Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 7: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:23, 7 July 2024

< July 6

July 8 >

July 7

NEW NOMINATIONS

Mosques by decade 620s-970s

Propose merging Category:Mosques completed in the 620s‎ (4 P) to Category:Religious buildings and structures completed in the 620s and Category:7th-century mosques
Propose merging Category:Mosques completed in the 630s‎ (1 P) to Category:Religious buildings and structures completed in the 630s and Category:7th-century mosques
Propose merging Category:Mosques completed in the 640s‎ (1 P) to Category:Religious buildings and structures completed in the 640s and Category:7th-century mosques
Propose merging Category:Mosques completed in the 670s‎ (1 P) to Category:Religious buildings and structures completed in the 670s and Category:7th-century mosques
Propose merging Category:Mosques completed in the 690s‎ (2 P) to Category:Religious buildings and structures completed in the 690s and Category:7th-century mosques
Propose merging Category:Mosques completed in the 700s‎ (1 P) to Category:Religious buildings and structures completed in the 700s and Category:8th-century mosques
Propose merging Category:Mosques completed in the 720s‎ (2 P) to Category:Religious buildings and structures completed in the 720s and Category:8th-century mosques
Propose merging Category:Mosques completed in the 730s‎ (1 P) to Category:Religious buildings and structures completed in the 730s and Category:8th-century mosques
Propose merging Category:Mosques completed in the 970s‎ (2 P) to Category:Religious buildings and structures completed in the 970s and Category:10th-century mosques

Nominator's rationale: merge, sparsely populated category tree, many decade categories do not exist at all, not the least because exact dates are often unknown. It will become a lot easier to navigate between mosques articles when they are moved to century level. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Colonialism participants

Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Colonialism participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonialism was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the project should not have been unilaterally redirected. It was tagged inactive, which is good enough, it can be linked to WikiProjects History/Geography etc in a hatnote. If we really want to emphasise it's status, it can be marked as defunct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- I have undone the redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as its companion template at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonial Empires/Userbox/CEBASICBOX. @Rich Farmbrough: This was not a unilateral redirect. It was discussed and agreed beforehand at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Merge_inactive_history_WikiProjects. I'm sorry for the confusion caused by not leaving a proper edit summary – I was redirecting a lot of pages and simply missed this one (the most important!) – Joe (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Dacia participants

Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Dacia participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I wonder if the wikiproject might better be redirected to WikiProject Romania instead of WikiProject History. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Counts of Geneva

Propose deleting Category:Counts of Geneva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, the category consists of two very different sets of medieval ruling counts of Geneva, who are already in Category:House of Geneva and for early modern members of the House of Savoy for whom this was merely an empty title. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't believe the above summary to be quite right. Several members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county and they are not going to be recorded in 'house of Geneva'. There is also the house of Thoire that controlled the county briefly in the late medieval period who presently lack articles but would be members of the category if they didn't. Moreover even after the city of Geneva slipped from their grasp (they maintained control of other parts of the county such as Annecy) the county remained prominent among their titulary (several of the sons of the dukes of Nemours were called the prince de Genevois until the death of their fathers) and is featured in the leading sentences of many of the articles. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree some form of re-allocation needs to happen from Jacques on down. Especially given the county was raised to a duchy by the duke of Savoy in 1564. Perhaps they should be migrated to a category called something like 'Prince de Genevois' or 'Prince of the Genevois'. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county because it was part of the Savoyard state and the rulers of the latter were the ones enjoying practical control. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pioneers of Israel

Propose deleting Category:Pioneers of Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This seems like it could plausibly renamed, refocused, or deleted. Obviously it's a coherent group, but is it an encyclopedic one as it stands? Remsense诉 03:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Encyclopedia of the Founders and Builders of Israel by David Tidhar. This category is a gold mine of information. It will help numerous people interested in studying the development of the state of Israel. These are the pioneers. Dag21902190 (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the issue is that "pioneer" is generally a term of adulation. I think at a bare minimum, the name of the category needs to be changed in order to conform with our policy concerning neutral point of view. Remsense诉 03:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dag21902190 Another issue is you seem to be treating this category page like it's an article, which is not correct. Remsense诉 04:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are meant to have a summary explaining what is in the category. Dag21902190 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a one-sentence summary usually. Remsense诉 04:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer has a definition, and just like the pioneers of America, these are the pioneers of Israel. It is not a term of adulation. It is a fact. Dag21902190 (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cleanly define it in one sentence for me? Categories are meant to be fairly self-evident: if you need to write an article to fully flesh out your definition, it might not be a good category. It seems like you want to write a list article, which would need to stand up to our policies about verifiability, notability and neutral point of view. Your present prose does not, it is very much adulatory.Remsense 诉 04:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Pioneers” are people who are among the first to explore or settle what becomes a new country or area. For example, a colonist/colonizer. Just because you interpret the term as adulation, doesn’t make it adulation. Best regards. I deleted the additional summary because of what you said. Dag21902190 (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you interpret the term as adulation, doesn’t make it adulation

Unfortunately that tends to be how language works, as we're talking about the connotations of language.

I don't quite understand your definition in any case, as none of the people in the category were among the first to explore or settle what is now Israel. Remsense诉 09:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what a colonizer is? What do we call the first Europeans to settle and develop America? Were they the first people to explore or settle America? Obviously they weren’t. You cannot take a long-used term, and pretend it can’t be applied to the very thing it defines. I hate to break it to you, but you sound like an anti-Israel shill. I understand if English isn’t your first language, but just because you interpret the word “pioneer” as adulation, doesn’t mean it should be changed. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Pioneers” are people who are among the first to explore or settle what becomes a new country or area.

None of the people in the category were among the first to explore or settle what is now Israel. Your definition doesn't work, is my point.

just because you interpret the word “pioneer” as adulation, doesn’t mean it should be changed.

Correct: it should be changed because it's not just me. As a verb, pioneer absolutely has distinctly positive connotations; some related, more neutral verbs are colonize, settle, construct, and establish. The interplanetary space probe was named Pioneer 6 and not Colonizer 6 or Establisher 6 for a reason, I'm afraid. Remsense诉 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very clear that you don’t want the word pioneer being used because you don’t view the early settlers in a positive light. I will maintain, despite your attempt to bring in the naming of a satellite, that pioneer is the correct word to be used. American pioneers weren’t the first to settle America, yet they are defined as pioneers. All you have to do is search up the definition of pioneer on Google, and the first two examples of synonyms are “colonist” and “colonizer”. Your interpretation of the English language does not, and should not, mean you can redefine a word, because you view it as adulation. Dag21902190 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American pioneers weren’t the first to settle America, yet they are defined as pioneers

There's been plenty of ink spilled about how "pioneer" is also wrong in an American context for exactly the same reason. Academic use sharply declined as a result.

I also shouldn't have to ask you not to accuse me of behaving in bad faith without a lick of evidence, as I've given you no reason to assume my motives are anything but what I've already said they are: Wikipedia has content policies. Remsense诉 20:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, redundant as we already have Category:Jews from Ottoman Palestine and Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the pioneers aren’t in those categories. There is much missing, and this is a separate category for a reason. Dag21902190 (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the first 8 articles and they are all in these categories. If they are not, just add them. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Why are you misleading people? That is just not true. What’s the real reason for you to want to delete my work? This is the only comprehensive list of its kind. To want to delete this is a spit in the face, and really nonsensical. It has taken hours of work, and is a treasure trove of pioneers. Dag21902190 (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You're not entitled to host your work on Wikipedia because you put a lot of work into it, unfortunately. We have content policies. Remsense诉 16:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is extremely disingenuous, and anyone who reads this will see it the same way. Denying the benefits of a category like this is just blatant anti-Israel bias. Dag21902190 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Dag21902190: you are misleading people by claiming that I am misleading people. See list below. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Now do me a favor and look at the other 200 people on the list. It is not exclusive to Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine. To say so would be misleading. Care to explain why you are attacking this category so hard? Dag21902190 (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Case in point would be that 7 of the following 8 people on the list (which you purposely didn’t bring up; choosing to stop at the first 8) are not in the category “Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine” because it doesn’t apply to them. Although they are still pioneers. What’a so hard to understand about that? This is a unique category, different any of the existing categories. Dag21902190 (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Plain nonsense, I have added the next articles too, see below. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You just combined three or four separate categories. How does that assist your argument? Dag21902190 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can the scope be simply defined first, before we consider if the category should be retitled, merged, or deleted? I think an issue with the term "pioneer" here is that it can be unclear and may be applied to many individuals that aren't intended. Kingsif (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And more specifically, can we establish which Jews from Ottoman Palestine and Mandatory Palestine should not be regarded as pioneers? I don't think we can establish that, but let's see what the discussion brings us. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I would figure that anyone who settled the land between the first Aliyah and the fifth Aliyah should be considered pioneers. However, I think they have to had stayed in the region, developing the budding country. What do you think? Dag21902190 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So it is going to duplicate Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine and Category:Immigrants to Mandatory Palestine. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up nomination see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_30#Category:Members_of_the_Fourth_Aliyah. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Everyone here needs to take a deep breath. This is Wikipedia. Accusing people of anti-XYZ bias or destroying hard work is unproductive and does nothing to strengthen your point. With that out of the way, there is clear consensus that this category needs to change. Whether that change is in the form of deletion or not is to be determined (hence relisting), but if it is kept we need a defined scoped and potentially a better name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think in theory this is a valuable category, and I applaud @Dag21902190's work. Clearly there exists a distinction between pioneers/settlers and immigrants. Pioneers refers to the very early years of Israel's development, though there must be discussion to the exact line to be drawn. As for the name 'Pioneers': it is clear that this category is referring to the pioneers of the modern state of Israel, not the land of Israel, though perhaps that should be clarified in the summary. I believe the word pioneer is inappropriate because pioneer is commonly used in reference to the first people to develop a land agriculturally and in a civilization oriented manner (e.g. in contrast to the Native Americans). The land of Israel had been civilized and farmed for quite literally thousands of years. On the flip side, colonizers is usually thought of to have a negative connotation, and a simple category is not the place for asserting Israeli settlers' moral standing. I believe settlers would be a fair and neutral word to use. I also believe the word colonizers should be struck from the summary. JoeJShmo^💌 09:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call them pioneers or call them settlers, it remains unclear who else than Jews from Ottoman Palestine and Jews from Mandatory Palestine would fit here. It remains a matter of strong overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs

Propose merging Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Almohad caliphs, Category:12th-century caliphs, and Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa
Propose merging Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Almohad caliphs, Category:13th-century caliphs, and Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa

Nominator's rationale: Recommended by Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_11#Category:Government_of_the_Almohad_Caliphate:

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs‎ (4 P) and Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs‎ (10 P) are probably best upmerged to Category:Almohad caliphs, and to Category:12th-century caliphs + Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa & Category:13th-century caliphs + Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa, respectively. A subdivision by century for a dynasty that lasted just under one century and a half tends not to aid navigation very much. But I suggest that for a follow-up.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triple merge per my reasoning above. Thanks LP! NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, the merge will result in 10 articles directly in Category:13th-century caliphs while they have something more specific in common. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triple merge. The important thing is that the Almohad caliph category includes these 14 entries and no others, and dividing that category further by 2 centuries doesn't seem necessary. JoeJShmo^💌 10:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Green Party of England and Wales donors

Propose deleting Category:Green Party of England and Wales donors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Donating to a political party is rarely if ever defining. There is only one article in the category. (t · c) buidhe 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JoeJShmo^💌 10:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th century in Mozambique

Propose merging Category:18th century in Mozambique to Category:18th century in Portuguese Mozambique

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, redundant category layer, there isn't any content here that doesn't fall under Portuguese Mozambique. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it, but can we leave this as a redirect to resolve the template from breaking? Mason (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and reverse merge instead. What a mess Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique is currently – half of the year subcats up to 1975 use "Portuguese" in the name, half don't. I prefer the solution at e.g. Category:20th century in Angola where everything is simply named "in Angola", but all years/decades/centuries up to 1975 are parented by Portuguese Empire. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised to see that Marcocapelle removed some content from Category:Portuguese Angola in 2021, e.g. Category:19th century in Angola, on the grounds that "category may also contain indigenous history".[1] IMHO that edit and any like it should be undone. But at least he still left that cat within Category:19th century in the Portuguese Empire. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Fayenatic london: Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique started off as just some coastal settlements and only late in the 19th century they expanded to what is currently Angola and Mozambique. The most extreme example is Mbunda Kingdom which was conquered by the Portuguese no earlier than 1917. It is comparable to Category:19th century in India which we should not want to be a subcategory of Category:British India. I think India is in principle a good example of how things should be done, except Angola and Mozambique only have a fraction of the number of articles of India. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I think I understand how you distinguish between those parents now. But I am not persuaded by the India hierarchy as a model rather than Angola. India also has sub-hierarchies for French, Dutch and Portuguese India. There is no such ambiguity between colonial powers for Mozambique.
    - I saw that you put Category:1924 in Mozambique into Portuguese Mozambique parent categories, and nominated it at Speedy. If these two layers are the way to go then presumably we should do likewise for all the Category:Years of the 20th century in Portuguese Mozambique not currently called "Portuguese". I suggest leaving redirects.
    - Ah. I've just found Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_5#Category:20th_century_in_Mozambique and 19th century just below it, which ended with consensus NOT to use "Portuguese". In those discussions you didn't !vote but questioned whether the "Portuguese" disambiguator was needed. Why should we go against that previous consensus and use "Portuguese" now? – Fayenatic London 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Fayenatic london: in my defense, I found the Indian tree only after the above discussion. But more importantly, I have no issue with calling 20th-century categories just "Mozambique" instead of "Portuguese Mozambique" because they geograhically coincide in the 20th century. In addition, I would propose merging all 19th-century (sub)categories and earlier to just Category:History of Portuguese Mozambique, Category:Establishments in Portuguese Mozambique and Category:Disestablishments in Portuguese Mozambique, and to centuries, decades and years in Africa. That is of course, assuming that articles about events in centuries, decades and years refer to Portuguese Mozambique (to be checked). So we would end up with main categories Portuguese Mozambique, 20th century in Mozambique and 21st century in Mozambique (with some overlap between Portuguese and 20th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it would be (barely) justifiable to retain Category:18th century in Mozambique to hold 18th-century Mozambican people (2 P), 18th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Mozambique (1 P) and Old Cathedral of Quelimane. I would likewise keep 19th century in Mozambique.
        
        But the rest of your proposal sounds right, as the other C16–C19 hierarchy contents are Fort São Miguel de Chicova, Fort São Caetano, Igreja Presbiteriana de Moçambique, Diocese of Lebombo, and redirects Captaincy of Sofala, Captaincy of Mozambique and Sofala, Captaincy-General of Mozambique and Rivers of Sofala, Province of Mozambique. The only other potential contents I found are Portuguese expedition to Sofala (1505), Siege of Mozambique (1607), Siege of Mozambique (1608).
        
        Please can we start by undoing your recent parameterising of years in Mozambique into "Portuguese"? [2] – Fayenatic London 09:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        OK, I see that my request and this whole discussion becomes moot because of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_3#16th_to_19th_century_in_(Portuguese)_Mozambique. I suggest that that CFD should be closed before this one. – Fayenatic London 09:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting pending Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 3#16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 * '''Keep''' the project should not have been unilaterally redirected.  It was tagged inactive, which is good enough, it can be linked to WikiProjects History/Geography etc in a hatnote.  If we really want to emphasise it's status, it can be marked as defunct.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 12:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC).</small><br />
 ** I have undone the redirect.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 12:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC).</small><br />
+* '''Keep''' for the same reasons as its companion template at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonial Empires/Userbox/CEBASICBOX]]. {{ping|Rich Farmbrough}} This was not a unilateral redirect. It was discussed and agreed beforehand at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Merge_inactive_history_WikiProjects]]. I'm sorry for the confusion caused by not leaving a proper edit summary – I was redirecting a lot of pages and simply missed this one (the most important!) &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 ==== Category:WikiProject Dacia participants ====