would and would not be Ukrainian in that year is super open to debate, but the idea that there was a place that was Ukraine is just plain false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is false rubbish. Modern notions of nationality didn’t exist for any group. Ruthenian-speakers, where they lived, and the boundaries of the polities they inhabited are well known. Here’s a map (Magocsi 1985). —MichaelZ. 23:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do not create categories of place specific organization based on amosphous concepts of where speakers of some specified langauge lived. All the more so when you do not even use the term Ukrainian, but Ruthenian. So if you admit that the language was Ruthenian, then why are we not calling this Category:1596 establishments in Ruthenia?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Is "super-anachronistic" like being "super-pregnant"?) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have no problem with these sorts of "anachronistic" categories. I do not think it's harmful for us to categorize things that happen within the current boundaries of Ukraine in a dated category that is prior to Ukraine's independence. A place remains a place regardless of who is in charge, and it would be helpful for users researching histories of certain places to have these categories available rather than having to scour a broader Europe category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This category is super harmful. It gives a false impression of the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
in this case it is just plain wrong. It implies there was some definable, concrete unit known as Ukraine as the time, when there was not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's wrong only if you choose to interpret it that way. It can easily be interpreted as meaning things that were established in 1596 in what is now the current territory of Ukraine. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category is now empty. One of the defenders of it actually states this should be in the 1596 in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but gives no explanation as to why we need such a category to contain one article. I did not move the article in question and did not record what the specific article was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had three units that in some way are predecssors to modern Ukraine, Ruthenia (Latin “Russia”), Volhinia, Podolia, then we should have establishments categories for each of those units and place articles based on which of those units they were established in, not amalgamate things established in three defined places. For us to on our own amalgamate these into one category is a clear act of anachronism. Of course this ignores the fact that categories are meant to group like things, and at present we have 0 entries in this category. Before we had 1, but that 1 was as far as I can tell the only 1 by year entry for the entire 16th-century in "Ukraine" which even its most ardent defender admits was 3 seperate units under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, although he does not explain how if these units had the names Ruthenia, Volhinia and Podolia we can call them "Ukraine", nor does he deal with the fact that these units did not encompase all of the modern Ukraine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That does not make sense. This should be "in Ukraine", "in Russian Empire" or in the both. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The articles in this category are already in relevant categories related to the current country of Ukraine. So there's zero reason to keep this category when it wrongly assumes that there was a Ukraine in 1596 that things could be established in. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. By the way there was no independent Mexico state in 1697 but there is an Category:1697 establishments in Mexico. If Ukraine would have declared independence in 1810 Ukraine would have existed in 1679????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yulia Romero (talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue we should have no pre-1821 Mexico categories. We have no US categories that pre-date the American revolution for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2021 (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, with the outcome Keep. For the record, this now contains 3 sub-cats and 5 other articles.
Also for the record, the talk page links to a prior CFD which was closed as Keep. A later CFD then merged all categories before 1500. – FayenaticLondon 12:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCategory:1596 establishments in Italy. This category used to have two entries. One was already in Category:1596 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, which is a better name. The other was established in a part of Italy then controlled by Spain so I moved it to Category:1596 establishments in the Spanish Empire. If this category is deleted, and the Ukraine category is merged as I also proposed, all the sub-cats of Category:1596 establishments in Europe will reflect the political realities on the ground at the time. This seems to be the best way to categorize things in history at least in Europe. Actually outside Europe we also have the Ottoman Empire category (which was a multi-continent empire, so it is also under the Europe category) and the New Spain category, so all the categories are clearly reflecting the political reality at the time, except this one and Ukraine. One of the articles directly under Asia is on the Portuguese Church in Mumbai, which was established when that area was under Protuguese Control, so creating a Portuguese Empire category might be justified. As applied, this is an unneeded category. This is a reflection of very specific conditions that exist for the 1596 category, and so it is not neccesary to generalize this decision to other years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have created and populated the subcategory now. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 14:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Conceptually favor deletion based on the nomination description but hard to assess this now empty category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mzajac. In the age of imperialism, which is also the golden age of nationalism, distinct nations were under the yoke of larger empires, but they were nations nonetheless in the way we understand them today, though not nation-states yet. These categories are not anachronistic. Place Clichy (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a bunch of 19th-century nationalistic rubbish that should not be imposed centuries before it was even thought of. Clealry not on something as clear and concrete as saying that a place existed. Categoriezing people by the intersection of nationality and occupation is hard enough, but asking us to impose claims of place on articles is just ludicrous. All the more so when we consider how actually small such categories are in practice at this far remove.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These categories are for intended to help twenty-first century people find information about the history of Italy. What you’re doing is a sweeping change specifically to conform to nineteenth-century names. If the idea is not rubbish, you should describe it in detail, get feedback, and consensus before launching a mass reorganization. —MichaelZ. 19:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The change truncates the Italian history tree which, I presume, is intended to be cut off at 1861 to mark the unification of Italy as a state (so our readers cannot trace the history of Italy through “by year” categories past 160 years). Can’t be sure though, because the nominator hasn’t clearly explained the rationale for his systematic set of dozens of changes. Anyway, this un-syncs history categories from articles like History of Italy, which starts with prehistory and includes antiquity, &c. —MichaelZ. 21:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There is a world of difference between an object that is extant in a state and that object being established by a state. The Colosseum is in Italy; it was established by Ancient Rome. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why the category is named "1596 establishments in Italy" and not "1596 establishments by Italy" of course. So it's not really clear what your point was with this comment. Fram (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See comments in Lithuania nomination below for clarification. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So does Michael Z. want to place a business established in 1829 in Jaffa by some Arab merchant in Category:1929 establishments in Israel. That is the effect of his argument. He also seems to want to place the coleseum in establishment in Italy categories. This is a bad plan. Why can no one else see it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: You’re putting words in my mouth and not even pinging me. Dick move. There is no plan. That is the problem with your ad-hoc re-systematization of random branches an entire category tree. —MichaelZ. 04:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have advocated for placing everything based on 21st-century boundaries. So I am not placing words in your mouth, it is just so absurd when actually applied that you want to avoid it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not. That misrepresents what I’ve said about this. Nor have I mentioned Jaffa nor the Coliseum. You are losing the thread if you have to defend your proposal by randomly slandering editors opposed. I want you to stop.13:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Manners please. The logical solution is: an object should be in a single category for "Establish in state Foo.." and it should be in a single category for "In Extant in state Bar..". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These category trees are “by country,” not “by state.” —MichaelZ. 22:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point is we should follow contemporary political boundaries, not impose the present on the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per what I wrote above in for the Lithuanian one also I see no reason why both categories can't exist in paralllel—blindlynx (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not helpful at all, losing information for the sake of one specific POV which excludes the other, equally valid POV (the "historic" one vs. the "current" one). When one can look at such things from two angles, the solution is not to erase one angle and impose the other one, the solution is to have both angles present. Fram (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is just spurious "balance". No balance is needed. The category is wrong and superfluous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Catagories about things established in the current borders of a country even when it didn't exist in its present form are useful for looking at the history of a place or thing—blindlynx (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to know all about the things that exist in a country, regardless of when they were established, then the tree structure for that is "Stuff in CountryX". Click on the article of interest and you get the "Category:Establishments in 19xx" category. What more is needed? Two category trees; no "balance" needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point of categories is to group things together and not have to click on articles to get that information—blindlynx (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for ease of navigation. In the nominated category, this is achieved in Category:1596 establishments in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany which smoothly links to all the other years and all the other nice groupings that you want. What it does not do, however, is to pretend that Italy was a state in 1596. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see both how you would see such "smooth links" between, say, a Tuscany cat and another city-state (or Naples or so). And I fail to see who is pretending that Italy was a state in 1596: that claim is not made by that category, it claims that there are things which are located now in Italy which were established in 1596. A current country or state is usually made up of things established both during the existence of that country, and earlier (or e.g. at a time when the country existed but the established "thing" was then located in another country). If you have a suggestion for a better category name for the "established in year X in what is now country Y" categories, feel free to propose it. But don't pretend that such a category is not a valid and correct possible way of looking at things please. Fram (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it claims that there are things which are located now in Italy which were established in 1596" No such claim is made by the category, not in its name nor in its scope. What has become clear over the course of these discussions however, is that there are some editors who would like for that to be the state of affairs. I rather think that you have let the cat out of the bag @Fram:. Such a change in the plain English sense of a category name requires a fundamental re-evaluation of the entire scope of the Establishments tree structure. This is not the forum for such a debate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the category now has five additional articles in it. Fram (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the things that I really don't get about oppose arguments is that they seem to be assuming a permeance of nation states that is extremely unlikely to exist in the real world for any amount of time. What if Italy, the Ukraine, or any other place being discussed gets overthrown or otherwise changes statehood status in the next 50 (or whatever) years, will everything going forward be credited to Italy (or the Ukraine) or will every category and article that's been changed to give those places credit now for the past have to be updated to give the new states credited for everything before it was created?
If the answer is the later and all the historical categories/articles will have to be constantly updated every time there's a change of governments or whatever, then that seems like a rather unmaintainable hot potato way of doing this. Practically speaking, it's just way easier and takes way less maintenance or arguing to put something in a "Establishments in the Russian Empire" category and call it good. Instead of having to update everything in the category trees when a state changes hands, or someone comes along to argue that their preferred nation state should get the credit for something. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If, say, Italy no longer exists, then there already are thousands of articles that need to be changed anyway, and most of the articles where these "establishments" categories are would need changing anyway. E.g. Ansitz Kreit is also in Category:Farms in Italy, "houses in Italy", and "Wineries of Italy". Bot changing 4 instead of 3 categories here really isn't "an unmaintainable hot potato" at all, and is relatively rare in any case. Fram (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, what your saying is that since it's currently a mess then who cares if it becomes more of one? Alright. Sure it's three articles now, but it sets a precedent for similar disputes and there's plenty of places/people that would love to take credit for things in history that other people have done. Plus, governments are disputed, change hands, and new ones are created all the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree that it's a mess. And these categories are not about "taking credit", they are about reflecting a current reality. In many cases, the contemporary country has just as little "credit" for the establishment of these things. These categories just reflect where the location of establishment X was "then" and "now", that's all. Then is sometimes interesting, as it e.g. may point to, say, religious tolerance, of love of the arts, or rise of larger companies, or... which may be influenced by the political, economical, ... nature of the "then" country. "Now" is interesting for people interested in what happened in country X over the years, no matter if it was a country then or now. When people visit e.g. Italy, they are rarely interested in only post-1861 things, or only in things which were established in and during the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. They are often interested in all periods of the history of the current country. Fram (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the categories aren't about taking credit. The points made by most of the keep people have been about who is taking credit for what though. The only way to interpret people the Ukraine not being the establishment place of something that was created in 1497 "wiping out the history of Ukraine" is that the Ukraine should be given credit for those things. There is no "current reality" for past events either.
I don't really have a problem with the whole were X was established "then" and "now" thing in theory. The problem is that keep voters are treating this like both then and now are the Ukraine. There's zero room for "then" to be the Russian Empire. I could care less if something goes in both a current Ukraine related category and one for the Russian Empire. They are already in current Ukraine related categories anyway. Mzajac just seems to have a massive issue with relating anything having to do with the Ukraine with Russia. I think people are interested in what was in the Russian Empire in 1497 though. Not what was in the Russian Empire in 1497, that we are just going to say was the Ukraine when the country wasn't even established yet to appease some Russophobes (not anyone here, but readers who would lose interest or whatever if we associated things in the Ukraine with the Russian Empire). The same goes for this category. Sure, put things in an Italy category if they are currently in Italy and put them in another category for where they were in the past. They are already in Italy related categories though and this going through isn't going to change that anymore then it doesn't change it for the Ukraine categories. For example Santa Croce, Mortara is already in five other categories related to Italy that actually make sense for it to be in. So no one is being hampered in finding it when they visit Italy by this. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The articles that are in this category are already in better named ones that relate to the actual facts of the area at the time. So there's no reasonable reason not to delete the category. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2021 (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.
Rename as nominated per WP:C2C. I'm open to CMR's naming convention for all mythologies, but we should follow the rest of the tree for now for Hindu Mythology. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2021 (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.WP:SMALLCAT does not apply as this is part of a well-established structure from year 1000 onwards. – FayenaticLondon 09:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator'a rationale This nomination is built on the scope of the target, and so is largely indepdent of the scope of the specific category. This is the only sub-cat of the parent, and after merger we will get a category with 3 entries. While England is clearly defined at this time and before, a lot of other polities in Europe are more messy, and this if applied will lead to lots of small and disputed categories. I do not think our current number of articles that fall under these categories justify subdividing beyond the continent level for Europe in this year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alt England is sufficiently well defined and geographically SEPARATE THAT THE RISKS OUTLINED ABOVE ARE MINIMAL. tHIS IS MORE A CASE OF wp:sMALLCAT. fOR THAT REASON, i WOULD FAVOUR AND UPMERGE TO Category:1430s establishments in England. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose, this is likely to be controversial, so this category can't go away without having a broader discussion about the whole tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose -- This requires a much wider discussion. Unless this is a sample nom intended to be followed by a much wider one. Several years in the 1430s have 1 or 2 articles; some none. I would not oppose an upmerge (as nom) and to Category:1430s establishments in EnglandPROVIDED this is to be done for every other year until a point is reached where most years have at least 5 establishments. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for deleting establishments in countries which didnt exist at the relevent date is very strong, but in England I think Laurel Lodged's argument is preferable. After all we are no longer sure if England is in Europe. Rathfelder (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment, we also need to consider the likelihood that editors will eventually add the article also to Category:1432 in England even if that category is not identified as a merge target in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2021 (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 as currently empty. – FayenaticLondon 22:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional notes after closing: Some editors opposed this category on the ground that it is anachronistic. However, other editors & readers find categories useful as a way to trace how old are the places within current borders. There is generally no consensus on whether to categorise by current (anachronistic) polity at as well as by the polity at the time. For some rationales for and against, see a recent discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_17#North-West_Territories_establishments.
Other editors opposed this category on the grounds that it contained only Derazhnia and Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine, which were first mentioned in 1431 rather than established then. This date is also used in the infoboxes, but the infobox allows the caption to be changed to something more accurate e.g. "First mentioned", whereas the category does not; therefore the acceptance of first-mentioned dates in infoboxes does not set a precedent that categories must follow. Going the other way, CFD on Places mentioned in the Domesday Book was offered as a precedent against categorising by first mention, but that discussion did not focus on first-mentioned dates, so I do not find it binding on this question.
Nominator's rationale There was no place called Ukraine in 1431. I would have to do a lot more studying to figure out if this place was considered in Lithuanian or Polish domains in this year, or if there was another polity that had control. Considering the ultimate size of the target category (this merger will put 5 articles directly in it, plus one in the England sub-cat), I have doubts that we can justify having any by country establishment categories this far back. At least not with our current scheme of articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The correct category is probably an Ottoman Empire one, but that is not clear. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is part of the history of Ukraine. This is an integral branch of Category:History of Ukraine by period. Ukrainians are the native nationality of Ukraine: their ancestors have been there since around the sixth century, and their history goes back that far. Erasing national history during periods is a bad example of colonial and statist WP:BIAS (Why does the Russian Federation get a category for 8th-century establishments!?). —MichaelZ. 19:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge In Some Form The only article in this category, Derazhnia was established by Cossacks and first documented by Turkish records, so I'm not positive of which merge target to use. In any case, it was not established in Ukraine. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is our sourcing actually strong enough to even say for sure that Derazhnia was established in 1431?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is an issue for most populated places, we mostly just know the first time it is mentioned in written sources. Populated places are usually not established anyway, they rather emerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of populated places in the US and other countries that were clearly established. If we have no clear way to say this was estblished in 1431 we should just delete that categorization period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of populated places that have a date of first mention in sources. There’s probably an appropriate place to propose a guideline on how to handle them, but this isn’t it. —MichaelZ. 21:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we deleted it because appearing in that document is not defining. The first known date of existence is defining. —MichaelZ. 00:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The comment from Bencherlite in that discussion was exactly around the Domeseday reference being the first known date of existence, which is why I mentioned it here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Michale Z is adding contents to this category in definace of the reasoning of those who want to remove this category. I think this is disruptive behavior that should be halted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnpacklambert, it’s good form to message or ping me, old chap. What if I just ran around on talk pages calling you a “stinky poo-poo head,” or something? —MichaelZ. 00:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article in question Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine in the text explicitly states "the city foundation date is uncertain". This demonstrates that actual information is of little concern in Michael Z.'s efforts to categorize. This should be evaluated in considering his ability to reasonably consider creating this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as de facto empty. We do not categorize things by "first year mentioned". We categorize things by when they were in some way founded. In some cases this is when they were incorporated, given city status, platted, and there are other examples of founding. Mentioning in documents that in no way imply the place was being founded in that year is one. So on these grouds, the one place in this category it was unjustified categorization to have it in the category and I have removed it. There is no reason to have a category that has no actual contents. There is good reason to proactively delete a category that has tended to have things placed in it that in no way belong in the category. We should not value precision over accuracy. That is what this category does on two fronts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which states in the article "The city foundation date is uncertain." so there is absolutely no way to justify placing it in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is only "under dispute" because an editor is trying to impose their notions contrary to the actual text. There is no reason to suppose the first year this place is mentioned in sources is when it was established and this makes no sense.
As revelation direct has shown above, the first mention of a place is not in any way defining. There are lots of places that first are recorded in Doomsday Book, but to act as if there is any reason to suppose they were all established on that date is ludicrous. The same pinciplas apply here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That parallel discussion on the article talk page does not seem to be pulling in additional editors to help move us toward consensus. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Ukraine didn't exist in 1431. Nothing about 1431 Ukraine comes up in a Google search. There's no academic sources claiming there was a Ukraine in 1431, Etc. Etc. So nothing could have been established in the Ukraine in 1431 and therefore there's zero reason to have this category. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2021 (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. If someone wants to nominate this again, please first check that the category members are within appropriate sub-cats of Category:Disco songs; that does not yet appear to be the case, but it could be a useful justification for further discussion. – FayenaticLondon 21:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are songs with the word 'disco' in the title, most or all could or should be in the category 'disco songs' so are no more than referencing the genre of song they belong to. Therefore the category fails WP:SHAREDNAME, WP:NONDEFINING
Oppose - You seem to confuse the facts: Disco songs are those played by DJs in the disco dancehall. Songs about disco means songs (lyrics) thematising the disco feelings and actions people/musicians have experienced. Completely different approaches. --Just N. (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Justus Nussbaum:. I note you think categories should be kept even if they fail WP policies. Each of the titles are there because they are disco songs which mention disco in the title, not for any other reason, not referenced, not stated in the text and certainly not defining of the song. Is this the WP you are aiming for? One that ignores WP:CATDEF & WP:CATV, WP:NOT, probably other policies and the 2 policies mentioned above? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop abusing the Ping mechanism, you're not reaching me by that. Anyhow I don't like your utterly polemic style. And in addition to it your affirmations are certainly not convincing. Next time you'll accuse me to be the wicked man that caused your girlfriend to leave you? In a ironic, humorous way I'm even able to top your shameless exaggerations as you see. Nevertheless your aspersions are useless and remain false. --Just N. (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per nom. Hardly a defining characteristic. We're just categorizing songs by genre and title mentions here. I'm surprised that I Love the Nightlife isn't categorized in Category:Songs about nightlife yet. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:12, 22 June 2021 (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 category's hatnote explains the reason for the disambiguation - the NZ seafloor/seabed is a hot political topic due to claims of Maori ownership. This category is for the geology and topography of the seafloor. Perhaps Category:Geography of the New Zealand seabed or similar would be a better target? Grutness...wha? 02:20, 19 June 2021 (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:Works about the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake[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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT, contains only two articles and is unlikely to grow significantly. I suggest upmerging. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge Too narrow to be a viable category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2021 (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:WP:SMALLCAT, contains only one article and is unlikely to grow significantly. I suggest upmerging. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Merge per nom. Not currently an article on Works about Typhoons. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2021 (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:rename. – FayenaticLondon 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Healers" is kind of ambiguous or uncertain in meaning. We have the article folk healer, which is what this category seems to be about. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support to clarify the cat's meaning --Lenticel(talk) 02:35, 6 July 2021 (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. – FayenaticLondon 18:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any other metal sulfide anions anywhere on Wikipedia. Fails WP:SMALLCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the nominator's idea of looking for way to generalize the small Category:Thiometallates cat. But oppose the nominator's specific proposal, because the cat is not just the sulfur ion ("thiometallate" itself) but also includes salts where the sulfur ion is just one component. That is, Bis-choline tetrathiomolybdatecontains a sulfur ion; bis-choline tetrathiomolybdate is not a sulfur ion. DMacks (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, naturally, as the creator of the category. Category:Thiometallates does not actually fail WP:SMALLCAT for the following reasons: (a) it is part of a larger, systematic categorisation of metallates as is clear from Category:Metallates, and (b) it has potential for growth as there are many compounds containing thiometallate ions that could become articles in future. DMacks makes a good point about ions vs. compounds that contain the ion. When I've tried to find all the articles containing a given ion, it's really tricky to do if they're in a broad category. Relatively small and precise categories are actually very useful in chemistry. --Ben (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although "groundwork for expansion when new articles are written on notable topics" isn't itself a reason I typically support keeping a cat unless such articles are actually imminent, there certainly are several other possible articles in this cat. The lower thiomolybdates (mono/di/tri not just tetra) at least as a class of ions, and the thiotungstates (also at least as a class), are notable--doi:10.1016/j.gca.2014.08.037 as a quick lead. A few quick stubs could help establish the actual scope of "Thiometallates" (varation of M and variation of level of thio content) rather than just the MoS42– niche. With some additional members and in keeping with the idea of cats as part of the systematic organization of Category:Metallates that Ben notes, I would oppose merger at all. DMacks (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While we're brainstorming here, tetrathiovanadate and tetrathiorhenate are also known. doi:10.1021/ic00220a042 talks about them and also talks about the general class of thiometalates (range of metals and sulfur levels). So there's a lead-ref for at least a microstub main-article for the nominated category to WP:V that this is actually a concept, not just a wikipedia-editor's SYNTH creation of an intersection-cat. DMacks (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2021 (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 "Specialty, or Speed, Equipment Market Association" (SEMA) is a custom hotrod auto association that hosts a major car show every year in Las Vegas. Jay Leno is a car collector who maybe spoke at the show, Sammy Hagar sings driving songs and maybe sang at the show, George Barris (auto customizer) maybe had a car at the show, Chip Foose maybe filmed an episode of his car TV series at the show, and Brock Yates maybe wrote an article about the show. (I'm just guessing though as none of those articles even mention this organization.) Others articles do mention the SEMA organization though: Boyd Coddington was in their hall of fame, Vic Edelbrock Jr. was the President while Dean Moon is the one and only person described as a "member". - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. Even a presidency is only briefly mentioned in the bottom of the article text. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2021 (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 17:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, I expected to find bridges that only contain a bike lane (and a pedestrian lane) in the subcategory, but that only applies to the Moreelsebrug. The remaining content, with car bridges also containing a bike lane, is not discriminating; this way the category may ultimately contain the far majority of Dutch bridges. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not defining. Not even fixed. In the UK at present bike lanes come and go, as most of the bike lanes are only painted on. Rathfelder (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Stongly oppose any reckless deletion proposals. Bridges with bike paths are the only ones that allow secure feelings for cycling users. Their number is still far from sufficient in most cities and towns. Only very few cities like Copenhagen, Münster or Melbourne are cyclist friendly cities and have a high life quality. These categories help our users/readers to perceive where the local authorities have been doing a good job and where the citizens are far from feeling secure crossing bridges by bicycle. Much less cars in the cities are a better future! --Just N. (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both Seems to be a minor attribute, rather than a specific type of bridge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2021 (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.
.jpg)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 17#Category:Apache Software Foundation members