Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 19



1789 establishments in Washington, D.C.

 * 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 Category:1789 establishments in Washington, D.C. to Category:1789 establishments in Maryland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)


 * Merge Category:1789 establishments in Washington, D.C. to Category:1789 establishments in Maryland
 * Nominator's rationale Neither Washington nor the District of Columbia existed in 1789, Georgetown University was created that year in Georgetown, Maryland, which would become part of the District of Columbia in 1800 and become part of Washington in 1870. The law expressing the intent to create the federal city on the Potomac was not passed until July 1790, and location of the site, building the initial infrastructure of the city of Washington and creating the District of Columbia all post date that event. Events happeneding in 1789 in Georgetown were indistinguishable from events happening in any other part of Maryland. It was a unified state with no reason to expect it would looose part of itself in the near future to the Federal City. In 1789 it was expected the Federal City would be drawn out of Pennsylvania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. The main problem I see is that these things are currently in Washington, D.C., but if the merge goes through they would be shifted from the tree to the  tree, and it's unlikely people will be looking for information about the history of things that are currently in Washington, D.C. in the  tree. It seems like allowing for this anachronism will be helpful to users and eliminating it will make things more difficult. A good solution might just be to have the articles in both categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Agree with Good Olfactory. It appears that overall, the nominator's work on this subset of categories is informed by a mindset that the last part of the category name refers to a state of mind instead of a piece of geography.  Where I live, the category tree is fractured, with "#### establishments in Alaska", "#### establishments in Alaska Territory", "#### establishments in the British Empire" and "#### establishments in Russia", much of which is the direct result of the nominator's effort.  This makes effective navigation damn near impossible. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  11:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's why I have long argued that it's OK to have categories that categorize things that happened in the past by the name of the piece of territory as it is named now. History books and academic articles do this all the time and it's therefore a natural way to structure a history category tree. Pick up a book called The History of Germany and I guarantee it will include pre-1871 goings on. But no, "we can't have anachronisms". I have also argued that if users insist on doing it their chosen way (which JPL has consistently), they should at least say it's OK to have a parallel categorization system that uses the current names, and users can choose which system to use to find things. But in previous discussion, even that compromise has been seemingly a bridge to far for some users. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is nothing like the Germany categories. There was somewhat of a concept of Germany in 1830, it was just not at all like today and very vague. There was noconcept of the District of Columbia in 1789. It would be nice if people paid attention to the actual facts at hand instead of to issues that have no relevance to the discussion at hand. The issues related to Germany have no relevance on this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They have relevance only in that current borders are often used in the context of discussing historical events. It has happened with Germany, and I see no reason why it hasn't also happened with DC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can vaguely see the utility of the present structure for Georgetown, but we cannot allow anachronistic categories. I suspect there were few establishments in what became DC before 1800, at least few that will need articles.  I would suggest that Georgetown should be categorised as "1789 in Maryland" and perhaps "Establishments within the subsequent District of Colombia" (not split by year), with a head note explaining that DC was created in 1800 out of Maryland and the category is for establishments in DC before the district was created.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "we cannot allow anachronistic categories". Why the hell not? If an anachronistic category improves navigation and makes Wikipedia easier to use, then not only can we do it, we should do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The developed consensus over many discussions is that we should not create categories for events by year that do not properly represent events by year. Georgetown University was no more established in the District of Columbia than an institution established the same year in Acre would have been established in Israel. This is a totally clear anachronistic. There was another entry in this category that I moved to the appropriate New York category, because the institution was established in that city and only later moved to DC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the approach you discuss is helpful at all. If consensus has been in favour of it (and I question how strong it has been), it has been misguided, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In addition if a university were to move, we would place it in the establishment category based on where it was when it was established. These categories are meant to bring together events in a place in a given time. When that place did not exist in any way, shape, means or form at that time than they are unworkable. There was no concept of the District of Columbia in 1789. This is not like places that had a vague, undefined and not quite present concept in that year, such as Italy, this is a place that had no definition of meaning to people living in that year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Category Germany is not at all a good model for the question here. Germany had vague existence at some level, and even some organizations occasionally using the name for centuries before it was founded. Better examples are Israel and Pakistan which both for complex reasons cannot be said to have existed before they were created in the 1940s. The District of Columbia in the same way did not exist at all in 1789.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just generally, I have been strongly advocating against anachronistic categories like JPL, but lately got a bit less strict on this after I realized that there is a difference between political history (which obviously requires contemporary polities in the category names) and what I call local history (which sometimes may require current names by lack of meaningful contemporary alternative). It seems like this nomination concerns a typical example of the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge (creator) If Washington, D. C. didn't exist, then we can't have things established in it before it was established. I agree that we have a serious problem with category navigation for entities like "Germany" or "China" which refer to various cultural groups across several empires/republics/political entities. We should definitely rename those categories so that it's clear which entity we mean but for a city like this, it's fairly straight-forward. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's another example of this absolutist approach: we "can't" do X. Of course we can! If it improves navigation, we can and should do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Having a one article category asserting something was founded in a place that was not even dreamed of when the place was founded does no good at all for navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it could very well in many situations. For instance, if someone is researching the history things presently in Washington, D.C., they are far more likely to turn to the tree than the  or the  tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – For the record, JPL left a message on my talk page related to this discussion, which appeared to address GOF's comments more than it did mine. Putting that aside, I realized that this is a lot of to-do over a one-article category, which in itself is another impediment to effective navigation between articles.  The past three years or so, it seem as though we have editors who treat the expansion of the category structure like it's a parallel universe version of FarmVille and won't stop until every Wikipedia article has its own vanity category. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  15:53, 29 December 2015 (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:Charles Barkley video games

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting charles barkley video games


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Category has two members and I highly doubt Charles Barkley will be endorsing more video games. The1337gamer (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2015 (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:Backyard Football video games

 * 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: upmerge to Category:National Football League video games. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting backyard football video games


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Category has a single member as previous Backyard Football game articles were merged into the series article. The1337gamer (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2015 (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:Asheron's Call

 * 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: upmerge to Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting asheron's call


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. A video game series category is unnecessary for just two games. The1337gamer (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2015 (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:Eastern Orthodox saints by church

 * 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 05:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Eastern Orthodox saints by church
 * Nominator's rationale: delete as it only contains two by-nationality child categories (not by church) and these two child categories are correctly under Category:Eastern Orthodox saints by nationality‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Question Or would it be more accurate to rename these Category:Saints of the Russina Orthodox Church and Category:Saints of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Does it even make sence to refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is multiple churches with a complex system of interacting with each other, lacking a centralized overarching structure as seen in the Roman Catholic Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think this is a good idea. One, only rarely an article will mention which particular Eastern Orthodox churches recognize the saint. Two, it might potentially lead to biographies belonging to a dozen of Eastern Orthodox saints categories if the saint is recognized by all Eastern Orthodox churches. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The Category:Eastern Orthodox saints by nationality does a better job than this candidate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2015 (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.

Roller derby venues

 * 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting roller derby venues


 * Propose deleting roller derby venues in australia


 * Propose deleting roller derby venues in canada


 * Propose deleting roller derby venues in new zealand


 * Propose deleting roller derby venues in the united kingdom


 * Propose deleting roller derby venues in the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: In CFDs from earlier this year (see here, here and here), plus prior to that (here), these categories were all deleted despite the fact that at least a handful of venues exist in the world whose notability is defined by hosting professional wrestling events (such as the Dallas Sportatorium and the ECW Arena, among others). The same situation applies here.  Evidently, interpretations of WP:OCVENUE dictate that we only overcategorize when it comes to named sports teams or leagues, which this doesn't fall under.  As I'm sure was the case with the deleted categories, I noticed the problem when one of these categories was attached to an article whose textual body made no mention of roller derby. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  13:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -- As used, these are performance (=event) by performer (=venue) categories, which we do not allow. If any were dedicated venues for this sport, I would not object in principle.   Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DexDor(talk) 07:28, 29 December 2015 (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.