Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 26

April 26

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people by location

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: keep. – Fayenatic London 13:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people by location
Propose deleting Category:People by voivodeship in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth‎
Propose deleting Category:Ducal Lithuanian people Propose merging Category:Ducal Lithuanian people to Category:People of Grand Duchy of Lithuania
Propose merging Category:People from Bracław Voivodeship to Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people
Propose merging Category:People from Kiev Voivodeship to Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people
Propose merging Category:People from Polotsk Voivodeship to Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people and Category:People of Grand Duchy of Lithuania
Propose merging Category:People from Volhynian Voivodeship to Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people
Propose merging Category:People from Brest Litovsk Voivodeship‎ to Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people and Category:People of Grand Duchy of Lithuania
Propose merging Category:People from Navahrudak Voivodeship to Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people and Category:People of Grand Duchy of Lithuania
Propose merging Category:People from Vilnius Voivodeship to Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people and Category:People of Grand Duchy of Lithuania
Propose merging Category:People from Vitebsk Voivodeship‎ to Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people and Category:People of Grand Duchy of Lithuania
Propose merging Category:People from Czernihow Voivodeship‎ to Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people added 23 March
Propose merging Category:People from Podolia Voivodeship‎‎ to Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people
Propose merging Category:People from Ruthenian Voivodeship‎‎‎ to Category:Ruthenian people of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth added 23 March

Nominator's rationale: delete/merge per WP:NONDEF and WP:SMALLCAT. The voivodeship where these people were born/active is not defining for any of these people. We sometimes categorize people by a non-defining country subdivision if the parent category becomes too big, but that problem does not occur here at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SMALLCAT is just a temporary issue related to those categories not being used often in eligible articles. Regarding NONDEF, as the nom noted itself, it is not used consistently in that tree. Why would those be less defining than other categories in Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision? We could discuss the deletion of that entire tree instead, not cherry-pick random categories from its children. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between subdivisions of current countries versus subdivisions of former countries. In the latter case it nearly requires WP:OR to determine from which subdivision someone was, and besides when it's long time ago the subdivision is in most cases entirely irrelevant for that person. 13:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This could be discussed in case by case basis. For some people, their province origin might be quite important. For example, Ducal Lithuanian category refers to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and I have known some Lithuanian editors who felt rather strongly regarding making it clear that a person was not just "Polish", but a Lithuanian from the Grand Duchy as well as a "Pole" from the PLC, through I note we don't seem to have a corresponding category for people from Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. (Ping User:Renata3 here, so we can hear more from a Lithuanian editor here on the usefulness of the Ducal Lithuanian category, for example). OR shouldn't be a problem, as long as we know date and place of birth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus and Renata3: It would be less of a problem to distinct Polish from Lithuanian people, but the categories above are much more granular. Knowing date and place of birth is not enough to determine voivodeship, it may also require the study of ancient maps which is OR. People in these categories are not simply known for being from a voivodeship, which is why NONDEF applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on merging of voivodeship categories. I think these are pretty irrelevant. I think the Category:Ducal Lithuanian people should be renamed and re-purposed as Category:Grand Duchy of Lithuania people. Renata (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Renata, I think we can compromise by merging voivodeships to a larger entity, such as the category she proposed or Category:People from the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll adapt the nomination to accommodate for Lithuanian people. Wrt Category:People from the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, that still suffers from the fact that it's non-defining, these people are known as Polish or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth people, not as people from the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found three more categories at a different location that I've added to the nomination. One of these categories may be merged to a different target (Ruthenian). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: should those additional categories also be merged to their parent Category:People from Lesser Poland? – Fayenatic London 12:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus and Renata3: I should ask you as well. – Fayenatic London 13:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No that would be confusing, these were voivodeships of the Lesser Poland Province of the Polish Crown which was stretching way further than the historical region of Lesser Poland. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deletion of other parents, namely the voivodeship categories, has also been proposed at 2017 April 9 but looks unlikely to be approved. – Fayenatic London 12:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seeking a clearer consensus; and separating one to a separate discussion, below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added WikiProject banners to the talk pages, seeking to generate alerts. Forgive me if any of these are inaccurate. – Fayenatic London 19:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poland-Lithuania was a polity that lasted over 220 years, though in part shorter periods due to the first two partitions. WP seems to be short on bio-articles on its politicians and other people. The Voivodeships are effectively its counties. Are we really saying that it is wrong to have county bio-splits for this polity, just because WP has failed to collect an appropriate quantity of articles? Category:People of Grand Duchy of Lithuania is certainly an appropriate rename; and I suspect there may be some redundant levels in the tree, which should be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voivodeships in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth aren't comparable to counties, they are just administrative subdivisions. We categorize by administrative subdivisions if otherwise the categories grow too large, but that's not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2017 (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:People from Wolyn Voivodeship

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 with diacritic to ~~Category:People from Wołyn Voivodeship~~. – Fayenatic London 13:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On further inspection, it should match the parent Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–39), so the name will be Category:People from Wołyń Voivodeship (1921–39). – Fayenatic London 09:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Wolyn Voivodeship‎ to ?

I'm noticing only now that the last category didn't belong to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at all and the parenting to Category:People from Lesser Poland is hence even less appropriate than for the other two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Would Category:People from Rivne Oblast be a suitable target for Category:People from Wolyn Voivodeship‎? It currently only contains Leonid Kravchuk, and his birthplace apparently became part of Rivne Oblast while he was still a child – presumably while he was still growing up there. – Fayenatic London 18:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or just parent Category:People of Volhynia: a historical region has the advantage that there is no dispute about anachronism. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: separating this from the others above, and refactoring the nomination for clarification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 21:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would just suggest a typo fix: rename to Category:People from Wołyn Voivodeship. Through given it is an entity that lasted ~20 years, I am not strongly opposed to deletion, IIRP voivodeships were not that notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 4 May 2017 (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:Ships named after Manuel Belgrano

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. I have listed the ships at Manuel_Belgrano#Legacy. – Fayenatic London 19:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ships named after Manuel Belgrano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —swpb^T 19:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Manuel Belgrano; I agree on the SMALLCAT side, but there's no point in losing the connexion to him entirely. Nyttend (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, these aren't monuments dedicated to the commemmoration of Manuel Belgrano. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2017 (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:Canada–the Gambia relations

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 France category. – Fayenatic London 19:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canada–the Gambia relations to Category:Canada–The Gambia relations or
Propose renaming Category:France–The Gambia relations to Category:France–the Gambia relations

Nominator's rationale: Need to define the convention of Category:Bilateral relations of the Gambia. These are presently only two of Foo-the Gambia relations categories as the other subcategories are of the form The Gambia–foo relations‎. There are two articles Bangladesh–the Gambia relations and Malaysia–The Gambia relations. The title of the Malaysia one ought to be reversed anyway but there is no clear capitalisation preference. Tim! (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any bilateral relations pages, whether categories or articles, that drop "the" entirely? For example, "Canada–Gambia relations" is what I'm meaning. Nyttend (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename France, both parent and grandparent category use "the Gambia". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2017 (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:Concentration camps in the Yugoslav Wars

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, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Concentration camps in the Yugoslav Wars to Category:Yugoslav Wars internment camps

Nominator's rationale: As per Category:Internment camps. I would strongly suggest that the sub-categories, which categorize camps by nationality, be scrapped, and instead articles be categorized into Category:Croatian War internment camps and Category:Bosnian War internment camps.Zoupan 05:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While it may make sense to split the subcategories in a different way, they should be nominated as well in order to get anything done. It's probably best to open a separate discussion for this. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2017 (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:History books about colonialism

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. – Fayenatic London 19:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:History books about colonialism to Category:Non-fiction books about colonialism

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the two categories are not different enough to keep them separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge -- All seem to be history books. The exception is ''Orientalism'' (book) which may be about a concept or the influence of trade with the Orient on Europe, and not about colonialism at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Per the arguments of Peterkingiron. These seem to be book about historical colonialism and may not cover other aspects of the topic. Dimadick (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2017 (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:Pre-Islamic North 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: rename. – Fayenatic London 19:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pre-Islamic North Africa to Category:Ancient history of North Africa

Nominator's rationale: rename, current name is anachronistic and a bit POV. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom This seems to cover anything from the emergence of Ancient Egypt to the 7th century. The period is not defined by Islam. Dimadick (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:26, 28 April 2017 (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.