Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 24#Category:Sunni Rashidun Caliphs

: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 18:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Dark Sun lists}}

:Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary small category. Both articles already exist in the parent category. TTN (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

:Support: I've been working on the the Dark Sun main page for a while now. Users can find information about these things in from that page. I agree. No need for this list.Sugarcoma (talk) 23:21, 24 September 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.

: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 18:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:7th-century BC establishments in Guatemala to :Category:7th-century BC establishments in the Maya civilization

:** Propose merging :category:7th century BC in Guatemala to :category:7th century BC in the Maya civilization

:** Propose merging :category:1st millennium BC in Guatemala to :category:1st millennium BC in the Maya civilization

:Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories created by the same user at the same time, clearly should be merged. GreyShark (dibra) 18:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. There is only one article in the 7th century BC which is already in :Category:Archaeological sites in Guatemala where it properly belongs. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• {{ping|Greyshark09}} if you wish the nomination can be included in this follow-up nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

::From my experience with Egypt, i go slowly; apparently users change their mind all the time.GreyShark (dibra) 20:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support nom. Guatemala is severely anachronistic. However, we also have categories for 9th and 10th centuries, which should similarly be merged. I would further question the merits of having :category:7th century BC in the Maya civilization and its siblings when they are nothing but an intermediate layer to patent establishments. Indeed, there is probably only enough content to merit having :category:1st millennium BC in the Maya civilization, so that everything else might well be merged into that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:04, 27 September 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.

: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 the first two, rename the third to :category:1750s disestablishments in New York. – Fayenatic London 11:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:1750s in the United States to :Category:1750s in the Thirteen Colonies

:** Propose merging :category:1750s disestablishments in the United States to :category:1750s disestablishments in the Thirteen Colonies

:** Propose deleting :category:1750s disestablishments in New York (state)

:Nominator's rationale: An anachronistic duplicate, we already have :category:1750s in New York for the colony. GreyShark (dibra) 17:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, I guess the last one is meant to be merged to :Category:1750s disestablishments in the Thirteen Colonies rather than deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

::Redundant - we already have categorization for 1750s in New York for the colony, it is just a recently created duplicate.GreyShark (dibra) 20:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

::: Yes, and the colony should stay in the tree of the Thirteen Colonies, hence merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

:::: Shouldn't the last one be renamed to :Category:1750s disestablishments in New York, within :Category:1750s in New York? – Fayenatic London 08:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

:::::You are right, I thought there is a already an existing category for that. Rename :category:1750s disestablishments in New York (state) then to :category:1750s disestablishments in New York.GreyShark (dibra) 13:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support all mergers including Marco's. US is anachronistic before independence. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support All Three Clearly anachronistic. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 2 November 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.

: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 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:11th century in Canada to :Category:11th century in North America

:Nominator's rationale: Canada was created in 1867, prior to that there was no Canada. Anachronistic category, imposing colonial concepts on events and peoples prior to colonization.GreyShark (dibra) 17:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The Viking articles should be kept together, but in fact they are still together in another category namely :Category:Viking Age in Canada. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- It is not certain that Vinland is in fact in Canada, rather than US. However virtually all the content relates to Vikings, so that merging into :Category:Viking Age in Canada Or better :Category:Viking Age in North America might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

::I find it highly problematic to speak of :Category:Viking Age in Canada prior to the existence of Canada (did Vikings consider their colony to be in Canada? Would it still be Viking Age in Canada if Canada changes it's name (like North Macedonia recently did)? sounds ridiculous...). :Category:Viking Age in North America makes much more sense.GreyShark (dibra) 09:22, 29 September 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.

: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 09:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|High school national basketball association draft picks}}

:Nominator's rationale: One would never write "Kobe Bryant was a high school NBA draft pick." As such, this is a non-defining characteristic. This information is already found at NBA high school draftees. User:Namiba 16:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

:* Speedy Delete I've changed my decision due to the existence of :Category: National Basketball Association high school draftees.

:*Please revisit your vote in light of :Category:National Basketball Association high school draftees. Rikster2 (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - there is already a category for :Category:National Basketball Association high school draftees. It’s the same thing. That’s before you get into the capitalization being messed up with this new category. Rikster2 (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - saying it is redundant is enough, but add in the fact it is an empty category and has an improper naming schema.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as redundant to the other category Rikster2 mentioned. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete empty too. Out of process? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 30 September 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.

: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) 23:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Iranian empires to :Category:Empires and kingdoms of Iran

:* Propose merging :Category:Iranian kingdoms to :Category:Empires and kingdoms of Iran

:Nominator's rationale: Duplicate or mostly overlapping categories. The target category already gathers former empires and kingdoms in the history of Persia and Iran, and the nominated categories have little other content. Their parent categories refer to the linguistic group of the Iranian peoples, which is a different topic and is not defining for centuries-old states. Place Clichy (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly merge as overlapping, but reverse merge to :Category:Iranian empires and kingdoms may be a better option especially for the kingdoms located at the border or outside the Iranian empires. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Why wouldn't the Iranian peoples be defining, since they have millennia of recorded history? Dimadick (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Merge Clearly overlapping. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 2 November 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.

: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. Note that there was a consensus to use just plain "Egypt" in the 28 Sep CFD on "Ottoman Egypt" categories. So a follow-up nomination may be necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:5th-century establishments in Roman Egypt to :Category:5th-century establishments in Byzantine Egypt

:** :category:5th-century Egyptian people to :category:5th-century people of Byzantine Egypt

:** :category:5th-century women of Roman Egypt to :category:5th-century women of Byzantine Egypt

:** :category:6th-century Egyptian people to :category:6th-century people of Byzantine Egypt

:Nominator's rationale: Moving from speedy section due to opposition by some users. The category :Category:5th-century establishments in Roman Egypt was created by myself erroneously as "Roman" instead of "Byzantine" (which already has a category tree) - this should match parent :Category:5th century in Byzantine Egypt and be in line with previous CFR procedures on June 2017 and April 2019 regarding classical period categories for countries / provinces in the Nile Delta region.GreyShark (dibra) 07:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, as a redundant addition. Yes, Egypt was part of the Roman and Byzantine Empire, but why does that fact require a mention in the category name? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

::You created the Roman Egypt tree mind you and the Byzantine Egypt tree too.GreyShark (dibra) 17:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

::* You appear to oversee the earlier nomination of June 6, 2017 that is being linked to in the June 17 discussion. In any case "Roman Egypt" and "Egypt" had to be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

:::* My oppose is to be interpreted as supporting User:BrownHairedGirl's alt rename proposal below. Just to avoid any misunderstanding. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This breaks down the chronology tree and the Egyptian people tree for no purpose. Place Clichy (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Rename to "Egypt" per BHG below. Place Clichy (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Place Clichy's rationale. Breaking down the category tree to mini-category trees is not helpful. Dimadick (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

::You oppose merging into Byzantine and keeping a mix of Roman / Byzantine?GreyShark (dibra) 17:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

::Reminding your vote here.GreyShark (dibra) 17:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I would like to bring more editors for the discussion, which seems to be very much on the line of division: {{ping|Peterkingiron|Good Olfactory|Fayenatic london|Caeciliusinhorto|}} (Ottoman Syrian categories and Roman Egypt categories). I will look for more participants in relevant discussions to make a clearer outcome.GreyShark (dibra) 18:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

::{{ping|Omanyd|Johnpacklambert}} also from Ottoman Syrian categories.GreyShark (dibra) 18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

::{{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} from recent speedy discussions, who has not joined yet.GreyShark (dibra) 18:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Rename all to plain "Egypt", with no adjective. As Marcocapelle, notes we don't need to record this stuff in the names of the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Rename all to plain "Egypt" as per BrownHairedGirl. So we can avoid the ambiguity of when the Roman Empire became Byzantine. T8612 (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support as nom without prejudice to a subsequent change. This needs to be the subject of a much wider discussion. The habitable area of Egypt is the Nile valley and delta, which is what we mean by Egypt today. At some periods there is a problem over what we mean by "Egypt" meant a rather wider area extending into Syria. This applies to some periods of ancient Egypt and some medieval ones, so that this is not quite as easy as BHG implies. The present nom concerns the Roman/Byzantine divide, where I think we should stick to the last consensus reached. One might argue for a host of dates on this, possibly as early as the division into Eastern and Western Empires under Diocletian. We certainly should not be using Roman after the collapse of the Western Empire in the 440s, though the Byzantine rulers referred to themselves as Romans long after. For the wider question, perhaps we should have a category series for Egypt defined as the Nile valley and delta and adjacent deserts, but with a wider sibling (or parent) covering those parts of successive Egyptian kingdoms beyond the scope of "Egypt". I think this needs a mass nomination perhaps by BHG. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

::Indeed the question was about completing Roman/Byzantine split, already agreed in prior nomination, but now opposed in speedy. However, it seems that many editors are using the concepts Egypt (modern Arab Republic of Egypt) and Lower Egypt interchangeably, thus creating this opposition. Technically within Wikipedia "in Egypt" means in Egypt (Arab Republic of Egypt), if we want categories about geographical location then it should have been "in Lower Egypt". Obviously, almost all "in <country>" categories are about modern states and Egypt should probably be not an exception, but that is very hard for some to conceptualize.GreyShark (dibra) 20:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

:::This is all wildly mistaken reasoning. Many countries have had radically changing borders, and changing the category names to reflect these changes would be a path to madness. How many dozen names would we need for the United States if we changed the category name with every territorial expansion on the USA's path from being a wee corner of north-Eastern North America to a huge slice of the full width of the continent plus a non-contiguous vast swathe of tundra purchased from Russia plus colonial outposts in the Craibbean and Oceania?

:::@{{u|Greyshark09}} overlooks that per WP:CAT, {{talkquote|the central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links}}. Greyshark09 and a few others are approaching categories as if they were an attempt to create some of strict Linnean taxonomy, which is absolutely wrong. Unless and until an RFC agrees to radically change the purpose of the categorisation system, Greyshark09 and others should stop disrupting its current purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

::::Your proposal to change contemporary category tree to anachronistic (by "modern country") is violating the five pillars of Wikipedia. This is a pointless effort changing this approach - it would create a battlefield in the category tree, just imagine that someone tries to change the contemporary category of the Siege_of_Sevastopol_(1941–1942) from :category:1941 in the Soviet Union to either :category:1941 in Ukraine or :category:1941 in Russia.GreyShark (dibra) 17:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Relist with the rest of :Category:Centuries in Roman Egypt for renaming to "Egypt", especially now that the parent of that one is no longer :Category:Roman Egypt (it has been speedily renamed per WP:C2D to :Category:Egypt (Roman province)). The categories for the relevant periods can remain sub-cats of Roman Empire. This outcome would be similar to e.g. the modern :Category:1920s in the Portuguese Empire which contains :Category:1920s in Angola without it having to be called "Portuguese Angola", even though we have an article and category :Category:Portuguese Angola. I find this to be better than the adjacent hierarchy of :Category:Portuguese Mozambique, which currently does include "Portuguese" in the name of many chronology categories. – Fayenatic London 20:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Note: Ottoman Egypt categories are also being discussed at September 28. – Fayenatic London 20:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Take a look at the content of :Category:1920s in Angola - it says "This category is for topics specifically related to the decade 1920s in Angola" and it tries to connect it to the :Portal:Angola instead of :Portal:Portugal. To fit this logic - one needs a very complicated change in the "decade in country category" module or an enormous number of redirects. Moreover, Portuguese Angola was actually called Portuguese West Africa through most of its centuries of existence, changed to Angola only just prior to independence. It doesn't seem Angola had any meaning prior to 20th century. And what happens if Angola changes its name as North Macedonia has recently done? Or changes it borders? Rewriting all category tree from scratch? It violates the principle of Wikipedia for page name stability. :Category:1920s in Portuguese Mozambique is a much more stable and concise solution.GreyShark (dibra) 09:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for pointing out that :Portal:Portugal was missing on Angola categories pre-1975; this is now fixed.
• Although I would have preferred to relist with a bigger group for a more comprehensive solution, I do support renaming the two nominated Roman Egypt categories to just Egypt, as others have suggested. – Fayenatic London 22:28, 13 November 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.

: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 Timrollpickering (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:The Bachelor to :Category:The Bachelor (franchise)

:Nominator's rationale: Franchise is more successful in recent years ApprenticeFan work 02:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support (as creator) per WP:C2D. The original main article was The Bachelor which is now a disambig page and the main article is now The Bachelor (franchise). RevelationDirect (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support To match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense to rename the category to fit with the article's renaming. ֆօʍɛɮօɖʏǟռʏɮօɖʏ05 (talk) 15:17, 28 September 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.

: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) 10:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Sunni Rashidun Caliphs to :Category:Rashidun caliphs

:Nominator's rationale: The Rashidun caliphs were—by retroactive definition, at least—Sunni. It is redundant to add "Sunni" to the category name. The nominated category was recently created as a subcategory of the target category. Technically, no merger is required as all of the articles in the nominated category are in the target category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Merge/delete, this is an anachronistic distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - per nom.GreyShark (dibra) 07:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support All Rashidun Caliphs are recognized by Sunni Islam, but not Shia Islam. Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 24 September 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.

: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: listify. MER-C 09:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Songs recorded at Henson Recording Studios}}

:Nominator's rationale: I looked at a handful of articles in this category and the only mentions of Henson are usually in the infobox, a credits section, or just in passing. There can't be many songs that are defined by where it was recorded. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

::^ don't think that is a valid reason for deleting the category. It is a helpful category to have particularly as this is a well known recording studio steeped in history. I don't see how having this category is any different from having "Song recording produced by x" categories which are also fields in the infobox. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

:::I thought WP:CATDEFINE was always a valid reason to delete a category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Listify. Not really appropriate for a category, but a list is a reasonable idea, especially since it would also allow for worthy songs without articles to be listed, along with albums and artists' names. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, and listify if desired per WP:NONDEF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Where a song is recorded is not a defining characteristic of that song, Not opposed to listification of some of the output of some studios, subject to usual WP guidelines. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:24, 3 October 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.