Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 12

< July 11	July 13 >

July 12

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Academic journals published by learned societies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Relisted at 2015 AUG 28 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Academic journals published by learned societies to Category:Academic journals published by learned and professional societies

Nominator's rationale: Counter-examples for current category naming: The Accounting Review is published the American Accounting Association, which is tagged as Category:Professional association stubs, not in Category:Learned societies. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article on the American Accounting Association states that it "promotes worldwide excellence in accounting education, research and practice". Sounds like a "learned society" to me. Perhaps it should just be re-categorized (or, rather, be categorized more specifically, given that Category:Learned societies is a subcat of Category:Professional associations). --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background: I was motivated by the name of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2002 disestablishments in Washingon, D.C.

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: administrative close, category has been speedily deleted per WP:G7. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:2002 disestablishments in Washingon, D.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. It's spelled Washington. See Category:2002 disestablishments in Washington, D.C. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. This should have been on the list for speedy deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment prior to 1871 not all of the District of Columbia was within the boundaries of the city of Washington, so I think we should rename say Category:1861 establishments in Washington, D.C. to Category:1871 establishments in the District of Columbia. However I do not feel up to doing that big a nomination at the moment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1865 establishments in Vatican City

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 per nomination, and merge 1860s category likewise to Category:1860s establishments in the Papal States. – Fayenatic London 19:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1865 establishments in Vatican City to Category:1865 establishments in the Papal States

Nominator's rationale: Vatican City did not exist until 1929. In 1865, it was considered the Papal States which includes more than the singular location that is now the Vatican City. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: It should probably be mentioned that there are more categories like that:

Category:1874 establishments in Vatican City

Category:1908 establishments in Vatican City

Category:1860s establishments in Vatican City

Category:1870s establishments in Vatican City

Category:1900s establishments in Vatican City

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Note that the categories mentioned by User:The Quixotic Potato should be neither in Papal States nor in Vatican City, but instead in Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, this was the Papal State at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on original nom also 1860s. The pope lost his sovereign state in 1870 and had not territory until the concordat of 1929. The question is what to do with the 1870-1929 categories. My suggestion is that we should make them Category:1874 establishments by the Holy See, etc. The two I checked looked like periodicals, presumably produced for the papacy, but perhaps circulating throughout the Catholic Church. IN the period of nearly 60 years we seem to have just two articles. Perhaps they could all be merged into Category:Establishments by the Holy See, 1870-1929]]. This would be parented as an abberrant case of establsihments by country. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per above.GreyShark (dibra) 09:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1063 establishments in the County of Flanders

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:1063 establishments in the Holy Roman Empire. – Fayenatic London 14:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:1063 establishments in the County of Flanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is the only establishments category for the county of Flanders. There's only only article (Ename Abbey) ~~is already within the Belgium category (where it currently is) and France (where it was at the time).~~ Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to be renamed to Category:1063 establishments in the Holy Roman Empire, since Ename is east of the Scheldt river, the borderline of the Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per Marcocapelle. Clearly do not delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the last suggestion -- The parent Category:Establishments in the County of Flanders by year also needs to be eliminated (probably plain deletion). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this will become an empty category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:1063 establishments in the Holy Roman Empire Per Marcocapelle.GreyShark (dibra) 09:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1824 establishments in British Burma

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. – Fayenatic London 20:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1824 establishments in British Burma to Category:1824 establishments in Burma
Propose renaming Category:1861 establishments in British Burma to Category:1861 establishments in Burma
Propose renaming Category:1877 establishments in British Burma to Category:1877 establishments in Burma

Nominator's rationale:British Burma redirects to British rule in Burma, i.e. the name of the country was Burma, not British Burma. Tim! (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The categories themselves should be part of establishments in the British Empire categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong oppose The article in question British rule in Burma explains that from 1824-1885 British rule only covered part of Burma. There was British Burma and non-British Burma. These were distinct areas. The British did not rule all of Burma until 1885. Thus we need to distinguish the British zone, which is part of the British Empire, and the non-British zone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is the support categories ie. the parent categories such as Category:1824 in Burma exist, but the parents for the British Burma don't exist Category:1824 in British Burma after your move [1]. You very strongly oppose but then don't undertake the additional work; you need to look at the thousands of red links at Wikipedia:Database reports/Categories categorized in red-linked categories, a great many of which are red linked years caused by creation of establishment categories without the creation of the parents. Tim! (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That response in no way addresses the fact that this renaming would create false information and incorrectly place articles in ways that do not reflect the historical reality at the time in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Burma was all British. There was no Japanese Burma (for example) to mean that an adjective was needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not true for 1861. In 1861 a portion of Burma remained indepdent with no rule by the British.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Whether Burma was wholly or partially occupied by the British isn't even relevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it possibly not relevant? There are two distinct polities that need distrinct categorization, Burma and British Burma. They are not the same and should not be treated as the same in categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Denmark was occupied by the Germans from 1940 to 1945. Should we categorize establishments in Denmark during these years to "German Denmark" categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are still ignoring that there were two distinct Burmas. One was a British possession, the other was an independent country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just hypothetically, if only half of Denmark would have been occupied by the Germans, would it have made a difference for categorization? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - we need to avoid anachronism, and Burma implies that this area was a independent state, rather than a British colony, with a completely different status.GreyShark (dibra) 09:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We also have category:1920s in Mandatory Syria, which is not necessarily exactly the same naming as article French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon.GreyShark (dibra) 09:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree at all that Burma implies that it was an independent state. Even while it was occupied (wholly or partially) it was named Burma anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However there are two distrinct areas of Burma in say 1861, one is British Burma and the other is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Imho you are mixing up two different concepts, namely "country" and "government". We are categorizing the establishments tree by country, not by government. While a country has one government in a normal situation, that may become a lot fuzzier in situations of war or civil war, like here in Burma. (Note that I deliberately write "in Burma", not "in the two Burmas".) Another example of the fact that we categorize by country, not by government: we have Category:1653 establishments in England, not "1653 establishments in the Interregnum (England)". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I like the distinction being drawn by Marcocapelle between country and government. "Burma" is just the common name for a place; its use does not generally imply the status of the government one way or the other. (This is even less of an issue now that the article is at Myanmar as opposed to Burma.) I don't think there's enough content to divide stuff between two category schemes—one for things that happened in areas of Burma controlled by the British and the other for things that happened in areas of Burma not controlled by the British. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.