Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 11

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: Merge Timrollpickering (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

• Category:11th century in Germany to Category:11th century in the Holy Roman Empire
• Category:1020s in Germany to Category:1020s in the Holy Roman Empire
• Category:1030s in Germany to Category:1030s in the Holy Roman Empire
• Category:1040s in Germany to Category:1040s in the Holy Roman Empire
• Category:1060s in Germany to Category:1060s in the Holy Roman Empire
• Category:1070s in Germany to Category:1070s in the Holy Roman Empire

Nominator's rationale: merge, there wasn't any state or principality within the Holy Roman Empire called Germany. Rather what is currently Germany was the center of the Holy Roman Empire most of the time. This is an unhelpful fork. (The categories have not been tagged yet.) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, confusing to name cats by inexistent nations at the time. Anachronistic. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, the United States was founded in 1776. There categories such as Category:1775 in the United States exist exclusively as redirects to Category:1775 in the Thirteen Colonies. These categories are based on political entities, not geography. Germany as one political entity was not formally established until 1871, and it would be pretty imprudent to classify it as a political entity long before it was actually unified because a few texts may refer to the region as Germany. It is confusing to everybody. We wouldn't subcategorize Pocahontas as an Category:American people, that just makes no sense, because the United States did not formally exist yet. It's anachronism, nothing more. Merge these. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No books about the United States before the establishment of the United States, while Germany was a common name for the region roughly equivalent to the current country. Oh, and Pocahontas is categorized in Category:American emigrants to England and through subcats in Category:American people by period by state, Category:American families of English ancestry, Category:17th-century American women (yes, that one exists), Category:American Christians, ...

• Keep, nothing confusing about it, it is what happened in the past in what is currently Germany. When you read a history of Germany, you wouldn't expect it to start in 1865 or so surely? No objection to adding the HRE cats to articles where appropriate of course, or to make the Germany cats subcats of the HRE cat. Furthermore, "Germany" was in use for the territory at the time, see e.g. this 1800 book or this 1702 book or this book. People in those ages wouldn't look at you with incomprehension if you said something happened in Germany, it was a common indicator for what is very roughly the same as the current state. Fram (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All these categories are at a state level. The HRE was a state in the nominated time period; Germany was not a state. We must not confuse German-speaking countries or even Germanic peoples with a state. To keep these categories would be a case of presentism - the present state of affairs colonizing the past. "Germany" in 1020 was a vastly different territory to Germany in 2020. Let us not indulge in false, ahistorical equivalences that can only be motivated by misty-eyed nostalgia for the "golden era"; leave such fantasies to Brexiteers. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's keep our ideas of what motivates others perhaps to ourselves? It is pertinently not true that "all these categories are at a state level", we have such categories for many different levels, e.g. for 1778 we have them for Italy, for Norway, for Wales, for England (and for Great Britain), for Nova Scotia (and for Canada), but also for even higher levels like "The Caribbean". Germany isn't even anachronistic, as for most of this period we had even a King of the Germans, but in any case there is no reason why "presentism", i.e. the current borders, aren't a useful method to categorize things, to present things to our readers, just like it is done in many scholarly historical books. What happened in year X in what is currently is Germany, in many cases still influences or is present in Germany right now. Fram (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having almost every article in both a HRE category and a German category is a prime example of overcategorization by largely overlapping categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The HRE is a lot larger than Germany though (includes e.g. Austria, large parts of Italy, and parts of other current countries for some periods of its existence), and instead of having both in the articles, one could make the Germany cats subcats of the HRE cats instead. Fram (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would be even worse because the articles should be in the HRE categories, since that was the relevant polity at the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- The full name of the polity is (I believe) "Holy Roman Empire of the German nation", though it included what is now Belgium, Netherlands, and part of Italy. The American analogy is a bad one, because America is a continent, though it is probably being used for the English provinces (colonies) in America. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• State, nation and country are confused concepts. We have to make the best sense we can of this confusion, and that will mean looking at each problem seperately. I think that Germany was generally seen as distinct from the Holy Roman Empire. Exactly where the boundaries of Germany were thought to be is clearly an issue, but I think its a mistake to subsume it into the HRE, and if we did we should also subsume the other constituent territories in the relevant periods, as the boundaries of the Empire certainly changed over time. Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Germany was not a constituent territory of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire consisted of a kingdom (Bohemia) and lots of duchies and counties, but none of them called Germany. See List of states in the Holy Roman Empire. Germany may occasionally have been used as a synonym of the Holy Roman Empire though. In any case there is no reason for forking. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germany didnt have a legal existence until 1870, but that did not mean that it didnt exist. The various small states were regarded as German. The HRE was "a multi-ethnic complex of territories in Central Europe", and as the HRE article states "The imperial office was traditionally elective through the mostly German prince-electors." and "From the 1680s to 1789, Germany comprised many small territories which were parts of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation." as 18th-century history of Germany tells us. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• At best this only confirms that Germany is sometimes used as the synonym of the Holy Roman Empire. It still is no reason for forking. At worst the article refers to the modern Federal Republic of Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2022 (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.

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nine Percent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent category for a single topic sub-category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary. NavjotSR (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary, but be careful not to orphan the subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2022 (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.

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: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Roger Williams University School of Law faculty to Category:Roger Williams University faculty

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge. Not enough to be viable.Rathfelder (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, makes sense to merge; unnecessary subcat. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as even its creator (Rathfelder) has no faith in it. Oculi (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:07, 18 April 2022 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Members of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:COPDEF. A scholar could be in dozens of societies or clubs, from highly selective to due-based. Membership in this society does not appear particularly prestigious nor well-known. Membership is not mentioned at all in several of the articles in this category. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, membership alone is hardly ever defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:07, 18 April 2022 (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.