Category talk:Establishments

RfC: Do these member articles of these categories include bridges?
I've placed this here since it seems relevant to all such categories, but if there is a better forum, please tell me. I recently reverted this addition of the "2014 establishments in Maine" category to an article about a bridge. Looking at some of the establishments categories, they seem intended for businesses, organizations, or groups/places, and not transportation infrastructure that is purely functional. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bridges also already have "Bridges completed in X year" categories to indicate when they were constructed. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is that a lot of people have been adding things like bridges to categories like Category:1952 establishments in Oregon for years now. A bridge establishes a link between two places. Canals and many other such things also qualify in the establishments tree because they are formally inagurated. Beyond this, adding such things to establishment by country by year categories will lead to those categories being more substantial. Establishment is a loose enough term to cover such things, it gets at the essence of what we are trying to cover, and by using it broadly we create larger categories that are more useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly; a bridge is a link, not a business, organization, government, or other group founded and operated by people. I don't think the mere fact of holding a ceremony means something is 'established'. Taken to the extreme "establishments" could include virtually every page on Wikipedia, as even people are 'established'. It's not useful to people to bury articles in massive categories. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, bridges are not establishments but I see the reason for this question. The problem is the term establishment. See the explanation of the root of a word establish: - it means build too. Wikipedians from all around the world may not be familiar with its meaning in the modern English. The least we can do to prevent adding articles into this category by mistake is to clearly define establishment on Wikipedia. The current article The Establishment is just adding to the confusion but once fixed could be added as a main article to the Category: Establishments. Gpeja (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gpeja in that the problem is at the root of the word Establishment. Bridges are not establishments, but are types of infrastructure and are not regarded in the same way as an establishment would be.  Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No Bridges should not be listed in a "established in X year" category, per the argument above that this refers to businesses, groups, etc, and not structures. Summoned by bot. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not feel the above commentors are dealing with the fact that lots of people have felt that a category such as Category:1913 establishments in Oregon should prodly cover all things that were in some way or other established in Oregon in that year. It is meant to be a subcategory of Category:1913 in Oregon to capture all the things that had a defining occurance to them in Oregon in that year. Far better than removing bridges from this category would be renaming it to Category:Establishments and building and structures completions in Oregon in 1913 and so renaming the hundreds of other categories so changed. However I think that it would be much easier to just assume that for the purposes of geographic categories xxxx year establishments means things and institutions established or completed in that year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If these categories were that broad they would cease to have much meaning. Holding a ceremony to publicize the opening of a bridge does not constitute an 'establishment' in keeping with the meaning of 'establishment'(an organization, group, or business). If desired there could be state specific bridge completion categories("Oregon bridges completed in X year") since we already have more general ones. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes they do, as does anything built, created, made, set up, or you know, established. That is one of the definitions of establish, to build. This is like the discussions I've had where people take a knee-jerk reaction to judges being placed in politician categories because people argue they are not elected officials, despite the fact that a judge meets the actual definition of politician. That is, people base their decisions upon their own feelings without actually looking at the definition of the word. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please link to a page or describe a source defining the word in that manner. I don't see it here, or here. By that standard, even people should be categorized as "established", since they are created. Virtually every page on Wikipedia would be categorized that way, rendering categories 1) meaningless and 2) useless to readers looking for specific subject matter. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Establish definition. Further, if you look at Category:Establishments by type (part of the establishments tree) you will see a bunch of structures there (events venues, sports venues, music venues). So can someone explain how a stadium is different than a bridge or some other structure? Aboutmovies (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See my posts above. A bridge is infrastructure, not an organization, business, or group. Bridges are constructed, not established. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your posts above do not explain why a sports arena is an establishment but not a bridge. Again, you are going with your opinion and not the definition of establish/ment. This is the sort of self-absorbed rationale I mentioned below as to politicians. You are entitled to your opinion, but we tend to make decisions based on sound judgment such as dictionary definitions and not gut feelings (where possible). Not to mention you asked for a link, and now that does not seem to matter to you as if you only cared if I could not come up with a link. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The link you posted was the same one as I posted so I didn't really see how that helped your position. Dictionary definitions can also vary from source to source so while they are very important they are not the be all end all. How readers look for information is also relevant. A sports venue is operated by some sort of organization(a team, a governmental body); bridges are infrastructure that do not require constant activity(with the exception of perhaps a toll bridge with an organization collecting tolls). 331dot (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, what you are saying is that despite you already reading that the dictionary definition of establish includes "to build" you still wanted a link? Can you explain why you would need a link to something you already knew? It sounds like you are only interested in information/arguments that support your opinion.
 * Bridges are also operated (see the verb definition where it says use). Aboutmovies (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that I thought you were getting your definition somewhere else so I wanted to see where. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We also already have categories for the completion of bridges ("Bridges completed in X year") and burying bridges in massive establishments categories does not help readers. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree and think having them in location specific establishment categories is useful to readers so they can see what all was started in a specific year in a specific location. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Some judges are elected officials, and some are not. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which does not matter when categorizing as politicians. The argument people make is that since say federal judges are not elected, they are not politicians, despite the definition of politician. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it does matter; but I don't think this is the forum to reopen that debate, nor do I care to. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No, my inclination is that while bridges are established at a given time, and my dental insurance contract was also established at a certain time, neither belong in the category "establishments." Obviously that word can mean many things, but I suspect that this particular Oxford English Dictionary definition fits best:

"An organized staff of employés or servants, often including, and sometimes limited to, the building in which they are located: … A public institution, a school, factory, house of business, etc."

Arenas, schools, pubs, good cafes, places of ill repute, homes of great wealth and esteem, and so forth are all structures with staff that could be described as establishments. A bridge is a wonderful thing and it's not crazy for someone to think it's an establishment, but if it is, it's either a very different kind of establishment, or a very unusual type of bridge, with a welcoming party willing to host you whenever you cross it :) -Darouet (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Should musical groups count in the establishment by place categories?
In a lot of ways this almost seems so obvious I see no reason to bring it here. A musical group is a thing that is estabalished. We have Category:Musical groups established in 1991 and many other categories. Would anyone claim the Mormon Tabernacle Choir should not be placed in the place and year it was established? Yet on the article Skunkhour two different editors have reverted my edit with the claim that musical groups do not belong in the establishment tree because they are not organizations, places, awards or competitions. I am not sure how one can understand the word organization in a way that it excludes musical groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see the opposing side of this, as musical groups do not have a physical facility(usually) that they primarily operate from. I would however agree that a musical group is 'established' and sometimes disestablished(if they break up) as it is a group of people deciding to perform music together for the public. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To expand on that, organization typically means (comes up when I google it) "an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc." which would seem to apply to musical groups. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Military units by place and year of establishment
I keep putting military units such as 119th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment into categories such as Category:1862 establishments in Illinois. The article explicitly states the unit was organized at Quincy, Illinois in 1862. This is one of a great many articles that another editor then comes along, removes the category saying it is an "unneccesary category". There is no justification for this unilateral removal, and I wish there was a way to stop it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Others undoing our edits is just how things work here. That said, a military unit seems like it meets the definition of establishment to me. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Languages
There's an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Languages about how languages should be organized and whether they belong in this and the disestablishment categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Monuments?
At Category talk:Establishments the consensus was that a bridge was not an establishment. The Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument and several other monuments have now been added to 2017 establishments categories. Does anyone object to me removing them from those categories? AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like they should be in Category:Works. Greenshed (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Exclude TV series debuts from Establishments in countryname
I was directed here by the helpdesk, see here. I believe it is clearly wrong to have Category:Italian television series debuts in Category:Establishments in Italy as a subcategory, so I'm opening a discussion here. This issue is not limited to just Italy but affects many "Establishments in countryname" categories. --Dutchy45 (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping -- John of Reading (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John of Reading. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, a courtesy ping to, who had some involvement in developing the suite of templates which categorise TV shows, and who created the very helpful navbox Television chronology category header templates which links them all together. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I take the opposite view: that things which started in YYYY in Country X belong in "Category:YYYY establishments in Country X". The only case I can see against that is that maybe someone might might take an unhelpfully narrow reading of "establishments", but I cannot see any way in which such narrowness assists readers or editors. Note that per WP:CAT, The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories ... and the parenting of these categories assists navigation. So I look fwd to Dutchy45's explanation. Note that this parenting is implemented by Nationality television series debuts or endings category, which I created. If there is consensus to change this parenting, altering that template will change it for every one of the 203 categories which use this template. But I hope that any proposal to change it will include an explanation of: a) what parent to replace it with, and why; b) a proposal on how to consistently reparent the by-year, by-decade and by-century categories, which are formed by similar templates and parented in a similar way. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC) Basically, we have several category trees for hings which started in a particular year, labelled variously "beginnings", "debuts", "establishments", "introductions" etc. They are all variations on the same concept, and I wish they could all be combined. That's probably a separate discussion, but it seems to me that "beginnings"/"endings" should cover everything. In the meantime, as FL notes, there's no point in having a flurry of these variations at country level: it would be absurd to have "cat:1987 establishments in Ruritania" and "cat:1987 beginnings in Ruritania" and "cat:1987 debuts in Ruritania" and "cat:1987 introductions in Ruritania". So for now, we use "YYYY establishments", and I would support a CFD nom to merge for merger to. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Notifications: WikiProject Categories and WikiProject Television. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * in what way is it clearly wrong? That's just an assertion; please explain your reasoning behind the assertion.
 * I note that is a sibling rather than a subcat of, within . TV debuts are within  within Debuts, which may or may not make sense. I am not sure whether all four of those are needed. But there is surely not enough  content to extend more than one of them down to the country level. Establishments by country is a well-developed hierarchy, so I am strongly inclined to keep and use that to parent TV debuts by country, rather than build a thinly-populated structure above or alongside it for e.g. "beginnings".
 * I therefore suggest nominating for merger to, since it contains only TV debuts by country.
 * The corresponding Category:Television series endings by country is within Category:Disestablishments by country, and contains no other by-country hierarchy. – Fayenatic  L ondon 06:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Fayenatic london's analysis is good (as usual!).
 * @BrownHairedGirl, you're right. It was just an assertion. I assumed it wasn't controversial. Clearly I was wrong. In my opinion a TV-serie is not an establishment like an organisation's physical location, which I thought was meant here. I think that, because of the word debut, your using establishing here as a synonym for founding i.e. starting. See here 1.3 nouns nr. 1 and 2, while I used noun 3. I haven't seen establishment used as a synonym for ruling class anywhere in these categories, although I believe ruling class fits the definition of establishment much better than TV series debut. Your view that things which started in YYYY in Country X belong in "Category:YYYY establishments in Country X" is wrong IMO because start and establish are interchangeable, they mean the same thing. I do not believe the parenting of these categories as it is now, assists navigation. People looking for TV series debuts are unlikely to look into establishments. Instead it will cause confusion. Perhaps renaming category:establishments and all similar named subcategories to something else is the solution. Dutchy45 (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that issue here is that you read the word "establishments" as referring to the ruling class.  The term has other meanings: see e.g. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/establishment or https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/establishment#English (which you linked to).
 * I dunno why you chose to disregard the other meanings of the term, but since you are Dutch, I presume that English is not your first language. That may be a factor here.
 * I can't make sense of your comment Your view that things which started in YYYY in Country X belong in "Category:YYYY establishments in Country X" is wrong IMO because start and establish are interchangeable, they mean the same thing. If you agree that start and establish are interchangeable, they mean the same thing, then I can't see why you disagree with my proposition.
 * As to your assertion that people looking for TV series debuts are unlikely to look into establishments, I think you are wrong. That's where all the other "things started" are.  See Category:2007 establishments in the United Kingdom: why do you want to remove Category:2007 British television series debuts from that category?  How would that help navigation?
 * When something on Wikipedia is as widely-used and long-lasting as this, it is most unwise to assume that changing it will be uncontroversial. it also seems to me to be a bit odd to come to a project using a language which is not your native tongue, and tell everyone else that they are misusing the language. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * paragraph 1) I did not read the word "establishments" as referring to the ruling class. please reread. par 3) It would be the exact same thing if it read the other way around: Category:YYYY establishments in Country X belong in things which started in YYYY in Country X. One doesn't belong in the other. They are interchangeable. par 4) I guess we have to disagree on that 1 par 2&5) I did not know that it is widely-used and long-lasting, but I do note, and am amused by, your attempt at biting me :) Regards, --Dutchy45 (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I tried hard to not bite you.  But feel free to take offence if that is what you want to do.
 * Your latest post also makes little sense: if you agree that "establishments in" is interchangeable with "things which started in", then why on earth did you start this discussion on the basis of your assertion that it clearly wrong?
 * I am sorry to say that this now looks even more like someone getting out of their depth in trying to nitpick about the usage of their second language. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)