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: split, which in this case in practice means rename to Sasanian Empire, and merge millennium categories. –
FayenaticLondon20:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: A grossly anachronistic category, which was recreated in 2016, following preceding deletion cleanup. The content is including only a single subcategory of establishments referring to the
Mar Behnam Monastery, which was established in contemporary
Assyrian province of the Sasanian Empire. There was no such country as Iraq in the 1st millennium CE.
GreyShark (
dibra)
18:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
We don't appear to have a consistent policy on the relationship between geography and history. There are plenty of categories about places in countries which didn't exist at the time.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Official policy has not yet been established, but "legally speaking" - almost all proposals to eliminate anachronistic categories have passed in recent years, setting a fair precedent. Take a look at
2013 discussion on Syrian categories,
2014 discussion on Syrian categories,
2016 discussion on El-Salvador and there are plenty others. Editors should refrain from creating anachronistic categories, due to political sensitivity (just imagine if all pre-2014 Crimean categories will now retroactively be renamed to "in Russia") and Wikipedia's aim to create stability (if Scotland quits United Kingdom would we be required anachronistically retag all historic events in the area of Scotland as "in Scotland" instead of "in the United Kingdom" or "in the Kingdom of Great Britain"?)
GreyShark (
dibra)
07:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment, the one article has no reference to the Roman Empire, the territory at the time belonged to the Sasanian Empire. So we'd better not put this article in the Roman Empire as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
23:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Correct - the one article doesn't belong to the Roman realm, but Romans had control over what is now North-Western Iraq at some years of the 4th centuries, so for instance
Siege of Singara was taking place in nominal Roman Empire (currently not tagged as "in Iraq").
GreyShark (
dibra)
06:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment One problem is that chthe borders between the
Roman Empire and the
Sasanian Empire underwent frequent changes due to the nature of the
Roman–Persian Wars (54 BC-629 AD). For example the Siege mentioned refers to the fortified settlement of
Singara. The settlement was first mentioned in Roman hands c. 114 AD. It was abandoned in 117, recaptured by the Romans in 197. It apparently remained Roman until the Sasanians captured the settlement c. 359/360. Two different empires held the area in the 4th century.
Dimadick (
talk)
19:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Supporting a Mesopotamia category only if we're sure we can populate it decently. It's no use keeping this separate for just one single establishment.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose the idea to use categories not based on geopolitical entities - there was never such a country as "Mesopotamia". There is no problem to split between Roman and Sasanian domains since we have only a couple of articles - one in Roman and another in Sasanian domain. Period.
GreyShark (
dibra)
08:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Great Britain the island vs GB the state
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:do not rename; no consensus to delete. Perhaps the Events (including Trials, Disestablishments and Establishments) should be renamed with "Kingdom of..." but I don't find sufficient consensus here to implement that (to include their many sub-categories) from this discussion. –
FayenaticLondon21:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale This scheme seeks to disambiguate the island of
Great Britain from the state created in 1707 - the
Kingdom of Great Britain. The state existed for less than a century yet is has a slew of categories over many centuries. This is simply ahistorical. The state should be confined to just 2 categories by century (even though it only existed for a single year in the 19th century). The remainder of articles and categories are proper to the island. I've also proposed the creation of a number of castegories to fill out logical gaps in the current arrangement. The fact that the current schema stops at the 18th century lends credence to the idea that it is in reality viewed as a proxy for the state.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
11:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I oppose the notion to have timeline categorization of a geographic location (British isles), but of course support the rename of "Years in Great Britain" to "Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain" for the years when the kingdom existed (1707-1801) and "Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (until 1922); for current United Kingdom state it should be of course "Years in the United Kingdom".
GreyShark (
dibra)
07:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Britain is a place - actually includes a number of islands. Great Britain is a political idea, not an island, nor even a collection of islands. If these categories are to be renamed they should be of the form
Category:Britain.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Query If the proposal succeeds, a scope note for the islands cats could be written to say that it includes the near islands. Much like the category for Ireland does not say that it includes the Aran Islands or Achill; they're assumed. Would be happy with that?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
22:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Alternatively I can also live with
User:GreyShark's suggestion to delete all period by island categories. In this case the GB island categories are mostly just containers to host England, Wales and Scotland, so they don't add too much.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
My thoughts exactly. For categories preceding the establishments of the Kingdom of Great Britain we should have contemporary containing categories "Years in the Kingdom of England" (1035-1707) and "Years in the Kingdom of Scotland" (843-1707).
GreyShark (
dibra)
07:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose There is no need to distinguish between the Kingdom and the island which is exactly the same size. The Catholic dioceses refers to the period after 1850 only. Since the CAtholic Church is organised by country, I am not sure that a GB category is useful, though it is probably better than a UK one as the Catholic Church is organised on an all-Ireland basis. Some of the problem is with the existence of anachronistic categories for England, Wales, and Scotland for periods before they were respectively united, so that this series has been created to parent it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming: the kingdom and the island were geographically the same, so there is no need to disambiguate between them. Whether some of these categories should exist at all (as Greyshark09 says they should not) is a separate issue on which I don't really have an opinion, but as long as the categories are here then they should keep their present names.
Opera hat (
talk)
23:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional victims of torture
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.
Nominator's rationale: It's not a defining trait. With majority of the characters in this cat, the torture is just used as part of a single plot point, but has no lasting affect on the character.
JDDJS (
talk)
03:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Being tortured is often a defining event in a character's story and informs their actions, i.e.
Barbara Gordon or
Tobias Beecher. Also, if one were to consider this unimportant, logic dictates they would have to say the same of categories like "victims of child abuse" or "victims of sexual assault". What would be the rationale for deleting those?
Keep Several characters are defined by the torture they have endured in their main storylines.
Uncle Tom spends much of his novel tortured by Simon Legree, in Legree's futile attempt to break his spirit. He is eventually tortured to death. In his only (original) major appearance,
Thoth-Amon spends time as a tortured slave and is afterwards driven by a desire to kill his slave-owner.
Milady de Winter has been permanently branded with a
fleur-de-lis mark following a stay in prison. The mark is the cause of a murder attempt by her own husband, and later for her "execution" at the hands of her enemies. The torture marks and defines them, it is not incidental.
Dimadick (
talk)
20:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP: TRIVIALCAT. Both of the "keep" votes thus far have simply tallied a few exceptions without in any way denying the rule. And whether or not torture is significant to character arcs, this category is an arbitrary intersection of characteristics which provides no useful navigational purpose, like the already cited Fictional tobacco users.--
Martin IIIa (
talk)
14:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Media files requiring de-merge
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.
Nominator's rationale: "de-merge" is awkward, prefixing with "Wikipedia files" as is norm for maintenance categories. —
Train2104 (
t •
c)
01:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:British Army appointments
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.
Comment - The scope is not quite the same one is about offices to which people are appointed, the other about ranks, some specialist ones. However the distinction is a narrow one.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
00:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Not sure what you mean. I'm not suggesting appointments should be merged to ranks. They are different things. I'm suggesting two categories about appointments which differ only in the wording of their titles should be merged. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The two categories have different scope. The first is for specific posts, usually pretty senior ones. The second is for generic job roles, so e.g. someone might hold the rank of Warrant Officer Class 1 but the appointment of Regimental Sergeant Major. I agree that the two category titles are confusingly similar, but I think it would be better to rename
Category:British Army appointments to something else first, and then redirect the old category title to
Category:Military appointments of the British Army.
Opera hat (
talk)
06:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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: split, which in this case in practice means rename to Sasanian Empire, and merge millennium categories. –
FayenaticLondon20:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: A grossly anachronistic category, which was recreated in 2016, following preceding deletion cleanup. The content is including only a single subcategory of establishments referring to the
Mar Behnam Monastery, which was established in contemporary
Assyrian province of the Sasanian Empire. There was no such country as Iraq in the 1st millennium CE.
GreyShark (
dibra)
18:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
We don't appear to have a consistent policy on the relationship between geography and history. There are plenty of categories about places in countries which didn't exist at the time.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Official policy has not yet been established, but "legally speaking" - almost all proposals to eliminate anachronistic categories have passed in recent years, setting a fair precedent. Take a look at
2013 discussion on Syrian categories,
2014 discussion on Syrian categories,
2016 discussion on El-Salvador and there are plenty others. Editors should refrain from creating anachronistic categories, due to political sensitivity (just imagine if all pre-2014 Crimean categories will now retroactively be renamed to "in Russia") and Wikipedia's aim to create stability (if Scotland quits United Kingdom would we be required anachronistically retag all historic events in the area of Scotland as "in Scotland" instead of "in the United Kingdom" or "in the Kingdom of Great Britain"?)
GreyShark (
dibra)
07:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment, the one article has no reference to the Roman Empire, the territory at the time belonged to the Sasanian Empire. So we'd better not put this article in the Roman Empire as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
23:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Correct - the one article doesn't belong to the Roman realm, but Romans had control over what is now North-Western Iraq at some years of the 4th centuries, so for instance
Siege of Singara was taking place in nominal Roman Empire (currently not tagged as "in Iraq").
GreyShark (
dibra)
06:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment One problem is that chthe borders between the
Roman Empire and the
Sasanian Empire underwent frequent changes due to the nature of the
Roman–Persian Wars (54 BC-629 AD). For example the Siege mentioned refers to the fortified settlement of
Singara. The settlement was first mentioned in Roman hands c. 114 AD. It was abandoned in 117, recaptured by the Romans in 197. It apparently remained Roman until the Sasanians captured the settlement c. 359/360. Two different empires held the area in the 4th century.
Dimadick (
talk)
19:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Supporting a Mesopotamia category only if we're sure we can populate it decently. It's no use keeping this separate for just one single establishment.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose the idea to use categories not based on geopolitical entities - there was never such a country as "Mesopotamia". There is no problem to split between Roman and Sasanian domains since we have only a couple of articles - one in Roman and another in Sasanian domain. Period.
GreyShark (
dibra)
08:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Great Britain the island vs GB the state
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:do not rename; no consensus to delete. Perhaps the Events (including Trials, Disestablishments and Establishments) should be renamed with "Kingdom of..." but I don't find sufficient consensus here to implement that (to include their many sub-categories) from this discussion. –
FayenaticLondon21:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale This scheme seeks to disambiguate the island of
Great Britain from the state created in 1707 - the
Kingdom of Great Britain. The state existed for less than a century yet is has a slew of categories over many centuries. This is simply ahistorical. The state should be confined to just 2 categories by century (even though it only existed for a single year in the 19th century). The remainder of articles and categories are proper to the island. I've also proposed the creation of a number of castegories to fill out logical gaps in the current arrangement. The fact that the current schema stops at the 18th century lends credence to the idea that it is in reality viewed as a proxy for the state.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
11:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I oppose the notion to have timeline categorization of a geographic location (British isles), but of course support the rename of "Years in Great Britain" to "Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain" for the years when the kingdom existed (1707-1801) and "Years in the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (until 1922); for current United Kingdom state it should be of course "Years in the United Kingdom".
GreyShark (
dibra)
07:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Britain is a place - actually includes a number of islands. Great Britain is a political idea, not an island, nor even a collection of islands. If these categories are to be renamed they should be of the form
Category:Britain.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Query If the proposal succeeds, a scope note for the islands cats could be written to say that it includes the near islands. Much like the category for Ireland does not say that it includes the Aran Islands or Achill; they're assumed. Would be happy with that?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
22:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Alternatively I can also live with
User:GreyShark's suggestion to delete all period by island categories. In this case the GB island categories are mostly just containers to host England, Wales and Scotland, so they don't add too much.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
My thoughts exactly. For categories preceding the establishments of the Kingdom of Great Britain we should have contemporary containing categories "Years in the Kingdom of England" (1035-1707) and "Years in the Kingdom of Scotland" (843-1707).
GreyShark (
dibra)
07:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose There is no need to distinguish between the Kingdom and the island which is exactly the same size. The Catholic dioceses refers to the period after 1850 only. Since the CAtholic Church is organised by country, I am not sure that a GB category is useful, though it is probably better than a UK one as the Catholic Church is organised on an all-Ireland basis. Some of the problem is with the existence of anachronistic categories for England, Wales, and Scotland for periods before they were respectively united, so that this series has been created to parent it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose renaming: the kingdom and the island were geographically the same, so there is no need to disambiguate between them. Whether some of these categories should exist at all (as Greyshark09 says they should not) is a separate issue on which I don't really have an opinion, but as long as the categories are here then they should keep their present names.
Opera hat (
talk)
23:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional victims of torture
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.
Nominator's rationale: It's not a defining trait. With majority of the characters in this cat, the torture is just used as part of a single plot point, but has no lasting affect on the character.
JDDJS (
talk)
03:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Being tortured is often a defining event in a character's story and informs their actions, i.e.
Barbara Gordon or
Tobias Beecher. Also, if one were to consider this unimportant, logic dictates they would have to say the same of categories like "victims of child abuse" or "victims of sexual assault". What would be the rationale for deleting those?
Keep Several characters are defined by the torture they have endured in their main storylines.
Uncle Tom spends much of his novel tortured by Simon Legree, in Legree's futile attempt to break his spirit. He is eventually tortured to death. In his only (original) major appearance,
Thoth-Amon spends time as a tortured slave and is afterwards driven by a desire to kill his slave-owner.
Milady de Winter has been permanently branded with a
fleur-de-lis mark following a stay in prison. The mark is the cause of a murder attempt by her own husband, and later for her "execution" at the hands of her enemies. The torture marks and defines them, it is not incidental.
Dimadick (
talk)
20:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP: TRIVIALCAT. Both of the "keep" votes thus far have simply tallied a few exceptions without in any way denying the rule. And whether or not torture is significant to character arcs, this category is an arbitrary intersection of characteristics which provides no useful navigational purpose, like the already cited Fictional tobacco users.--
Martin IIIa (
talk)
14:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Media files requiring de-merge
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.
Nominator's rationale: "de-merge" is awkward, prefixing with "Wikipedia files" as is norm for maintenance categories. —
Train2104 (
t •
c)
01:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:British Army appointments
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.
Comment - The scope is not quite the same one is about offices to which people are appointed, the other about ranks, some specialist ones. However the distinction is a narrow one.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
00:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Not sure what you mean. I'm not suggesting appointments should be merged to ranks. They are different things. I'm suggesting two categories about appointments which differ only in the wording of their titles should be merged. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The two categories have different scope. The first is for specific posts, usually pretty senior ones. The second is for generic job roles, so e.g. someone might hold the rank of Warrant Officer Class 1 but the appointment of Regimental Sergeant Major. I agree that the two category titles are confusingly similar, but I think it would be better to rename
Category:British Army appointments to something else first, and then redirect the old category title to
Category:Military appointments of the British Army.
Opera hat (
talk)
06:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.