***I'm not so sure about that. From another perspective, the category is useful, not harmful. In any case, subjective feelings of usefulness are [[WP:ITSUSEFUL|not necessarily a good reason to keep]], but neither are subjective feelings of harmfulness necessarily [[WP:HARMFUL|a good reason to delete/merge]]. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 23:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
***I'm not so sure about that. From another perspective, the category is useful, not harmful. In any case, subjective feelings of usefulness are [[WP:ITSUSEFUL|not necessarily a good reason to keep]], but neither are subjective feelings of harmfulness necessarily [[WP:HARMFUL|a good reason to delete/merge]]. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 23:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
**** 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.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 12:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
**** 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.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 12:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
*'''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.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 13:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
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. – FayenaticLondon07:25, 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]
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.
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]
Category:Spouses of Presidents of the Philippines (etc.)
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 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]
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]
Establishments in Ukraine when most of Ukraine was under the Russian Empire
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]
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]
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]
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)
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
1596 establishments in Italy
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 "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]
The Apache Software Foundation was founded by software developer Ken Coar and not coincidentally this category was created by User:Coar, the Wikipedia ID of the same Ken Coar. Whatever the COI origins of this category the bigger problem is that it's not defining: the apache.org homepage says there are 820 members and the articles in this category are known for being computer programmers but not for this association, except for Mr. Coar of course. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 18 June 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]
.jpg)
