Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 30

< November 29	December 1 >

November 30

Category:Video games by country

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

The result of the discussion was: split/rename per nom. – Fayenatic London 22:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Video games by country to itself and Category:Video games by country of developer
Propose renaming Category:Video games by country sorted by company to Category:Video games by country of publisher

Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 15, which separated the categories for country of developer from country of publisher. Restructure, moving all "Video games developed in Foo" sub-cats to new intermediate Category:Video games by country of developer. – Fayenatic London 15:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a clearer rationalisation of the structure, and a much-needed one. I'm still not entirely convinced of the value of the "Fooian company" categories, but agree this change is one for the better. SFB 21:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like a reasonable change. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: So we would have video games by country, by country of developer, and by country of publisher? What is the relation of "by country" to the other two categories? Would it be their supercategory, or would it include games both developed and published in the same country? JIP | Talk 18:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @JIP: I only envisage it as the head category for the other two and perhaps its other current subcat, Category:Region-exclusive video games. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, then I support the proposal. JIP | Talk 20:21, 7 December 2014 (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:Bulgarian Roman Catholic bishops‎

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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 12:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bulgarian Roman Catholic bishops‎ to Category:Bulgarian Catholic bishops‎

Nominator's rationale: Not sure if these are Eastern Catholic or Roman Catholic bishops. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as all the member pages link to a Roman Catholic diocese or similar. – Fayenatic London 17:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you're quite right. I was 'distracted' by the fact that most of these bishops were referred to as "Catholic bishops" without Roman. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw and please quickly close this proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2014 (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:German expatriates in Tanzania‎

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; can be re-created if it is populated with non-colonial people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:German expatriates in Tanzania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the content of this category is fully contained in Category:Colonial people of German East Africa. On top of that, Tanzania did not exist yet for the people in this category, as the country name was German East Africa. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the lack of other content, this merely serves as a confusing anachronism. Readers would expect to find German people in modern Tanzania here, not colonial era people. SFB 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Colonial people of German East Africa, purging of any one not there before 1918. This is an anachronism. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that happens to yield the same result as deleting, in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2014 (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:Colonial people of German East Africa

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. There appears to be two issues here. The first, which might be easier to resolve is the use of 'in' vs. 'of'. That is larger then these two categories and should be a new discussion. The other is inclusion of colonial. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Colonial people of German East Africa to Category:People of German East Africa‎
Propose renaming Category:Colonial people in German South-West Africa‎ to Category:People in German South-West Africa‎ (this second nomination added slightly later, see discussion below, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Nominator's rationale: C2C per the tree of Category:People by former country. The current category name seems to suggest that local people should be excluded from the category, but I don't see a need for such an exclusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: A similar category exists for German South-West Africa - and many of the persons categorised there are not even Europeans or German nationals. "Colonial" in this case would not denote merely foreign settlers or expatriate administrators, but figures associated with the colonial period at large, including Africans who were involved in government. --Katangais (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still, just 'people' without 'colonial' is the most neutral term one can think of for a category like this and, as mentioned before, it fits better with all other People from former countries categories. By the way, thanks for explaining about German South-West Africa, I will include this in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After some deliberation I feel I must disagree with you there. We're not describing a former country, we're describing a specific (read: colonial) era in a present country's history. Neutrality is not the issue. Recall that categories also exist for the "colonial people" of every US state in the Union (ie Pennsylvania colonial people, Delaware colonial people, etc). --Katangais (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, but why "of" and "in" differently? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support consistent use of "of" or "in" while I'm neutral in the choice between them. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support both with "of". Given that the proposed higher level category has no content, I would prefer the grouping to move up the given tree, especially as these are already in the former country tree. This is also a much more respectful categorisation for people like Chief Mkwawa, who opposed the colonies. The Governors category extracts out the most important "colonial people" anyway. No opposition to recreation should the "People of" categories grow to a large size at a later date. SFB 21:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we should rename all of the American categories for colonial people, as well. I see consistency, rather than perceived neutrality, to be the main inhibition to the proposed move. --Katangais (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. I think you're right! And by the way, consistency is also an important argument to me, as I've noticed that "People of" without adjective is the more common category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

————————————————————————————————————————————

As long as we achieve consistency first, I will withdraw my objection to the move. In which case the following categories should also be renamed -

Thanks! --Katangais (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion for Mozambique, Angola and Cameroon. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion for American colonial people. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep as is These categories contain and are meant to contain the colonial masters in each colony. So it obviously just covers a certain period of time when the European colonists were in control and a certain subset people in the colony. These are distinct groups of people (whether you like what they did or not) and should be kept in distinct categories to meet the WP assigned purpose for categories: help for reader navigation to related articles. Hmains (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- The purpose is presumably to categorise settlers separately from indigenous people. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For (former) countries there should be a generally accessible people's category to begin with (as I propose). I have no objection against splitting the category later into colonial people and native people within that (former) country if there is sufficient content for each. But the fact is that such a split currently doesn't exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to change anything and split anything. Nominator can create the new categories at any time and include the current categories as sub-categories of them. Hmains (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that at the moment I have no desire to create any new categories because I'm not sure that the native category would have sufficient content. While at the same time I do think that native people are also entitled to belong 'somewhere'. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2014 (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:Politics of Tanganyika‎

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: reverse merge for Rhodesia, keep others. – Fayenatic London 23:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Politics of Tanganyika‎ to Category:Political history of Tanganyika‎
Propose renaming Category:Politics of Zanzibar‎ to Category:Political history of Zanzibar‎
Propose merging Category:Politics of Rhodesia‎ to Category:Political history of Rhodesia‎ (the latter two nomination added slightly later, see discussion below, Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Nominator's rationale: per the tree of Category:Political history by country. The content of the nominated category is definitely history, since Tanganyika and Zanzibar ceased to exist in 1964, Rhodesia in 1979. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: per the successful precedent set by such cats as Politics of Rhodesia and Politics of Zanzibar. Tanganyika represented a unique polity with its own unique politics, otherwise we'd go ahead and move everything to "Political history of Tanzania" instead. --Katangais (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not after merging or deletion of the category, it's just a nomination to rename. And regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it seems obvious that the category should also be parented to Category:Political history of Tanzania. By the way, thanks for mentioning Rhodesia and Tanzania, I'll include them in the nomination as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Category:Politics of Rhodesia‎ and Category:Political history of Rhodesia‎ both exist, so here it is a merge proposal instead of a rename proposal, and WP:OVERLAPCAT is clearly applicable here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't see that this would do any harm and it would streamline things. I say merge. — Cliftonian (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Merge for Rhodesia, seems sensible.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see the "political history" category as a child of the main "politics", which is useful one for modern states. I don't see how moving all former countries' political articles into the child "political history" tree is beneficial to readers. Few will confuse "Politics of Rhodesia" to indicate that Rhodesia is still extant. SFB 21:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree (instead of the nomination) on a merge of Category:Political history of Rhodesia‎ into Category:Politics of Rhodesia‎ per WP:OVERLAPCAT? That would be a second best option for me. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would support that merge as it matches my rationale. SFB 21:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for Rhodesia (as a former state). This may also be appropriate for Tanganika as the current politics will be those of Tanzania. I am less sure about Zanibar as it could be used for post-amalgamation local politics. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2014 (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.