Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 11

< December 10 December 12 >

December 11

Category:Endangered species of the British Isles

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 10:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Endangered species of the British Isles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There are 2 problems with this category - (1) It's unclear what the definition of "endangered" is as many of the articles (e.g. Yellowhammer) are about species that aren't globally endangered (i.e. IUCN category of Endangered), (2) For "species" with a wide distribution (e.g. Bottlenose dolphin) the conservation status in Britain is non-defining and would cause a lot of category clutter if species were categorized by their conservation status in every country/region (Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia etc).  For example, why is an article saying "... currently believed to be extinct in Liechtenstein and Switzerland, they are now very common in Latvia, ... and across Great Britain, ..." in this category? A more focussed category (e.g. for species that are both endemic to Britain and IUCN Endangered) might make more sense (but category intersection may do that well).  For info: previous discussion. DexDor (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NONDEFINING. The Isles are way too small to warraant the creation of this specififc category. It should be more to the lines of Category:Endangered species of Western Europe. And as stated by the nominator some of the pages are innaccurate and are not native to the british isles or are do not encompass the definition of endangered. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is the sort of thing better handled in an article; if UK law (or UK and Irish law) protects species that are endangered within their territory an article about the legislation and what species are protected is better because it can be sourced and it can note that whilst species may be endangered in the territory they aren't labelled so by the UN or by other countries. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this should at most be done for species that are at risk to become extinct at a global level. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Endangered" is a term that is well enough defined; "endangered in a given region" is also very well understood. Sure, if the Eurasian otter article says that it is common across Great Britain, it does not belong in this category. Nomination poses hypothetical issue of membership being manufactured when not properly applicable; it seems clear enough to me that species known to be endangered in the British Isles are a thing, can have a category. The intersection of "endemic" vs. "world-wide endangered" is not the same thing at all. In the U.S., i just happened to read recently that there are no longer any migrating caribou; they are now extinct in the U.S. and it simply doesn't matter that there are millions elsewhere. "Caribou" article is in Category:Mammals of the United States, does that mean they're endemic, I am not sure? Anyhow, categories are not designed or in place, to enable replacement of "extinct in the U.S." by an intersection of categories.
I am showing up in a couple days' CFDs and feeling very out of step with prevailing participation, but here as in some other CFDs I am calling it as i see it, and feeling concerned. --Doncram (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete political polities should not be how we categorize articles on species.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A species does not recognize political boundaries, and per nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category:Endangered endemic species of the British Isles would be defining, whereas this is not. A perfect subject for a list, but not a category. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and commentary of The Bushranger. --Just N. (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2020 (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:Broadway actors

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Broadway actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, overcategorization per WP:PERFCAT. "Avoid categorizing performers by an appearance at an event or other performance venue." --Animalparty! (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per precedent (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_12#Category:Las_Vegas_entertainers), e.g. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, classic example of WP:PERFCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So, here is the background. I am the poor schmuck who created this category, and a bunch of other "Broadway" categories. I initially found a category named "Broadway People" which was sloppy, poorly populated, and IMHO pretty useless. So, I made a number of subcategories - actors, playwrights, set designers, lighting designers, musicians, etc. - and divided it up, populated the categories, etc. In their defense, I think it is fair to say that Broadway is a very special place for American theater - any artist who appears on Broadway is always a "Broadway actor" for the rest of their lives, for example. And for the technical specialties, it is clear that set designers and such who work on Broadway are the top of their field, and sometimes the only ones who work full time. And even within NYC, there is a distinction made between "Broadway" and "Off-Broadway" which indicates that people see Broadway works and the people who work there as being a special thing. Last note: if this is deleted, I would recommend deleting the entire tree of subcats under "Broadway people". And I won't cry about all my hard work. Much.Brianyoumans (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Leave Redirect to Category:American stage actors. "Broadway Theatre" is both a location in New York City and an American idiom for professional theatre generally so the issue is more WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I defy you to find any major theatre outside New York city in the U.S. that does not market itself as "local Broadway experience" or "Foo's Little Broadway" or the like. Even within New York City, the theatre district is a small section of the actual road and includes other streets. The largest trade union, Actors' Equity, considers theatres in Manhattan with 500+ seats to be "Broadway" productions even if they are nowhere near Broadway (source). It's likely we'll see good faith recreations of this, like @Brianyoumans: did, if we don't leave a redirect. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not categorize people by a specific sub-set of stage productions they were in. These should either be in Category:American stage actors (although I still have to admit I question whether the stage/film/TV breakdown is as defining as we act like it is) or in Category:Expatriate actors in the United States or one of its sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Leave Redirect to Category:American stage actors. -- 20:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
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:States-Provincial of the Netherlands

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 The Bushranger One ping only 04:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, as a mix of WP:C2D for the former part of the proposed title per Provincial council (Netherlands) and WP:C2C for the latter part of the proposed title as the other countries in Category:Legislatures of country subdivisions also have a "of country" extentsion rather than "(country)" extension. This nomination was opposed for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Ætoms and Armbrust: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Dutch article is "Provinciale Staten (Nederland)", which might be translated as Provincial Estates. in origin the United Provinces (predecessor of present country) was a union of separate Protestant provinces, most of which had chosen the same stateholder. These originate as provincial legislatures, with rather greater prominence than implied by "council". The word order estates provincial suggests to me French usage. If anything it is the various Provincial Council articles that ought to be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the historic origin of the name this is correct, see also The Estates. However, the current provincial legislature has little in common with its medieval and early modern predecessor. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. ― Ætoms [talk] 22:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2020 (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:Taipei Metro stations by line

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 to Category:Taipei Metro stations. (non-admin closure) Train of Knowledge (Talk) 23:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, the parent category is almost empty so there is no need to have this intermediate category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This isn't part of a broader category with other metros and it doesn't aid navigation for the Taipei one. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2020 (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.

Nationalist assassins

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one or two articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Dual merge insofar the article isn't already somewhere else in the tree of the other parent category. The Corsican sibling category has been nominated earlier, see this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a first step; I still question the target's utility and other aspects of the tree but that's for another day. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in general but oppose the merger to Category:Russian assassins, the one person in that category was not ethnic Russian, was a subject of the Russian Empire who fled it about the time of the rise of the Soviet Union, lived in areas that are now Lithuania and maybe Belarus, and so it makes no sense to put him in the Russian category. He is already in multi Imperial Russian categories, such as Category:Imperial Russian monarchists so the not moving him to an assassins category works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Too small main category to have its own subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2020 (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:National Basketball Players Association vice presidents

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 10:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:National Basketball Players Association vice presidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seem like WP:NONDEF applies for vice presidents. No precedent at Category:Leaders of American trade unions to categorize lower level leaders. —Bagumba (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is Category:Industrial Workers of the World leaders, Category:International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union leaders, Category:Executive Directors of the National Football League Players Association, Category:Congress of Industrial Organizations people, Category:International Woodworkers of America people and so on.--User:Namiba 14:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as defining. Looking at Kyrie Irving, I count more than 10 mainstream media outlets reporting on his election as NBPA vice-president. For example, ESPN, New York Daily News, and Sports Illustrated.--User:Namiba 14:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The vice presidents are not a low level non-defining role in the NBPA. And it's strange how you nominate it for deletion as soon as I add to the more higher notability basketball pages like Lebron James and Carmelo Anthony to the category when the category has been made and had pages in it for a month. Being a vice president of the NBPA is a major and verifiable role per WP:Defining... "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.." And of note we already had a dicussion on the NBA project talk page about this and there was no objection to the creation of these, so keep. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk)
  • Delete Definitely a nondefining characteristic. These individuals aren't notable for being union vice president. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may be your personal standard, but that is not what WP:NONDEF describes a defining characteristic. Defining is determined by how the subject is described by outside sources. As I demonstrated above with Kyrie Irving (and it is true for the others as well), their labor activism is regularly discussed in media.--User:Namiba 16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @User:Muboshgu, That's still very debatable ,especially with the reliable sources User:Namiba provided with the notability and significant coverage of kyrie irving being a vice president of the NBPA. Of course the players featured in the category are not going to be mostly notable for being a part of the NBPA but it is not a non-defining characteristic, as it highlights thier importance and rank within the related trade union which is an important part of establishing the updated CBA during NBA lockouts and insuring impartial just salary treatment for the rest of the players in the NBA ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk)
  • Delete non-defining category. President could be defining, but not vice president or any other lower rank. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not let the sources tell us what is defining instead of making blanket statements like this? --User:Namiba 19:03, 11 December 2020

(UTC)

Sabbatino, You have to explain your point before just throwing a policy like WP:WHACKAMOLE at the discussion before explaining why it's not Non-defining. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining for the folks. Really, how many organizations' VP's have categories? I see we have a tree of national VP's, but for unions, organizations, companies... no Imagine the categories that this would lead to: Category:IBM vice presidents, Category:Teamsters vice presidents, Category:Red Cross vice presidents, and such. No thanks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Carlossuarez46, Your arguement has holes in it, It's actually very defining to the player themselves as vice president are elected as members by the rest of the NBA's players which indicates notability and crediblity of the player by their association peers. And you're point how other organizations don't have VP categories is an assertion of WP:AllORNOTHING, Just because we don't have the other non-related categories you mentioned doesn't qulaify this one's deletion. Red cross and IBM also have no vice presidents, so your point is invalid and even if they did it is not as verifiable as the NBPA's Vice presidents, You can consistently find sources mentioning past and former high level executives. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are 6 vice presidents at a time (plus 1 "First Vice President) according to the union web site: NBPA Leadership. We do have broader categories for some unions, like Category:International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union leaders but we don't generally have articles on dressmakers and seamstresses so, if notability is established, the union association is likely defining. In contrast, these players are already very notable for this sport, and this position doesn't seem defining in their articles. No objection to a list. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, based on reading the articles this did not come across as an essential part of these peoples' biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — These are not elected political figures, this is just title creep, would have been Directors or Division Managers a decade or so ago. Nip it in the bud, as it hasn't been around long.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agree not defining below president level. Rikster2 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining category per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2020 (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:Recipients of the Order of José Marti

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 10:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of José Marti
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders and diplomats visit Cuba, or vice versa, the Order of José Marti is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are not remotely defined by this award. (I found one person in this category who is Cuban, ballet dancer Alicia Alonso, but her article is already well categorized and mentions this award only in passing.) The winners of this award are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categories like this are key to category clutter. Saddam Hussein is in 47 categories, and some of them have really long titles. Most may be justified, but this is not at all one, and applies for the other people who received it as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another typical example of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:OCAWARD this should apply just like other similar categories. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination suggests "listifying" which is an acknowledgment of significance of the topic. There is editing guideline wp:CLNT about complementarity of existing (or not yet existing) list-articles with corresponding categories. If you can have one you can and probably should have the other. I see "listify" used as if it is an argument for deletion elsewhere in recent CFD pages, and it seems to indicate to me that inappropriate action is being called for. --Doncram (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2020 (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:Nobel laureates absent at the ceremony

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 and reparent respectively The Bushranger One ping only 04:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Nobel laureates absent at the ceremony
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (The opposite of WP:PERFCAT)
The BAFTA and Academy Awards have a lot of red carpet coverage of who is wearing what designer outfit but I'm not sure the actual awards ceremony for the Nobel Prize gets similar coverage and, according to the Nobel Committee, recipients still win the award even if they don't attend (source) so these people are all categorized by their winning category.
The reasons for missing the ceremony are all over the map and don't form a cohesive category:
  • Bob Dylan had "pre-existing commitments" that couldn't be rescheduled
  • Richard Kuhn was not allowed to receive it by the Nazi regime (but did attend a later ceremony after WWII and doesn't belong in the category)
  • Aung San Suu Kyi was under house arrest
  • Lech Wałęsa was afraid he would be denied re-entry to return to Poland
  • William Vickrey died between winning the award and the ceremony
  • Dag Hammarskjöld won the award posthumously.
If we don't categorize people by performance they attended, I don't think it's defining to categorize them by performances they missed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, undoubtedly missing the ceremony was a big thing in these people's lives, but it is not of sufficient encyclopedic value to create categories for. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not need to categorize by every detail of a person's lives. Also if we keep this category, it will encourage similar categories for other award categories we have, and down that path lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This merits a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied the current category contents right here so no work is lost if someone else wants to start a list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these have little in common as the list above shows. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is significant and widely noted when Nobel laureates can't or don't show up. And Posthumous ones are a significant category. It is well-known that Nobel prizes are aimed for living persons only. Add Marie Curie and Pierre Curie to the no-shows. Keep Richard Kuhn as especially notable for his absence being due to Nazi regime; the apparent fact that he did attend a ceremony later does not eliminate the significant fact of his absence. Also, I do think this probably makes for an interesting Wikipedia list-article which would meet all requirements for a stand-alone list. And, whether or not that is immediately created, there is wp:CLNT about complementarity of list-articles and categories.
I am surprised at reasoning repeated on these CFD pages where persons are in favor of "listifying" as if that is a reason to delete a category. --Doncram (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and commmentary of Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2020 (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.

Establishments in Slovakia during the Kingdom of Hungary (11th century through 1918)

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. As in various similar cases, several editors argue that even though these categories are anachronistic, they are of use to some readers of the encyclopedia. The suggestion to use "Upper Hungary" as an approximate forerunner territory to Slovakia might be a useable compromise in this case, but it did not receive much comment here and would require a fresh nomination. – Fayenatic London 21:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging above categories as per discussions

Gjs238 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. They are categorized as subcats of Austria-Hungary (can easily be changed to Hungary if people really think this matters). These establishments are all in current Slovakia, have had for most of their history no lonk to Hungary at all, but were aspects of (Czecho-)Slovakia instead. Something like the Slovak Social Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Hungary had not a single "Slovakia" category until I added the establishment one; changing it to "Hungary" will again lose this link. These merges don't add anything but lose a lot, and thus serve no purpose. The comparison to the "1978 in Zimbabwe" discussion is not relevant or misleading, as that was the same entity but with a different name (i.e. a one-on-one operation), not a loss of detail as we would have here. Fram (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Slovak Social Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Hungary is the only establishment in these categories related to Slovak politics in the kingdom of Hungary. I have added the article to Category:Political history of Slovakia. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' Slovakia was in no way a political entity under the Kingdom of Hungary. It was integrally part of that kingdom within the Austro-Hungarian Empire with no distinct legal existence. It does not matter if some of this relates to ireeidentist activities, there were no defined boundaries in which to practice the irridentism. This is a presentist impostion on the past, all the more so because the only way make sense of it is to impose post-WWI or post-WWII boundaries on what was occuring before WWI with no legal line defining the boundary between Hungary and Slovakia. Yes, I know that Slovaks hated this situation, I once wrote a paper for a class entitled "Our Home is No More Hungary" in which I captured the hatred of Hungarian rule as expressed in the Slovak press in America during WWI. That does not change the fact that there was no political unit named Slovakia, nor any other political unit in any way approching that, and these establishment categories reflect the politcal unit the things were established in and should be reflecting the reality at the time. These categories are just as wrong and anachronistic as if we had Category:1939 establishments in Israel. This is doubly so because there is some area, it happens to be the area my own ancestros came from, the city of Ungvar (now Uzhgorod) and areas to the east of it, known as sub-Carpathian Ruthenia in some circles, that was in Hungary in 1911, was in Czechoslovakia within the generally accepted area of Slovakia between the world wars, and was part of the Soviet Union from WWII on and today is part of Ukraine. Within Austria-Hungary there was no legally distinct area of Slovakia, and these categories are just plain false and wrong. These categories reek of the most repugnant presentism and should not exist. There is no justification for them, nascent nationalist movements do not automatically make things happen in a distinct polity, and so the implications of these cartegories are flase and spread lies about the political reality of pre-WWI Europe. There was no Slovak political entity within the Austro-Hungarian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The most repugnant presentism"? Uh, right... "There is no justification for them"? Again, right... "The implications of these categories are false and spread lies"... No, the way you read them may be thus, but the categories in themselves are perfectly neutral and factual: they group things "established in year X" in places which are currently part of Slovakia. That is recentism, I presume, but no idea why that is "the most repugnant presentism". What too many people are proposing is a purely historical POV, without taking into account the wider implications nor the interest of many readers. What are people most interested in? "I wonder what was established in "Hungary" in 1905, even if those things aren't in Hungary as we know it"? Or "I wonder what was established in current country X in year Y, no matter if the country existed as such at the time"? Or of course both.
    • "Repugnant presentism" would be an attempt to remove the historical categories, to erase the fact that these entities were then in Hungary. No one is proposing this. The categories as they exist already indicate this, and if this isn't sufficient, you are free to add the necessary categories. What is repugnant is coming in here, all guns blazing, projecting some terrible prejudices or motives on whoever disagrees with you and wants these categories to be kept. Next time you disagree, please think twice about what you write and what you are projecting to be the motives of others, and think about the effect your post has. Fram (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:1900s establishments in Upper Hungary, which can be made a sub-cat to the nom's target. Slovakia was added to Bohemia and Moravia to form Czechoslovakia under the WWI peace treaties. This apparently recognised some distinction between the territories transferred and the rump of Hungary, with Transylvania going to Roumania and Croatia to Yugoslavia. There was a Captaincy of Upper Hungary until about 1680. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the boundaries of Upper Hungary were informal during this period, but this would definitely be better than the current name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge These were established in Hungary (or some sub-division thereof) so the establishment cats should be historically accurate. If the subjects of these articles still exist they will also have current Slovak categories: MŠK Žilina is in Category:Football clubs in Slovakia. That team was not established in Slovakia though. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all — pointless intersection, just another example of the extremes the "establishment by country" tree has taken. Hungary and the Kingdom of Hungary are not the same country, not even the same boundaries. They should already have the "<year> establishments" tags, and the city tags, no need to document the geographically and politically transient name of the country. The overall tree was created by a subsequently banned user, and I'm surprised that it hasn't been cleaned up by now.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: that seems like a good idea. Let's see how this one plays out, and then work through the tree from there.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The broad upmerge may make sense. Is Abkazia a country? However that should be a seperate discussion. over time our naming has inproved some, we used to have Israel cats far too soon, and Turker pre-1920, and eventually we renamed 19th-century Russian cats to Russian Empire. There is still a lot of silliness though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. These have become a maintenance issue. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The Austria / Austria-Hungary debate was quite bruising and disgraceful. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' upmerging per nom and commentary of Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment contrary to what some imply, there was in no way no political entity at all that corresponded in any way to modern Slovakia. The area was an integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary, where there was a gradual difference in the general ethnic composition of the area, but had no seperate political identity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/do not merge. My view on this is that it can indeed be useful to have "anachronistic" categories like this. What if you are researching things that happened in the early-20th century in places that are in present-day Slovakia? How would you find this information – specific to past events in current-day Slovakia – in an undifferentiated "Hungary" category? Research such as this would be made more difficult by the deletion of these categories. They can exist in parallel to (or as subcategories within) the "non-anachronistic" country categories. We have to remember that categories are used by us in the 21st century, and they should help us find things. Current state boundaries are one convenient and clear way of organizing historical information. If one found a book entitled History of Slovakia, it would be very strange indeed if it only included information from the 20th century onward. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, also as per arguments of Johnpacklambert and RevelationDirect. I have to add these anachronistic and confusing categories not useful as claimed before, but causing much trouble, and not just in term regarding Slovakia and Hungary (and what Good Ol’factory claims, may be easily solved with another category, which Macrocapelle just did, and History of Slovakia is meant of the history of the country's present territory in that context, that unfortunately is lazily being conflated often anachronistically). William Allen Simpson, the two countries are the same country, just having different borders, even de jure successors, as with Hungary more times happened in a millenium. These X establisments in Y or DATE in Y categories are anyway contradictive, since the category lead refers to a present country with link, which borders or timeline may not fit to a past date, as well, the opposite, when the present country associated did not exist before. Another solution would be if the akin categories define it includes anytime border of the country which exactly contemporarily would encompass, and there is no ambigutity. Here, before 1920, on the territory of present-day Slovakia every establishment or event is something happened unambigously in Hungary. Between 1920-1939 and 1945-1992, Czechoslovakia is the country on which events happened, between 1939-1945, 1993-present Slovakia (disclaimer on the latter: since I projected to the present territory of Slovakia, between 1938-39 part of if was regained by Hungary - consequently Slovakia until 1945 had not the borders as today - evidently those locations are excluded. Secondly, the general timeline is not 11th-1918, but 1920, per international treaties with the newly created boundaries between the countries). Time to make order.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Addendum - I just noticed, just before this discussion was opened user:Fram added a new template to the categories in question by telling "no longer empty" and even once like "plus better template", just to save them from deletion...unfortunately it is not the case, on the contrary, the worst possible "established in Slovakia, Austria-Hungary in the year 1916." is completely erroneous, since it falsely suggest that present-day Slovakia would exist that year (but didn't), as well falsely suggest like it would be subdivsion/administrative unit/akin inside Austria-Hungary (which was never the case), even the two entities at one time are mutually exclusive and anachronistic, but even such a contradictive falsity I never even met so far in such form even from any ordinary editor who really do not have any expertise, but not even basic knowledge in the area...so I openly declare no consensus for these additions and in accordance with the future outcome here they have to be reverted.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed. I can see that both Slovakia and Hungary categories could be included in a parent category for "Kingdom of Hungary", which is NOT what's proposed—instead it will categorize territory of present-day Slovakia into "Hungary" categories, which is likely to confuse readers. Overall I am skeptical of the benefit to our readers per Good Olfactory's argument. (t · c) buidhe 23:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the category for establishments in those particular years should be named is entirely different than what the exact perameters of the category is. In these years there is only one entityt and Slovakia did not exist in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It existed as a place, which is now Slovakia. If someone is researching the history of Slovakia retroactively, they don't stop at the point where Slovakia began to exist as a legal entity in international law. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually like the idea of renaming everything to use the Kingdom of Hungary form. The amount of nominating this would take is staggering though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, keep as child categories. There is little ambiguity that the content of these categories belong to the history of Slovakia, and were at the time located in Hungary (itself part of Austria-Hungary). This is part of the usual small contradictions that come with having a category structure that is both historical and geographical, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Place Clichy (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there may be huge ambiguities as well concerning for what we would use it. The Austria-Hungary matter does not change anything, the area has been still sovereign of Hungary, and it's not true all content would belong to solely to Slovak history. The disease is worse even other areas, but easily may be cured with supplemental categorization.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:23, 27 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_11&oldid=1003408338"