Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Place Clichy (talk | contribs) at 20:50, 22 January 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< January 11 January 13 >

January 12

Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic)

  • Oppose. They are nested for good reason, which the nominator (@Iveagh Gardens) has evidently not examined.
Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) has two subcats: Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic) and Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic), plus 4 head articles.
The RoI and NI constituencies have a different historical status, and different parent categories.
The nominator's proposal as listed would have the effect of removing all the historic constituencies in the 26 counties from the Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic), which would be a patently absurd outcome.
That could in theory be resolved by a dual merger to Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) and Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) ... but the result would be to dump an undifferentiated group into Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) and to increase the category clutter on each article.
That would both impede navigation by readers, and increase the maintenance burden on editors.
The reality is that the island of Ireland has a complex Parliamentary history. In the last 500 years here have been at least 4 parliaments on the Island of Ireland (up to I think 8, depending on what you include), plus at least two Parliaments outside the island of Ireland in which Ireland was represented. There have been at least five different de facto states, with several more which could be included in the tally.
The current category structure is a little complex, but only insofar as is needed to provide clear navigation through the complex reality of Irish history. Ripping out chunks of that structure at random makes it harder to both navigate the categories and to maintain them.
Many people wish that the history of Ireland was a lot less complicated, but our wishes cannot rewrite the actual reality of that history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your response, @BrownHairedGirl. I am well aware of the historical basis and reasons for the the nesting. I just happen to disagree with it, and believe a note on the category page a sufficient approach. I would have all constituencies used for Dáil elections from 1918 to the present in Category:Dáil constituencies (historic), except for those for Northern Ireland constituencies in 1918 and 1921, and delete the separate Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic). Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic) would remain as a subcategory of Category:Dáil constituencies (historic). Because the geographical area of the constituencies used in what is now called the Republic of Ireland continued to be the basis for Dáil constituencies, to my mind, they naturally fall within Category:Dáil constituencies (historic), where Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic), because while they were claimed by the First and Second Dáil, they didn't survive there as Dáil areas.
I do understand the logic of your case, and indeed did so before reading your response. There's no one right way editorial stance that will stand for all time, but I'm content to let it stand if no one else contributes here. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Iveagh Gardens, there is a lot I coud reply to there, but I will just take one point for now.
Why on earth do you want to delete Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic)?
That provides a single container for all the historic parliamentary constituencies within the territory of a sovereign state. That is a significant grouping of the political history of Ireland across four parliaments. How would the deletion of that grouping assist navigation, or assist readers to understand the political history of the state?
I agree that there are different ways of viewing things, but I really do wonder what you are trying to achieve here. It seems to me that the only effects of your propose changes are to make navigation harder and to obscure the history. Why do you want to do this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your response, @BrownHairedGirl. The pages currently in Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) would be in Category:Dáil constituencies (historic). That would then contain all the historic parliamentary constituencies within the territory of the sovereign state of Ireland. However, I would have Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic) as a subcategory of this page.
I understand the complex constitutional nature of the beginnings of the Irish state, and it is certainly not my intention to obscure this.
This is where I'm coming from. We have Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Ireland (historic), which includes among its subcategories Category:Dáil constituencies (historic), Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) and Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic). Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) in turn has both Category:Dáil constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) and Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic) as sub-categories. I don't see what part of the constitutional history is obscured by having all the pages currently in Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) in Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) directly, while maintaining Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic) as a subcategory. These pages already have notes explaining that they include pages used for the First and Second Dáil. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Iveagh Gardens: I see what you are trying to do; I just don't see why. I still don't see any gain whatsoever from this proposal. I do see a loss of clarity from losing the clear separation between the two states.
And you have not explained why you want to delete Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic). How on earth does that help readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Essentially, I got lost navigating the subcategories myself. Not so lost as I wasn't able to find my way within a click or two, but enough to consider whether there is a simpler way of organising the categories.
I don't believe my propose does elide the distinction between the two states. The Northern Ireland Ireland constituencies would remain within their own category, which would be, as it is now, a subcategory of Category:Dáil constituencies (historic). I don't see how my suggested reorganisation would lead anyone to mistakenly think that there are not two separate states at present, or from 1922 onwards. The NI constituencies are a separate special type of Historic Dáil Constituency, whereas the standard for the bulk of those is that there are within the current Irish state. I think the common name format of Dáil constituency is a better-titled category for something like Dublin South-East.
Anyway, if it's just the two of us in this discussion, there's probably not any benefit it going back and forth again on this. Unless there are any contributions from others within the week of my suggestion, I happy to accept that we have different approaches as to what would convey the historical and constitutional situation in the clearest way and let this stand as the status quo. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd. I presume that you have some reason for wanting to delete Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic), or to remove Dail constituencies from it ... but you still haven't explained what that reason is.
I undestand that there may be difft approaches, but it's no clearer what yours actually is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if amidst all the explanation of the mechanics of the move, I didn't adequately explain my reasoning for the proposal.
We have a category titled Category:Dáil constituencies (historic). That is a natural place for the predecessor constituencies to the current constituencies in the Dáil, so a neat counterpart category to Category:Dáil constituencies. That would be the natural division, a constituency is either current or historic. However, there are of course a set of constituencies which were constituencies in the First and Second Dáil which were not predecessor constituencies to those of the current Dáil. So it makes sense to categorise them separately, in Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic). But that fact alone shouldn't be enough that a constituency like Dublin South-East also needs to be in a subcategory of those in the Republic of Ireland, rather than simply using the category of Category:Dáil constituencies (historic). The vast majority of constituencies in question fall into the Republic of Ireland category, and to put all of these into that category, rather than simply the Category:Dáil constituencies (historic) category almost privileges the Northern Ireland Dáil constituencies, which were used in only two elections and were not predecessor constituencies to any later Dáil constituency.
That is my reason for my proposal, which whatever your instinctual response, was in fact carefully examined.
The one argument I see against me is that Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland (historic) currently has two subcategories, Category:Dáil constituencies in County Dublin (historic) and Category:University constituencies in the Republic of Ireland, which my proposal would then seem to present as equal subcategories with Category:Dáil constituencies in Northern Ireland (historic). That I concede could cause confusion. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli revolutionaries

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry - Menachem Begin. I'm not sure he'd be counted as a revolutionary, but even if he was, he and his associates were not Israelis when they were fighting, because it didnt exist then. Rathfelder (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following a dispute over the scope of the category a discussion took place at WP:WPE&R where most editors felt it was too ambiguous and confusing and open to interpretation. Obi2canibe (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also found the category useful but since everyone else disagreed I considered it better to delete. You are welcome to try to come up with a replacement that isn't ambiguous.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These categories would imply that the popular vote winner is clear without a doubt for these elections, however this can, in fact, never be the case as it is open to many interpretations (e.g. plurality vs. majority). The only way to break this ambiguity would be for an official election authority to declare who the popular vote winner is, but that cannot be the case in most circumstances, precisely because they are in the business or declaring the actual winner. Also, the word not in a category title is usually a clue for problems coming, a bit like the word and. Place Clichy (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges by city in Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are only 1 or 2 articles about bridges in these cities and just a few dozen of articles about bridges in Ukraine as a whole. Note that Kiev has not been included in this nomination, most articles about bridges in Ukraine are obviously about bridges in Kiev. The bridges do not have to be merged to Category:Bridges in Ukraine because they are already in a subcategory of Category:Bridges in Ukraine by traffic. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the nom doesn't explain why the articles should be removed from Category:Transport infrastructure in Dnipro etc. DexDor (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to all categories which are currently small. It is for cats which "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
I don't see any of these categories fitting that definition.
The nom's statement that most articles about bridges in Ukraine are obviously about bridges in Kiev is bizarre. It is highly unlikely that in a country the size of Ukraine, the majority of notable bridges would be in one city. If that is the current state of en.wp articles, it indicates that that our coverage is woefully underdeveloped.
Also, strongly WP:TROUT @Marcocapelle for opening this discussion while his earlier group nomination is still open and contested. The same principles apply here, and it is disruptive to have the same issues debated simultaneously in multiple locations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very likely that there is also a coverage issue here. One may expect that the more distant a country is to Anglophone culture (e.g. Ukraine), but also the more rural a region within a country (e.g. regions of Ukraine apart from Kiev), the fewer editors will contribute to en.wp (or even to uk.wp since Wikipedia as a whole, regardless of language, is part of Anglophone culture). But the question is how likely it is that this coverage issue will be resolved. And the next question is, should we keep pretending that the issue will somehow be magically resolved? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DexDor: I mean there may well be many more bridges in the countryside of Ukraine that theoretically could qualify as notable but for which articles aren't created because few editors have an interest in smaller place in Ukraine. The Ukrainian population is about 2/3 of the UK but it's coverage is of course way lower, not just for bridges but for any topic. The consequence is that is far less likely that we will get decently populated in Ukraine than in the UK. The problem is that editors keep creating tiny categories as if it realistic that the coverage may be at par some day. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not seeing any skewed coverage (as in phrases like "The media's coverage of the election was skewed"). If the article/category ratio is a bit different in Ukraine from in UK that really isn't a problem. DexDor (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reasonably good likelihood that someone will do that, because no research is required. Deleting the en.wp Category:Bridges in Kharkiv reduces the likelihood of that being done, because it removes any direct link to the Ukrainian-language category.
This is yet another example of the lack of WP:BEFORE done by the nominator, who has flooded CFD with many similar nominations open at the same time, and in each case has left it to others to do the research which is the nominator's responsibility. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree with Laurel Lodged - enwp may never have so many articles about (for example) bridges in Ukraine that these categories are necessary (i.e. perhaps they've been created unnecessarily/prematurely), but as they do now exist there is little/nothing to be gained by deleting such categories - especially when the "cost" of the CFD is considered (editors time in nomination/discussion, watchlist noise on articles, risk of getting something wrong etc). DexDor (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting comment because meanwhile I have seen many small "people from" and "mayors of" categories been upmerged without any discussion about the cost of CFD (in fact, nearly without any opposition). What difference is there between bridges and people? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: For me, the difference is that in these cases we have the data to see that expansion is readily possible. That's a big difference from the flurry of Category:People from some tiny and declining town in Wyoming which William is so good at tackling.
And I agree with @Dexdor that it wasn't a good idea to create these categories just yet. But now that they are here, and since a degree of easy expansion is evidently posisble, why delete? Better to be eventualist about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings and structures by city

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. The above categories currently contain only 1 article. It is not quite likely that the categorize size will become 5 or 10 times bigger any time soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recreational sublabial drugs

Nominator's rationale: Various similar categories have been deleted in the past on the grounds that "recreational" is hard to define, and we generally don't classify drugs by how they are taken. Le Deluge (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I made this specifically because I couldn't find the information in any logical way. I was researching and trying to find exactly this across multiple cultures: "What things across time/place cultures did people 'chew'?" The argument falls flat that "we generally don't" when users come looking for a useful organization and we've deleted the information they want. Both recreational and sub-labial are easy to define by the same inclusion criteria the rest of the project uses: by citable sources. If the article text can cite that a drug is used recreationally, and article text can cite methods of use, then it seems very obvious that users should be able to organize and navigate by those criteria. A secondary argument that these criteria are trivial, but since the classifications and methods of use are essential as defined by NGOs, medically and legally. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Architecture by country

Propose renaming:

Extended content

Propose splitting: Per the below discussion, I'm amending the proposal to drop the split part. The suggestion is now to rename the following as with the above.

Extended content

Nominator's rationale: The Fooian architecture format can be confusing, as it may imply a cultural or traditional connection rather than a primarily geographical one. Architecture of Foo would be much clearer, in addition to helping avoid unfamiliar demonyms. It would also agree with the majority of by-country articles, which currently use the format Architecture of Foo, reflecting their scope covering all architecture within a country, not just the architecture "belonging" to that country's people.

I have made this a split nomination for some of the categories, where it may be desirable to distinguish between treatment by geographical location (Architecture of Foo) and the country's architectural tradition (Fooian architecture). These are mostly cases where historical traditions overlap with current country boundaries (e.g. Serbian architecture, which contains the subcat Category:Serbian architecture outside Serbia), or where styles have spread overseas, warranting separate categorisation (e.g. the Spanish Portuguese categories due to their colonial influence). I hope this addresses the objections previously raised at the March 2010 CfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS See also relevant previous discussions for Category:Architecture in Turkey and Category:British architecture. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not !voting yet because I'm not sure, but I generally support moving Fooian architecture to Architecture of Foo to include architecture styles in the country of Foo. I'm not sure, though, that I support splitting or creating categories of Fooian architecture to include architecture styles from the country of Foo.
Example 1: Creole cottage is a creole architecture style in the United States, that stems from French and Spanish architecture. Creole cottage belongs in Category:Architecture of the United States. But does it belong in French architecture, Spanish architecture, both, or United States architecture (because that's where the style is from)?
Example 2: Neoclassical architecture in Category:Greek architecture, Category:Ancient Greek architecture, or Category:Roman architecture?
Example 3: Georgian architecture is named for British monarchs George I–IV, based on the neoclassical style (both Greek and Roman), popular in the 18th century across the British Empire (which means in many different countries today). In the 19th century in the US, this style gained popularity and was called Colonial revival. In the early 20th century, it came back to Britain and was called Neo-Georgian style (Great Britain). So, are these categorized as British architectural styles, American, Greek or Roman? And besides all of that, you'd have a "Georgian (country) architecture" category meaning architecture from the country Georgia, which would have nothing to do with the Georgian style.
Example 4: California Bungalow, which originated from British officers who built Bungalows inspired by houses they saw in Bengal, which includes India and Bangladesh. It then became popular in the United States in California, which created its own style (California Bungalow), and that style then became popular in Australia, which calls (I believe) all bungalows "California bungalows," even though a "California bungalow" in Australia looks different than a bungalow in California, and there are uniquely-Australian styles of California Bungalows. So is "California Bungalow" an Indian, Bangladeshi, British, American or Australian style?
I'm not sure that you can categorize many architectural styles as "belonging" or "coming from" one nation or another. There is so much borrowing, the borders of nations have changed over time, and I imagine there would be many arguments over whether something is French or Spanish, Greek or Roman, etc. etc. I'm familiar with the western styles, but I also imagine you'd have similar problems with Chinese architecture, Ottoman architecture, and elsewhere. So for now, I agree with "Architecture of Foo," but I'm not sure it's a good idea to have anything called "Fooian architecture", as opposed to just handling the individual architectural styles individually, without trying to categorize them by the nation from whence them originated. Alternatively, it's possible that this problem I raise only applies to certain styles but not others; I'm aware that the overlap issue may be more pronounced in western styles than elsewhere; and maybe this can be solved simply by including styles in more than one Architecture of Foo category. Looking forward to reading others' comments. Levivich (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I don't think all architectural styles do or should fall under a country parent—just a few would, though you do raise valid points regarding the difficulty we'd having drawing the line. Of your four examples, the latter three probably don't need to be categorised under a country-of-origin parent, and aren't affected by the split nomination. The Creole architecture article, however, is currently already under Category:French architecture via Category:French Colonial architecture and Category:French architecture outside France, so we'll have to deal with it some way. If we dropped the split suggestion and simply renamed the category, Category:French Colonial architecture would fall under Category:Architecture of France. Would that be acceptable? (I'm considering this—see below.) Or should Colonial architecture be treated as a style in and of itself, and removed from the country tree?--Paul_012 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the intention is great, the splitting part of the proposal has some drawbacks from the perspective of a person not-knowledgeable in architecture. As an amateur, had I not come across this discussion, I would not have been aware of it, and some content could be categorized such that I may never be aware of it. So, while the distinction in terms are precise and would make perfect sense to someone knowledgeable in the field, I'm not sure that this would improve the usage of WP in this area of content. A really paranoid android (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I previously mentioned at the Architecture WikiProject talk page that the specific example that prompted my concern was how to categorise Category:Chinese architecture in Thailand. Having Category:Chinese architecture and Category:Architecture of Thailand would solve the problem. I'm reconsidering, though, whether the distinction is necessary. Perhaps we could treat Category:Architecture of China as covering both architecture geographically located in China and of a style originating in China. (The distinction would be needed if the proposal was to split between Chinese architecture and Architecture in China, but the proposal here uses the preposition of, which could mean both.) This would best reflect how the categories are currently used, and help avoid the need to manually clean-up the whole tree. It's not "clean" in terms of categorisation, though, and doesn't address the opposition from the previous discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving Fooian Architecture to Architecture of Foo. @Paul 012: Yes, I agree completely with the hybrid meaning of "of" in "Architecture of Foo", which is what you've proposed all along, and also what was proposed in 2010. And, indeed, these very points we're discussing were discussed then as well. Re-reading that thread just now, I really don't see any serious opposition to what you are proposing. The oppose !votes in the 2010 thread seem to oppose "Architecture in Foo" (they use the word "in" in their oppose !vote comments), not Architecture of Foo. Because "of" can mean "in" or "from", it's the right choice of word. And, it follows the formats of the article titles. Frankly I disagree with that 2010 close as being no consensus. Is it too late to delrev? :-D On the basis of this, I support the proposal. Levivich (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgian opera singers

Category:Portuguese-language Brazilian telenovelas

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category; all Brazilian telenovelas are in Portuguese. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would still remove them from Category:Portuguese-language telenovelas. DexDor (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geologists from Germany

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misnamed duplicate of Category:German geologists. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_12&oldid=879696184"