Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 9



Category:Historic counties in Moravia

 * 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 merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Historic counties in Moravia to Category:Sudetenland
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, creator of the category apparently intended to write a series of articles about counties in Sudetenland but left Wikipedia after writing one article. Perhaps we should move the list of counties on the category page to the article Sudetenland or to its talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Opposition rationale: as creator of the category I strongly oppose such an idea because it is historically inaccurate. The geographical boundaries of Moravia and the geographical boundaries of Sudetenland are not the same. If you do this you will be introducing false information into Wikipedia.  You are right, I was hoping that someone else would come behind and create pages for the rest of the counties.  Should I create stub pages instead?
 * Drmissio (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- The target is a general category. The subject is a specific one. The question is whether we need this at all, since the counties only became part of Germany for about seven years.  A list article ought to be enough.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above, since the former category is rather specific and the latter is comparatively general it does not do any good in my opinion to merge them. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply Based on County Römerstadt I understood this was (mainly) about the administrative subdivision from 1939 to 1945 when this Sudetenland county belonged to the German Empire. Note that the parent category is Category:Sudetenland as well. If this is a misunderstanding however, Category:History of Moravia may be a better merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the new articles in this category I really fail to see why you oppose. These articles are about counties in Sudetenland, aren't they? Instead of merging, I would now propose renaming to Category:Counties of Sudetenland. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Explanation -- The correct rename target for its present scope, according to the head note, would be Category:Moravian counties in Sudetenland. This would require an equivalent Category:Bohemian counties in Sudetenland.  My objection is that the border was restored to its pre-1938 position in 1945, so that the category is about a status that existed for just seven years.   Category:Historic counties in Moravia would be a legitimate category, but should relate both to ceded counties and those not ceded.  Perhaps my opposition should be interpreted as a vote to rename, keeping it as a sub-cat in trees both of Sudetenland and of Moravia.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Opposition rationale continued: I can certainly see the confusion - Peterkingiron suggests that the category is relevant only for the 1938-1945 time period because the boundaries were "restored" to pre-1938. This is false information. The boundaries of 1938-1945 reflected historic German boundaries in Moravia (which had been under Prussian / Austrian / German control for centuries). If one takes a look at information about these historic counties one will quickly discover that some of the county boundaries existed back for centuries.  For example, County Romerstadt (Kreis Romerstadt) came into existence as an administrative area in 1406 and included 39 German towns (http://www.heimatlandschaft-altvater.de/10.html.)  These towns are the same ones listed in the current Wikipedia page for the 1938-1945 time period.  So, while the current information does seem to favor the 7 year period of 1938-1945, each of these are historical stubs and should be treated that way. The goal is for these to become articles written about each of these counties during the centuries when German language (Moravia) was predominate. Certainly it is true that "The Austrian system of administration 1848 - 1918 lasted in fact during the whole period of the first Czechoslovak republic until 1938, with small changes during the Nazi occupation and remained in the first years of the renewed republic until 1948/1949." (http://zlimpkk.tripod.com/Genealogy/admin.html)
 * The "Kreis" was the "The oldest administrative unit of the state." So, once again, I restate: I strongly oppose such an idea because it is historically inaccurate. The geographical boundaries of Moravia and the geographical boundaries of Sudetenland are not the same.  If you do this you will be introducing false information into Wikipedia.  Drmissio (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While I understand your intentions better now, the current content of the articles does not reflect your intentions at all. So the Sudetenland categorization is correct for the articles in their current state but not correct for your intentions about the final scope of the articles. I would say that for now we should use the Sudetenland renaming as proposed by User:Peterkingiron and while (if) the articles are expanding the category may be renamed to reflect the changing scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I left a notification at WikiProjects Czech Republic and European history with an invite to join this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification -- I accept that the boundaries of Moravia existed from medieval times. The Margravate of Moravia was long ruled by the Kings of Bohemia, which was in turn one of the realms of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.  A category for the historic kreis of Moravia might well be a legitimate category (which would be a keep vote).  Kreis of Moravia transferred to Germany in 1938-45 as part of the Sudetenland might also be a legitimate category, but as a subcategory of Sudetenland, not a merge target.  Kreis that were majority German-speaking might even be a legitimate category, though (as this would have changed with time), it would be better dealt with as an article (with statistics).  My opposition is merely to the present proposal, not to a wider restructuring of the category and an associated tree.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2017 (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:Holding companies disestablished in 2005

 * 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: relisted at 2017 May 13. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2005 to Category:Companies disestablished in 2005
 * Propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2006 to Category:Companies disestablished in 2006
 * Propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2007 to Category:Companies disestablished in 2007
 * Propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2012 to Category:Companies disestablished in 2012
 * Propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2013 to Category:Companies disestablished in 2013
 * Propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2014 to Category:Companies disestablished in 2014
 * Propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2015 to Category:Companies disestablished in 2015
 * Propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2016 to Category:Companies disestablished in 2016
 * Nominator's rationale: Categories with just one or two entries. Unnecessary subcategorization. Also upmerge to Holding companies diestablished in the 21st century. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose merging     Category:Holding companies disestablished in 2000 to Category:Companies disestablished in 2000
 * Also propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 1924 to Category:Companies disestablished in 1924
 * Also propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 1964 to Category:Companies disestablished in 1964
 * Also propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 1972 to Category:Companies disestablished in 1972
 * Also propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 1984 to Category:Companies disestablished in 1984
 * Also propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 1993 to Category:Companies disestablished in 1993
 * Also propose merging Category:Holding companies disestablished in 1998 to Category:Companies disestablished in 1998
 * Nominator's rationale: Categories with only one or two entries. Unnecessary subcategorization. Also upmerge to Holding companies disestablished in the 20th century. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * two similar noms amalgamated. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support -- There is no fundamental distinction between a holding company and a company generally. It is possible that in some cases the disestablishment consisted of them ceasing to be independent as the result of a take over bid, but that did not necessarily result in liquidation. The contnet needs careful consideration.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a "fundamental distinction between a holding company and a company generally." Unfortunately it is (deliberately) the kind of thing only a corporate lawyer can love--and for Wikipedia purposes, edited by laypeople, this poses real categorization difficulties. But it's something real. Doprendek (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. General problem: There's *not enough* subcategorization. "Companies established in nnnn" is one of those categories that needs further subcategories, not less. Also, as someone who has sometimes done the (too tedious) work of moving overloaded general category articles into appropriate subcategories, I inevitably find that many subcats are weakly populated simply because the overstuffed general category contains entries that should be placed in those subcategories. And little-populated categories shouldn't be purged simply because they are lightly populated: They should be looked at like stubs; categories have to start somewhere! If they are to be purged they should be purged based on the criterion that they don't belong in Wikipedia, no matter what size. (Personally I am a conservative on the purge question.) Now, there is a real problem with the category "Holding companies" (see my comment above) that has to do with the hairy definition of a "holding company." So have that argument. But "too many subcategories" or "not enough companies populating this subcategory" isn't the right argument. And if an alternate suggestion is: Place copmpanies currently in "Holding companies" in other *subcategor(y/ies)* of "Companies established in nnnn" hey I'm all for it... except first you should try to recategorize some of the "Holding companies" members and you might see it's not as easy as it looks. Doprendek (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if there may not be enough subcategorization I wonder if categorization (within the disestablishment by year tree) by type of company will ever result in a lot of decently-sized categories, there are just too many types of companies. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Further comment -- A holding company is one whose activity is holding shares in subsidiaries. In my country (UK), they are all incorporated under the Companies Acts, so that there is no fundamental distinction.  At some periods in its life, it may be a trading company; at others a mere holding company; and it may be both.  If it is taken over, it may remain an intermediate holding company, if only because dissolving it is work.  I heard of a public company, which when it needed a new subsidiary did not go out and form a new company (or buy one off the shelf), but would reactivate a dormant company.  A company that is liquidated (whether in solvent or insolvent liquidation) is certainly disestablished, but a company that is taken over is not necessarily "disestablished": it will probably ceased to be quoted on the Stock Exchange, but it does not thereby disappear.  There is in fact another issue, which is corporate rearrangements for tax reasons, which were common for UK public companies in the 2000s.  This involved imposing a new holding company between shareholder and the old holding company, so that the shareholders got shares in the new company and a cash lump sum.  This involved a change in the ultimate holding company of the group, but for WP purposes, I do not think we would want separate articles on both companies.  Another example: The Royal Dutch Shell group used to have two holding companies, the (Dutch) Royal Dutch Petroleum NV [I may not have the name exactly right] and Shell Transport and Trading.  Some years ago, it was reorganised so that the shareholders had respectively 'A' and 'B' shares in a single holding company.  Should WP regard this as an establishment and a disestablishment?  Technically, it was, though I do not think any company ceased to exist.  It might be useful to have a "quoted companies" tree with newly listed companies in an establishment tree and delisted companies in a disestablishment tree, but that is not something that can be done through this nom.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2017 (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:Mijnwerker

 * 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. This probably didn't even really need to come to CFD at all, but could simply have been speedied as an empty category. Or as WP:NOT — if anybody's wondering, based on the creator's other edits I was able to confirm that what the page really was, was a walkthrough list for a non-notable Minecraft clone, and even if such content belonged in Wikipedia at all it still wouldn't be in category space. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting mijnwerker


 * Nominator's rationale: Only page is a sandbox. Marvellous Spider-Man  14:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per above and there's no mijnwerker. Brandmeistertalk  19:32, 9 April 2017 (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:Seychellois law stubs

 * 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 upmerge (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting seychellois law stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Except for the treaty category, most of which is flooded by non-stub articles applying to several countries, there are very few law articles written about this country. A stub category will likely not be needed for a long time. Propose deleting category and upmerging template to . Dawynn (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and upmerge per nom. With only 4 articles, this is way too small for a stub category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 9 April 2017 (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:Members of the Parliament of Ireland (pre-1801)

 * 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 thus giving way to a fresh expanded nomination (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Members of the Parliament of Ireland (pre-1801) to Category:Members of the Irish House of Commons
 * Nominator's rationale: The Parliament of Ireland consisted of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, so the current title is ambiguous. The proposed title is consistent with the relevant article Irish House of Commons and complements the other Category:Members of the Irish House of Lords. Opera hat (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Good call, Opera hat; I support it in principle.   However, the same issue applies to member of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and its predecessors the House of Commons of Great Britain and the House of Commons of England, and also the subcats of Category:Members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland by term.
 * Since the same terminological issues apply to all these Parliaments, we should treat them consistently. If this proposal was applied to all these categs, then I would support it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the best way to extend the proposal? To open a new discussion, or to tag more categories onto this one? Opera hat (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - despite the article being at the target. The category ought to be a container one, but there are a lot of articles that need diffusing.  Possibly Category:Irish MPs pre-1801 to match subcats.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't actually said why you oppose. I agree the category should be a container. Opera hat (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2017 (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:Footballers' wives and girlfriends

 * 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: keep (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Footballers' wives and girlfriends to Category:WAGs
 * Nominator's rationale: This is only a renaming proposal, per WAGs, which is also listed in Oxford Dictionary. Five previous discussions resulted either in keep or no consensus.  One renaming discussion was sidetracked and closed with "it would be helpful to have a fresh nomination in which [...] we just need to discuss the name: rename or not?", so giving it a clean start. Brandmeistertalk   09:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The acronym will be unfamiliar to many readers. Categs appear on article pages without any explanation of the titles, so the categ name needs to be clear and unambiguous; otherwise readers have to open the page to discover what it is about. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Footballers' wives and girlfriends is not a full name of the acronym and is more like arbitrarily chosen trivia. Dictionaries like the aforementioned Oxford or Macmillan use WAG instead of Footballers' wives and girlfriends. For such cases we have Template:Cat main so that after clicking on the category the reader would find the relevant article. Brandmeistertalk  19:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – agree entirely with BHG. WAG is UK tabloidese. Oculi (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose since this is a potentially obscure abbreviation. Perhaps the target should exist as a cat-redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – just call a spade a spade and use the name of what it really is. No reasons to resort to an abbreviation. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought all though my 'oppose' vote largely stands, since there is a WAGs article I would not be opposed to the creating of an article for a redirect. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2017 (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.

Voivodeships of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose delete Category:Bratslav Voivodeship
 * Propose delete Category:Brest Litovsk Voivodeship
 * Propose delete Category:Chernihiv Voivodeship‎
 * Propose delete Category:Minsk Voivodeship‎


 * Propose delete Category:Mstsislaw Voivodeship‎
 * Propose delete Category:Navahrudak Voivodeship
 * Propose delete Category:Nowogródek Voivodeship (1507–1795)‎
 * Propose delete Category:Polotsk Voivodeship‎
 * Propose delete Category:Smolensk Voivodeship
 * Propose delete Category:Trakai Voivodeship
 * Propose delete Category:Vilnius Voivodeship
 * Propose delete Category:Vitebsk Voivodeship
 * Propose delete Category:Belz Voivodeship‎
 * Propose delete Category:Czernihow Voivodeship
 * Propose delete Category:Kiev Voivodeship
 * Propose delete Category:Masovian Voivodeship (1526–1795)‎
 * Propose delete Category:Podlachian Voivodeship
 * Propose delete Category:Podolia Voivodeship‎
 * Propose delete Category:Ruthenian Voivodeship
 * Propose delete Category:Volhynian Voivodeship‎


 * Nominator's rationale: delete trivial intersection of geographic articles by history categories, all these categories are populated with current towns and villages while a past country subdivision isn't defining for a current town or village. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. Definition of a past country subdivision for a current town or village could be traced in the history section of those populated placed, first of all. Second of all, it helps locate and understand the origin of people that were born on territory of modern Ukraine, while borders of these parts of Europe were changing. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, why are you coming up with this proposition for these territories and not mention other such as Category:Province of Hanover??? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree on the latter, Category:Province of Hanover is completely similar. That'll be for a next nomination (dependent on the outcome of this discussion). Not sure why you mention that it helps to locate people. People were born in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, full stop. (While they may have been Ruthenian people, but that's a different issue.) Besides helping to locate people is not what categorization of towns and cities is meant for. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- Itis useful to historians to know which country-subdivision a place was in. The item I checked had several articles and a people from ... subcat, which ought to be valid.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it's useful to know and should be mentioned in the article. That doesn't make it a defining characteristic however. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete this batch and related. Categorizing cities and towns by former subdivisions makes very little sense, and it only confuses the reader - if you were not familiar with region's history, which would be your first guess for the current subdivision of Lutsk? It has the following former subdivision categories: Cities in Volyn Oblast, Wołyń Voivodeship, Volhynian Governorate, Volhynian Voivodeship. In this region, you could live in the same house all your life, yet live in five different countries... Renata (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ALT Keep and rename Prefix all in the batch with "Former voivodeship of" so people will know we're not concerned with current realities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2017 (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:Asian American philosophers

 * 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:Asian American philosophers to Category:American academics of Asian descent; Category:Filipino American philosophers to Category:American academics of Filipino descent; Category:Korean American philosophers to Category:American academics of Korean descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting asian american philosophers


 * Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to relevant parents (i.e. not the "by occupation" container). Overcategorization. Also includes Category:Filipino American philosophers and Category:Korean American philosophers which should be upmerged to non-containers. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. This is an irrelevant intersection. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Upmerge -- Too specific to be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or upmerge (just get rid of the current category); aside from the triviality of the thing, the name is potentially confusing, as one might misinterpret it as a category for Asians who study American philosophy (or Americans who study Asian philosophy), rather than Asian-Americans who study philosophy. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2017 (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.