Category:Black liberation movements in the British Empire
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 rational:delete as unnecessary and a classic case of what I've termed
Liberation Lingo. The category is an example of
loaded language in and of itself, and uses a contentious label. Whether or not these organizations were genuine liberation organizations and of themselves is not for Wikipedia to judge, per
WP:MORALIZE and
WP:DECISION - for the same reason we don't take sides when it comes to terms like "freedom fighter" and "terrorist". Furthermore in Africa "liberation movement" has an entirely separate meaning from the typical (black) North American usage of the word, indicating a militant movement engaged in armed conflict. However, this category groups them together with unrelated black power movements in the U.S. that have not engaged in an actual war, according to its arbitrary OR definition of what constitutes liberation movements. The groups listed there are already sufficiently covered under
Category:African and Black nationalist organizations in Africa and
Category:African and Black nationalist organizations in North America. --
Katangais(talk)23:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Don't plainly delete, if the category is not needed (which I'm neutral about) then at least the contents should be upmerged to the parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The first article is in only one of the two parent categories, the second article is in neither of the two. So an upmerge is definitely applicable.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: The category has been emptied. I did individually review each of the articles listed in this category (not hard to do, there were fewer than ten), and found that they could be easily re-categorised due to the amount of overlap. Some didn't even belong there at all, such as black nationalist groups formed in the United States long after American independence from the British Empire. I say we can go ahead and safely delete it now. --
Katangais(talk)20:08, 16 October 2016 (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:Ancient Roman forts
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: I have gone through all of the subcats and added all pages to better categories, with more precision, such as legionary forts, marching camps, auxiliary forts, etc etc, as such this category and all of its direct sub-cats can be deleted.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum23:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose Let's take just one example for the moment:
Isca Augusta. You have not "gone through [...] and added all pages to better categories" for this page, as you don't appear to have edited it at all. If this category of
Category:Ancient Roman forts in Newport, Wales was deleted, that important site would be significantly disconnected from categorization as ancient Roman sites.
Secondly, I have no idea what you're trying to achieve here. The categories you list for deletion are categorizing sites by their modern geography, so that readers today can find their local sites, or sites in a particular locality. That is useful, common WP practice, and is orthogonal to the type of site, such as "legionary forts" etc.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
07:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Andy Dingley: the last category: Roman legionary fortresses in Britannia (UK) might interest you. I attempt to achieve exactly what i said, ancient roman fort is very vague, I made or added to several categories, the Roman legionary fortresses's are one of the pre-existing ones, i made "Category:Roman military fortifications" to contain all of the new and old categories such as: Roman Auxiliary Forts, Roman Citadels, Roman fortified camps, Roman fortified roads, Roman Limes, Roman milecastles, Roman signal towers, Roman Vexillation forts, Roman walls and as mentioned, Roman legionary fortresses, these are all broken down by modern country. Having more definitive categories makes them better.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum11:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Having categories for milecastles etc. is not "better", it is different. The point is that the categories being discussed here tie the sites into geographical location, in modern terms. They are a convenience for people planning visits today. I can see the value in "milecastles", but if I'm planning a trip and want to see Roman sites, I plan by where I'm going instead. It's unworkable that we'd ever produce categories for the intersections of "milecastles in Powys" etc.
For clarity, I'd be happy to see these renamed as just "sites" rather than the slightly-specific "forts". Also "Ancient" sees tautological, outside Rome itself.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
12:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply
We have "guns by country" and "artillery by country" we don't have "Things that shoot stuff by country" its the same with roman forts, the word castrum can mean very different things. Also your point about planning a trip is kind of meaningless, as if you google it (like anyone who was actually planning a trip) you'd still find it.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum12:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep for the moment I applaud the work done. It took a lot of effort. As far as it goes, it's categorical attributions are more correct. I don't like "Brittania (UK)" though - no such entity existed or exists. It, and similar ahistorical names, ought to be renamed. However, @
Andy Dingley: also has a good point; each article also needs to point to the current political country in which the site is located. A double geographical navigation (historical and contemporary) is best. So until the second part happens, this must be a "keep".
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
19:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Laurel Lodged: I'll fix the brittania thing, as for the countries, I believe that all of the others are in contemporary countries, do you mean it should also be by Roman countries, if so, should the contemporary country be inside the Roman one?
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum20:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Laurel Lodged: that's because "roman military fortifications" is a master category, it doesnt contain example by country, it just contains the example, and example contains example by country, if you check inside those categories you will see it.
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum12:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose, on the basis these categories are suitable containers for the subdivisions Iazyges has recently created. Though I'm not sure why the word "Ancient" is needed, unless the Roman Empire is still actively building forts.
Sionk (
talk)
12:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)reply
We should have two category trees: by modern location, and by type of site. We should not have a category structure for the intersections of these. We should have both "Milecastles" and "in Monmouthshire", but not "Milecastles in Monmouthshire" as that would make the categories too narrow, thus effectively empty.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)reply
It was me that added the "Category:Ancient Roman forts in... " cats to Iazyges' new cats yesterday, and then Iazyges quickly reverted. For Iazyges' info, categories go from the general to the specific - "legionary forts in the UK" need to go in "forts in the UK" categories. While
Iazyges clearly knows about the Romans, I'm not sure they completely understand categorisation. Either way, they shouldn't pre-empt the outcome of the deletion discussion they created.
Sionk (
talk)
04:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The present category scheme is anachronistic. The appropriate scheme would be by Roman province, as existing in the first century AD, so as to ignore the later subdivisions of provinces. In the case of the UK the boundaries of the four late Roman provinces are not certainly known, so that we cannot use them. Wales is an artefact of the Middle Ages, for a series of petty kingdoms (later lordships) not directly ruled by English kings. Scotland similarly did not exist, not did Algeria, Bulgaria, etc.
Category:Legionary forts in UK is a similar anachronism and should be renamed to
Category:Legionary forts in Britannia; Inchtuthil is current categorised as fort (but was a legionary one). The fragmentation of the forts in Wales by council area is unwelcome: these should be upmerged to
Category:Roman auxiliary forts in Britannia and
Category:Roman sites in Monmouthshire, etc. I suspect the Bulgaria category should be "Thracia" and the Romanian one "Dacia", etc.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron:, @
Sionk:, @
Laurel Lodged:, @
Andy Dingley:, How about the following compromise: We keep Roman military fortification as the master category, under it we have roman fortification in _____ (country), under that we have it split off into ______(type of fortification) in _____ (country). Example being, Roman military fortifications --> Roman fortifications in Germany --> Roman auxiliary fortresses in germany. Is everyone satisfied with that?
IazygesConsermonorOpus meum18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)reply
No, not at all. You seem to completely misunderstand all that has been said so far.
We should have two [sic] separate trees for this, joined only at the top. One can be your "Roman military fortification", with whichever subcategories you favour. The other is rooted in a broad "Roman sites" category (military and civilian, even geographical) and then divides by modern geographical location. Peterkingiron has suggested a third category tree, by ancient geographical location, and we could do this too, but also in parallel.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
18:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)reply
What I am proposing is we have two trees (1) Roman sites in (current country/county etc), which will cover not only forts, but towns, villas, etc. In some cases this may generate enough sites in a county for a worthwhile category, but I am still dubious in the case of south Wales (2) Roman sites by type grouped under Roman provinces. In the case of GB they will all need to be in one provincial category - Britannia, since we do not know precisely where the boundaries were. In other early provinces, such as Moesia, Pannonia, Thracia, it may be known where the boundaries were so that the use of late Roman provinces would be feasible. There are two potential course of action, one is for this to be closed as no consensus, leaving people to work on a new tree. The other is to leave this open in the long term, pending the creation of a new cat-tree. I would prefer the former, as on implementation, there will be a large number of redundant categories. The solution is probably to create the new categories, required for the new scheme and purge some of the existing ones so that they can be repurposed and renamed. I would love to work on this myself having in the past dabbled in Roman Britain, but I do not have the time; indeed, I ought to be doing something else at present.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree with proposal 1 above. I too have been working on this area to make the proposal work. But there's just too much work involved. Take it off the table and implement the above solution.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
11:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)reply
"I am still dubious in the case of south Wales" I'm always dubious about the South Wales counties - they're just too small and fragmentary. But we have to work with what we have.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
12:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I would agree on the present South Wales counties, but that is an issue of detail, which does not affect the principle. I was suggesting "Roman sites in <modern county>" on the basis that this is how we would categorise tourist attractions, but the pre-1974 counties, whose boundaries matched those of marcher lordship and hence of Welsh kingdoms might do as well. These are issues to be worked out in more detailed CFDs in due course. For clarification, I am proposing two parallel trees, Roman site in <modern polity> AND Roman forts in <Roman province>.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose While the proposed highly detailed categories would have merit, we don't want to lose the geographical overview that (Ancient) Roman Forts by county provides. It is currently consistent with Forts by county and Castles by county, and I'd strongly oppose changes there.
Vicarage (
talk)
10:30, 24 October 2016 (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 Merchant Navy personnel of World War I
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 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:Internal migrations
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: The result of this discussion is keep. Both commenting editors agreed that the proposed rename is not needed or appropriate. The argument to upmerge, which was not part of the original nomination but was suggested in the subsequent discussion, apart from not having gained consensus, was successfully countered by the example from the Human migration(s) categories.
Debresser (
talk)
10:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Internal migration. The category contains internal migration by country (mostly) or continent (incidentally) - but not by region. Since it is too small to split between a country and a continent subcat it seems better to just merge it to the parent.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:36, 26 September 2016 (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:Buildings of Downtown Houston
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.
Upmerge to
Category:Buildings and structures in Houston, Texas. There's very little need for buildings in a city to be subcategorized by which individual neighbourhood in the city they're located in — this might be justified if Downtown Houston was its own separate borough like
The Bronx or
Barking and Dagenham, and was thus partially its own distinct political entity, but cities without distinct boroughs don't need subcategories by neighbourhood.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:05, 10 October 2016 (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:Bulgarian companies established in 2007
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 either to delete or to rename. (The meaning of the nomination is unclear to me since the format of all of the subcategories of the parent
Category:Companies established in 2007 by country is "FOOian companies established in 2007".)
Keep -- If a company is incorporated in Bulgaria it is Bulgarian. If the complaint is that the category is too small, the solution would be to merge to 2010s.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and upmerge contents. There are simply too few companies in the parent category to justify sub-categorising them by year.
Sionk (
talk)
21:19, 12 October 2016 (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:Horn African countries
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 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:Production and organizations
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 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.