Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 26

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. MER-C 08:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia bots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Mostly nominating this category per this discussion. Basically, the actually useful categories are Category:Unapproved Wikipedia bots/Category:Inactive Wikipedia bots/Category:Retired Wikipedia bots or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is basically an useless WP:NONDEFINING category. Bots blocked due to malfunction do not require a category and if so they should be in separate categories, the retired ones can be listed in their categories and do not need a special category for blocked ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed for any bot management purposes. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't serve any useful purpose. --kingboyk (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2019 (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: redirect. MER-C 09:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Pondicherry templates to Category:Puducherry templates

Nominator's rationale: to correspond to article Puducherry. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No need for a CfD here: just turn it into a category redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2019 (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: speedy merge per WP:G7. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedia misconduct to Category:Wikipedia user conduct

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia's documentation on user conduct is mostly about the spectrum from good conduct to bad conduct, so it's not helpful to separate out the pages which are primarily about misconduct.

We already have the navbox {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} and the Category:Wikipedia user conduct, so this cat adds no value.

See also the discussion at WT:Sock puppetry#Sock_farming. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I created this category as a top level heading for Wikipedia:Misconduct, which I also just created. If Wikipedia:Misconduct exists then I think this complementary category should also exist. Category:Wikipedia user conduct has hundreds of pages most of which are not specifically about misconduct. I am doing research on misconduct on Wikipedia and a category containing only documentation about such behavior is useful for me to demonstrate to others what Wikipedia says about misconduct. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bluerasberry: Wikipedia's category system does not exist as a customised tool to facilitate your personal research. And creating a category of pages that are a solely about misconduct creates a false divide from the pages which cover a spectrum of conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for pushing back against personal research. I am sincerely trying to minimize how personal this is and share outcomes with the wiki community - see meta:University of Virginia/Automatic Detection of Online Abuse which I will present in The Signpost soon. I could be in error about wiki invasiveness and if I am then I will acknowledge, apologize, and change. If you identify a problem then I am open to fix myself and teach others. I made this page in an attempt to be less personal, and to start building out documentation for the many people doing research on wiki conduct to collaborate and minimize disruption.

I agree with you about this category making a false divide and I am thinking that I am in error about this. I think that I might like deletion here, and instead to have a category on "Wikipedia automated moderation". If I shift the focus to moderation, then that avoids that false divide about the spectrum, and instead brings the conversation to what we can measure and detect versus what we do not know how to automatically detect. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete, creator request, no other contributors I think that I can create a different category which would be more acceptable to everyone, probably around the concept of "conduct in Wikipedia which we can track". Let me try to find consensus elsewhere rather than pushing this concept which is not working. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there may be a case for the existence of Wikipedia:Misconduct in some form, but the categorization of everything tangentially related to misconduct stuff is unhelpful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Some mis-titling. Wikipedia misconduct is misbehaviour by the project as a whole. Wikipedia user (or editor) misconduct is misbehaviour by editors. Avoid conflation with users who are non editing reader accounts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose current name, neutral on deletion/merging: None of the pages in this cat describe Wikipedia misconduct. They are all about misconduct on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2019 (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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 13:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:3rd century in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:4th century in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) added 12 July
• Propose deleting Category:5th century in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) added 12 July

Nominator's rationale: delete anachronistic category, Germany did not exist yet and the current area of Germany was divided in a Roman part (Germania Inferior and Germania Superior) and a non-Roman part Germania. The category does not have to be merged since the one article about a battle with the Romans outside their own territory is already in Category:Germania and Category:230s in the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Germania Inferior corresponds to areas of modern Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, while the province's capital Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium/Cologne is currently controlled by Germany. Germania Superior corresponds to areas of modern France, Germany, and Switzerland, while the province's capital Mogontiacum/Mainz is currently controlled by Germany. The non-Roman part of Germania included areas as far east as the Vistula river, covering areas currently controlled by Poland. Dimadick (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for adding. The point is clear: there was no polity in the 3rd century that even vaguely resembled the current territory of Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How about Category:4th century in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); and when should the subcategories of Category:Centuries in Germany start? Hugo999 (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added the 4th and 5th century to this nomination, the articles of these two categories are sufficiently categorized in Category:Germania Superior and a Roman decade category. I suppose the medieval categories require a separate discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/merge to Category:3rd century in Germania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This can cover the two Roman provinces and the unconquered area to the east. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge per Peterkingiron's proposal. Should the category/categories include the various wars in Chronology of warfare between the Romans and Germanic tribes?Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Renaming is certainly an improvement over keeping their current names. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support since Germany did not yet exist. Oppose "Germania" as it was just a term used by the Romans to denote those parts not in their provinces that lay beyond the Rhinr. You might just as well call it Ultrarhenia. Germania was not a polity at that time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see any conceptual problem in having categories which apply a consistent geography across long periods of time, ad there are many advantages in doing so. This advantage has been recognised in the prehistory categories such as Category:Prehistoric Germany, which allow us to examine prehistory through the lens of current maps. Those anachronistic categories are uncontroversial, so I don't see why there is such zeal to hunt down later anachronisms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a typical case of attempted anachronism, trying to "fit" past events and geography into current geopolitical perception and borders. This violates the principles of Wikipedia for stability, because any change in modern borders / countries would effect multiple categories. Simple example - UK now withdraws from the EU, so last year we could put Carausian Revolt in (anachronistic) category:3rd century in the European Union, but now we would have to change it. Currently, Germany page is actually Federal Republic of Germany per WP:COMMONNAME, not about Germania - hence category:3rd century in the Federal Republic of Germany is nonsense and accordingly category:3rd century in Germany must be deleted.GreyShark (dibra) 15:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BHG. It's a common way (ie in present day Germany) to refer to historic event in a way that's more accesible to a majority of our readers. I would support categorizing with the historic region as well though since both are defining properties and it sounds like this wouldn't generate a complete overlap. --Trialpears (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete down with anachronism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2019 (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. MER-C 09:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:5th-century Greek people to Category:5th-century Byzantine people
• Propose merging Category:6th-century Greek people to Category:6th-century Byzantine people

Nominator's rationale: merge, there is no need to distinct Greeks within the Byzantine Empire, because the Byzantine Empire was a Greeks-dominated empire by itself. We also do not have Category:7th-century Greek people etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Until the Early Muslim conquests (622–750), the Byzantine Empire was still multiethnic. With large populations of Egyptians, Syriacs, and Arabs in its Eastern provinces. See also the main article Byzantine Empire: "The massive cultural and institutional restructuring of the Empire consequent on the loss of territory in the 7th century has been said to have caused a decisive break in east Mediterranean Romanness and that the Byzantine state is subsequently best understood as another successor state rather than a real continuation of the Roman Empire.^[1]" ... "The use of Latin as the language of administration persisted until adoption of Greek as the sole official language by Heraclius in the 7th century. Scholarly Latin would rapidly fall into disuse among the educated classes although the language would continue to be at least a ceremonial part of the Empire's culture for some time.^[2] Additionally, Latin remained a minority language in the Empire, mainly on the Italian peninsula and along the Dalmatian coast, eventually developing into various Romance languages like Dalmatian.^[3]" Dimadick (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick, isn't this a reason to support not oppose? Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see a distinction between the empire before the 7th-century massive loss of territory and the empire after it? Dimadick (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an earlier Greek history in the Byzantine Empire, see Medieval_Greek#History_and_development. But that is not the important point. People in the city of Constantinople and Anatolian people are now categorized as Byzantine people, while people from west of Constantinople are categorized as Greek people. That is a totally artificial distinction as they were all Greeks and Byzantines alike. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • These centuries of the Byzantine Empire are the ones which actually stress its non-Greek nature. Most of the emperors and empresses of the 5th century are either of Hispano-Roman, Romanised Frankish, Thraco-Roman, Illyrian, or Isaurian descent. The only Greek-speaker among them was Aelia Eudocia, who was from Athens. In the 6th-century, the Justinian dynasty was from a Latin-speaking province and its founders could barely speak Greek. See the main article on Byzantine Empire under the Justinian dynasty: "Justin, who was from a Latin speaking province, spoke little Greek; and was almost completely illiterate." The Greek language does not gain administrative status until the reign of Heraclius (reigned 610-641). Dimadick (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many biographies in Category:5th-century Byzantine people do not mention where people were born or whether they originally spoke Greek, it is something that we can only guess. Unless there is clear evidence that people came from the outer provinces (Syria, Egypt, Italy) it is not useful making a distinction between them. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try Category:5th-century Byzantine emperors instead:
        • Arcadius (reigned 395-408). "Arcadius was born in Hispania, the elder son of Theodosius I and Aelia Flaccilla, and brother of Honorius, who would become the first Western Roman Emperor. His father declared him an Augustus and co-ruler for the eastern half of the Empire in January 383. His younger brother was also declared Augustus in 393, for the Western half."
        • Theodosius II (reigned 408-450). "Theodosius was born in 401 as the only son of Emperor Arcadius and his Frankish-born wife Aelia Eudoxia."
        • Pulcheria (reigned 414-453). "Pulcheria was born into the royal House of Theodosius, a dynasty of the later Roman Empire, ruling in Constantinople. Her parents were Eastern Roman Emperor Arcadius and Empress Aelia Eudoxia. Pulcheria's older sister, Flaccilla, was born in 397 but probably died young. Her younger siblings were Arcadia (born in 400), Theodosius II, the future emperor (born in 401) and Marina (born in 401)." Hispano-Roman paternal descent, Franko-Roman maternal descent.
        • Marcian (reigned 450-457). "Marcian was born in c. 392, in either Thrace or Illyria."
        • Leo I the Thracian (reigned 457-474). "He was born Leo Marcellus in Thracia or in Dacia Aureliana province in the year 401 to a Thraco-Roman family. His Dacian origin is mentioned by Candidus Isaurus, while John Malalas believes that he was of Bessian stock."
        • Leo II (reigned 474). "Leo II was born in 467, the son of Zeno, an Isaurian general under Leo I, and Ariadne, the daughter of then emperor Leo I. He was the maternal grandson of Emperor Leo I and Empress Verina."
        • Zeno (reigned 474-475, 476-491). "Zeno's original name was Tarasis, and more accurately Tarasikodissa in his native Isaurian language (Latin: Trascalissaeus). Tarasis was born in Isauria, at Rusumblada, later renamed Zenonopolis in Zeno's honour. His father was called Kodisa (as attested by his patronymic "Tarasicodissa"), his mother Lallis, his brother Longinus. Tarasis had a wife, Arcadia, whose name indicates a relationship with the Constantinopolitan aristocracy, and whose statue was erected near the Baths of Arcadius, along the steps that led to Topoi. Near Eastern and other Christian traditions maintain that Zeno had two daughters, Hilaria and Theopiste, who followed a religious life, but historical sources attest the existence of only one son by Arcadia, called Zenon. According to ancient sources, Zeno's prestigious career—he had fought against Attila in 447 to defend Constantinople and been consul the following year—was the reason why another Isaurian officer, Tarasis, chose the Greek name Zeno when he married into the Imperial family, thus being known as Zeno when he rose to the throne. Some modern historians suggest that the Isaurian general Zeno was the father of the emperor,but there is no consensus about this, and other sources suggest that Tarasis was a member of Zeno's entourage."
        • Basiliscus (reigned 475-476). "Likely of Balkan origin, Basiliscus was the brother of Aelia Verina, wife of Leo I. It has been argued that Basiliscus was uncle to the chieftain of the Heruli, Odoacer. This link is based on the interpretation of a fragment by John of Antioch (209.1), which states that Odoacer and Armatus, Basiliscus' nephew, were brothers. However, not all scholars accept this interpretation, since sources do not say anything about the foreign origin of Basiliscus. It is known that Basiliscus had a wife, Zenonis, and at least one son, Marcus."
        • Anastasius I Dicorus (reigned 491-518). "Anastasius was born at Dyrrachium; the date is unknown, but is thought to have been no later than 431. He was born into an Illyrian family, the son of Pompeius (born c. 410), a nobleman of Dyrrachium, and Anastasia Constantina (born c. 410). His mother was a believer in Arianism; she was a paternal great-granddaughter of the Roman caesar Constantius Gallus and his wife, Constantina (the daughter and sister of emperors)." Dimadick (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Obviously the emperor articles are better documented, but that is beside the point. The discussion is about all articles, not just the best documented ones. Besides even with some emperors there is a degree of speculation involved. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom - additionally this avoids confusion with Category:5th-century BC Greek people. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2019 (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: keep. MER-C 08:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1945 in Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in this category. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Small_with_no_potential_for_growth: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". In this case , the sub-categorization scheme is part of Judaism by year/religion by year. Dimadick (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the whole tree is questionable, it largely serves as a duplicate of the synagogues completed tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose as part of a hundred categories in Category:20th-century Judaism. Not to mention that this category has enormous potential for growth. Debresser (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dimadick and Debresser. It's part of a larger sub-categorization scheme, and has large potential for growth. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If there is so much potential for growth it would be helpful to populate these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion of legitimate religion-by-year category and tree (see Category:1945 in Christianity, Category:1980 in Islam etc. There are enough events happening around these world religions to warrant all this. 1945 was a pivotal year in Judaism; coming as it did on the heels of 1/3 of Jewry being wiped off the planet, I presume we will yet see some more articles inserted therein. StonyBrook (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• These categories like 1887 in Something are almost entirely populated by articles about the establishment or disestablishment of buildings, and it's very hard to see why anyone would find them helpful. Of course it is true that a great deal did happen in Judaism in 1945, and in 1933, but the fact that no articles about these events appear in these categories underlines my point.Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...appear [yet]...That is the point. There are articles written and unwritten that belong in these categories. Kristallnacht belongs in Category:1938 in Judaism, and Vaad Hatzalah belongs in Category:1939 in Judaism. The fact that they aren't yet, or the category wasn't created yet is irrelevant. This is another way to make navigation to these articles a little bit easier. StonyBrook (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count four articles in that category so far, none about a building. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 30 July 2019 (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.