Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 1 October 3 >

October 2[edit]

Category:Pending AfC submissions by Doncram[edit]

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. If the creator of the category wants to track their submissions in a sandbox, feel free to do so, but the category can be deleted. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty maintenance category, which was created by the user named in it to serve a personal purpose outside the purview of AFC. From what I can tell, Doncram is under a "no creating new articles in mainspace" sanction that has him confined to AFC review, so he created this himself to hold all of his AFC submissions -- but the bot that disables category declarations on AFC drafts keeps disabling it when he tries to use it, because drafts can only be in categories that are transcluded by AFC maintenance and status templates and not in categories that are directly declared in the [[Category:Bla bla]] format. This means that there are several drafts textlinking to the category but no drafts filed in the category, because the bot keeps converting attempts to file articles in the category back into text links again. From the category's "what links here", further, it only seems to be in use on three drafts, meaning that we're not talking about a massive onslaught of drafts that needs special handling.
If AFC ever decides that there's a need to categorize some or all users' submissions as "Pending AFC submissions by Specific User", then it will create a template to tag and categorize drafts accordingly, but until such a need has been identified Doncram's submissions aren't of any unique priority that would require special treatment over and above the rest of the AFC queue. If Doncram wants to keep track of his submissions to AFC for his own personal purposes, then he can always do that by means of a personal worklist in his sandbox -- but they don't need their own dedicated category in the pending AFC review queue, especially if it doesn't even work properly. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:USERNOCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 11#Categories by username * Pppery * it has begun... 18:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Created with good intent but proven to be useless after the event. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not too happy to randomly discover that this conversation is going on, with speculation and judgments (not awful ones, but still), without informing me. User:Bearcat, why not notify me? A different editor had questioned the existence of the category, and I responded and made some changes that partially addressed the functionality, and also I made a request to the owner of the bot which has most directly undermined it, which you are not aware of. Y'all are harshing unnecessarily IMHO, don't y'all have better things to do?
I don't like the insinuation of my wanting special treatment. It wasn't crazy or selfish or anything like that, as there previously existed such a category under slightly different name, which was in use for a couple years then not used for a while and was deleted. It is a reasonable kind of thing to allow, for myself and other editors. Keeping a worklist is not the same; it doesn't update.
I do happen to have at least 6 articles under AfC review, which on average have been pretty long outstanding, which is mildly demoralizing, by the way, although I thought there were more (and maybe there are). One function of this would be to direct attention of AfC editors familiar with types of articles I often create (which was a good function of the previous version). And some of the articles outstanding are definitely valid articles (I know from experience), but are list-articles which as a type seems to be outside the knowledge base or comfort area of most or all AfC editors. Having a functional category would assist in raising discussion elsewhere about that, about list-article drafts of mine or more generally (and if the functionality were fixed, then similar categories could be used to classify outstanding AfC-submitted articles for analysis/discussion along these lines).
However I do see that the category is not working now, and now it is targeted by this proceeding, and I know it is generally futile or extremely difficult to fight this kind of bureaucratic proceeding once it is started in, arguably, the wrong forum. Like people opening an ANI process which brings in arguably bad or uninformed actors on a sourcing question, and which cannot be stopped, rather than discussing a source at the appropriate forum that exists for evaluating reliable sources, which led to my current restriction. It is, frankly, a bit rude and disrespectful and demoralizing that the arguably wrong forum is being imposed, again. I am not especially resenting you nominating this and participating here, because this is how it goes, and it has been raised in this forum. But a politer alternative would have been to consult with me and then potentially assist my raising the technical/functional matter and the more general problem more successfully, or allowing me to request deletion myself. FYI, there are no longer any usages of the template; i deleted the last usages before noticing the link from this discussion to the category. --Doncram (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC) (revised 00:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Firstly, I use Twinkle to create nominations. Twinkle does certainly fail sometimes to complete all the steps, but if and when it does that it's not a problem that can be pinned on me as a failure on my part — because it isn't a nominator's responsibility to do a follow-up review of whether Twinkle actually completed all the steps Twinkle was supposed to complete. And as nice as it would be if everybody always got notified of everything at all times, it just doesn't actually happen that way — it's just reality on here that for a lot of different reasons you're not always going to get notified of every last thing that might be of interest to you, so it is ultimately your responsibility to stay on top of those things on your own rather than sitting back waiting for notifications that you're not always going to get.
Secondly, nobody attacked you; I understand the reasoning you thought you were aiming for, and was simply trying to explain why it doesn't work. Drafts simply cannot ever have any categories on them that are directly declared, and can only be in maintenance categories that are transcluded by AFC maintenance and status templates — and bots simply don't have a way to distinguish between "category that should not be here at all" and "category that should be treated as a special exception", which is why your request over a month ago for this category to be coded as a special exemption from the bot process didn't go anywhere either. There just isn't any way to make the bot ignore a hardcoded category declaration on a draft, meaning there just isn't any way to keep this category populated.
What may have been done a decade ago, under different circumstances and different rules and different processes than we have now, has no bearing on what can be done today — as much as it might suck, the AFC queue is significantly backlogged, so it can take weeks for everybody's draft submissions to get reviewed. But that doesn't mean AFC owes your drafts special attention, over and above everybody else's drafts, just because they're yours, especially if there's just no way to make the category work the way you intended it to.
The only chance this ever has of drafts actually being able to stay in it without getting removed again is if AFC decides to create a template to categorize all AFC drafts for the identity of their creator, because drafts can only be filed in categories that are transcluded by AFC maintenance templates. So if it just isn't serving the purpose you thought it was going to serve, and it can't be made to serve the purpose you thought it was going to serve, then what's the point in taking it personally? Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a nominator's responsibility to make notification. There is no "but i used Twinkle" exception. --Doncram (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Notification is encouraged, but we do not have a rule that notification is invariably required — and we certainly don't have a rule that it would be my responsibility to apologize for a technical screwup that wasn't my fault, either. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: I see that I cannot myself rename or move this category, which I was about to try to do. If the decision of this process is to "delete" it, could the closer please rename it and move it to my user space (changing it so it is an article and no longer functionally a category), so that the history is maintained. To, say, User:Doncram/Former category Pending AfC submissions by Doncram. So that I might reference it and revisit history in future potential action or proposal to restore such a function for others. --Doncram (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And converting a category into a sandbox page would accomplish what? Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that what's needed is an AFC template to create such a category, suggesting that advocating through AFC for creation of such a template, is the way forward to addressing this. Well, I just may take that up, and I am not 100 percent sure but i think my being able to retrieve history of what went on in my efforts, could be helpful. No one should have a problem with that. Or is there some shortage of storage space? That argument for deletion has been repeatedly debunked; it is all stored anyhow, and deletion just makes it impossible for me to see.
I have NOT particularly taken anything here personally, but someone pressing to erase all history, if that is what is going on, could begin to make it look like I should. --Doncram (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You tried to create a category that isn't actually useful, and can't actually be made useful. Nobody said there was a storage problem — but there is a "what's the substantive value of trying to preserve the history of a technically non-functional category?" problem.
And no, AFC is not likely to create a special template just for you and you alone, on the grounds that your submissions were somehow more important or special than everybody else's submissions. If AFC ever decides that there's value in automatically categorizing all AFC submissions for the identity of their creators across the board, that's one thing — but it's not going to give your drafts special "because they came from you" handling that other people's drafts don't also get. If you want to keep track of your submissions, the way forward is for you to maintain a worklist of your submissions in your sandbox, not trying to get a special category devoted to you personally. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2022 (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:Thai national heritage films[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TOPTEN violation. Although there's no head article to explain exactly what a "Thai national heritage film" is, and most of the articles filed here provide absolutely no context for their inclusion either, I've been able to sort out from one of the articles (Bad Genius) that the Thai Film Archive releases an annual list of films from the past year that it has deemed culturally or artistically significant -- basically Canada's Top Ten, but for Thailand instead of Canada.
Accordingly, a properly sourced article that listed the inducted films would be fine, but we don't categorize for inclusion in other organizations' proprietary and copyrighted ranking lists. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2022 (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:Scientists of the Ayyubid Sultanate[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two one subcategoryies. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge keeping any subcats in place pending any discussion of them. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- This is a redundant category layer. "scientist" is in any event a problematic term in dealing with the medieval period. The subcategories should appear directly under the scholars parent. I note there is also a redundant layer for historians in this tree where the only category is for 13th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2022 (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:Alawite communities in Syria[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for this categorization of towns with an Alawite, Sunni or Druze majority. We do not see such categories in countries with religious or cultural pluralism, such as the United States or Iran and many other countries. Sakiv (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it is still relevant, especially in the context of the ongoing civil war in Syria and politics there which are often heavily influenced by religious orientation. The nominator's claim of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is both objectively false and inconsequential. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does the civil war have to do with this discussion? The category suggests that these villages/towns are inhabited exclusively by Alawites, and this is a huge mistake. There are more Alawites in Damascus than in any other region of Syria. The problem with this categories is that it is understood that they are like ghettos or have some kind of autonomy.--Sakiv (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In the Middle East, the practice of endogamy within religious communities has meant that they come close to being ethnicities. If a place is dominated by people of one religious community, that deserves categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:09, 2 October 2022 (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:Province of Saxony[edit]

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: purge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: purge populated places, this is a history category about a former province, it should not contain current places. Also per precedent Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_3#Category:Province_of_Brandenburg. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is perfectly in line with the nomination, I support this too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:07, 2 October 2022 (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.

African-American businesspeople[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as trivial intersections between ethnicity and occupation, see also WP:EGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- I checked three of these and they are all well-populated. My view is that if an intersection can be properly populated, it ought to be allowed. In this case, these are people emerging from the era of segregation, when they were significantly disadvantaged, so that the achievement is all the greater. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --I agree with Peterkingiron. They make sense in that they break down a larger category into more manageable entities and will only grow larger as more biographies are added.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:03, 2 October 2022 (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.

Architecture by country[edit]

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: rename (with some vetting first). As a whole, there seems to be a consensus to move forward with the rename scheme and put the tree in line with the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Architecture by country and style, but there are a number of particular cases that need to be vetted first. This will be listed at WP:CFD/W/M first to be looked at more closely. bibliomaniac15 03:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
154 more categories
Nominator's rationale: Many sub-categories already use "in", e.g. the sub-cats of Category:Baroque architecture by country. The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Architecture by country and style is going in the direction of using "in" rather than "of". In that discussion, I gave examples such as the Aswan Dam in Egypt being categorised as Soviet architecture, and there is a preference to exclude it from the Soviet category; to that end, the word "in" would make the criteria clearer. – Fayenatic London 10:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Privybst (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply renaming as proposed. The current scheme is a result of a 2019 CfD, where it was noted that the Architecture of Foo formulation covers a dual meaning: architecture within a country's geographical boundaries, and architecture culturally/historically connected to the country. If renaming to Architecture in Foo is to be considered, it needs to be accompanied by a split of members in the latter sense into separate categories. For example, there's Category:French architecture outside France, which is understandably included under Architecture of France but would be blatantly incorrect under Architecture in France. There's Category:Chinese architecture in Thailand which is clearly not in China. All the nominated categories will need to be checked for such members, and a separate tree set up to house them. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When preparing the 2019 CfD, I marked the categories for Armenia, Cambodia, China, Denmark, the Netherlands, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Morocco, North Korea, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam as warranting splitting. I don't remember the exact reason for each of them, but generally they contained subcategories or articles that are more about the architectural tradition than the geographical location. (I was being conservative, so some might not actually be needed.) There's Category:Spanish Revival architecture and Category:Isabelline architecture under the Spain category, for example, that contain subcategories about the Americas. And Category:Dutch Colonial architecture under the Netherlands. Many of these are nested under by period or by style subcategories, and some aren't currently subdivided by location. There are also individual articles like Statue of Liberty under the France category, for which the categories will need to be checked. I don't think Architecture by nationality would be a good parent. Most that warrant their own category should be somehow accommodated under Category:Architectural styles Category:Architecture by style. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Levivich and Santasa99 from the last discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Paul. Per the 2019 CFD, these shouldn't be renamed until/unless each one is looked at to figure out the of/in issue. Some may need to be split (into "in" and "of" or "outside of") instead of just renamed. Paul explains it better (thanks for the ping). Levivich (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks Paul_012. I don't remember previous discussions, so I need to check those, but on first glimps here, one thing I am certain - creating parent per nationality, or in some cases even ethnicity, is wrong and should be avoided at all costs. Only per country makes sense, i.e. Architecture in X (country), unless we can prove that architectural style which includes Y nation/ethnicity name in its own actually exists. (I am not surprised, not in the slightest, that Fayenatic was able to find that incredible category named on non-existent "Serbian architecture outside Serbia"-based on non-existent "Serbian architecture", but from experience I can say it's not the only misappropriation based on ethno-national identity or name, even if it means making up names and in this case styles, within Balkan scope.)--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys/gals don't mind, I have emptied three items "Serbian architecture outside Serbia" contained, and I am not absolutely sure but should it be a problem if we considered it for deletion through this discussion?--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before Santasa99 emptied one of them out of process, I was compiling the following list of content that was categorised as architecture outside its country of origin:
  • I did not spot any similar current content for Cambodia, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand or Vietnam.
  • Some of these are no problem at all, but some like the French category hold substantial content, and appear valid and useful. That French category holds a mish-mash of styles, and I do not think it would help to put it under "architectural styles" as if French-outside-France was itself a style. Some countries have valid material but not enough to justify a separate sub-cat. I am minded to say we should stick with the prior consensus and keep "Architecture of" as the top category for each country's architecture. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Fayenatic, I think, and using either "of" or "in", at least for the time being, is OK, I have no particular preference - actually, I do, at least I do think that, if we are talking about architecture as a distinct art form, then we need to be careful and consider first discipline and then style as specific characteristic. Maybe I would be clearer if I say that it's not "French architecture" if something was built in French Guinea by French, just like in case of Soviet constructing a dam across the Middle East doesn't make it Soviet architecture, simply because hydroelectric power plants and dams belong to a civil-engineering specifically branch of hydro-engineering which have no distinct architectural style related to it. Meanwhile, there is no Soviet architecture per-se, we have real-socialist classicism, sometimes called Stalinist arch., or, sometime later, brutalist, and other styles related to those socio-political circumstances, but only when we talk about civil-engineering discipline of architectural engineering aka. building engineering. I think something should be done about these X-country/nation arch. outside of X, unless we have Ottoman arch. outside Turkey, or Roman arch. outside Italy, and so on.--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the huge effort. I do think it would be optimal if we could come up with a way to systematically arrange these, but I can't quite think of a satisfactory solution either. The simplest option, aside from retaining the current arrangement, would probably be to have both Architecture of Foo and Architecture in Foo, with the latter falling under the former, but that isn't very helpful navigation-wise. As for the category breakdown, the Thailand category contains King Chulalongkorn Memorial Building in Sweden and Category:Overseas Thai Buddhist temples several steps down; likewise, Vietnam has Category:Overseas Vietnamese religious buildings and structures. (There are also Burmese, Cambodian and Japanese categories, though they're not currently parented under the architecture tree.) I think I expected Category:Angkorian sites, which contains sites in Laos and Thailand, to be under the Khmer category. South Korea and Taiwan I probably just included on the basis of needing to be merged if construed as traditions (Korean/Chinese). --Paul_012 (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification of previous comment: diaspora architecture should be put in categories of their own, architecture by style related to a certain country is quite questionable (but if kept should be in categories of their own), for the remainder "in" is perfectly alright. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fellow editors, this thing with "diaspora architecture" is all wrong, and whatever you do don't reaffirm that nonsense. In reality, at the very most, diaspore can have its "buildings and constructions" but to claim architecture is insane, for two reasons: national arch doesn't exist, and even worse, it feeds nationalistic POV pushing on the project. (We have large number of articles on arch - which you should check - it's a messy but comprehensive group of articles, and nowhere will you be able find the division of architecture by nation-nationality-ethnicity, including the diaspora; that some arch styles are named per culture within which it was developed (Morish, Ottoman, Persian, etc.) that is not a reason to use similar pattern and divide it per modern nations (even when categorizing Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Thai, etc. arch we should be careful not to confuse style with construction of modern buildings and utility) If any discussion comes up on this particular topic in the future, I am willing to elaborate in more comprehensive fashion, but for now, please avoid any action that would cement its usage or prevent any attempts to fix it.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's additional argument in form of a question(s): what is French architecture outside France(?); if French money, architect, builders erect a building/facility outside a French soil and the building is in style of modern arch or even in pseudo-morish style or neo-classical, etc. - what makes it "French diaspora architecture" or "French architecture outside France", specifically, and not simply "French building and construction in foo"? ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming of both "of" and "Foo's arch" to "Arch in Foo" per nom. ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support generally with the exception of those identified by Paul_012 and I'd include Category:Architecture of the United Kingdom in this list of exceptions too - because it has a sub-category of "British colonial architecture". An alternative I suppose would be to re-create "Architecture of FOO" for the exceptions, if that is a more pragmatic and practical solution. And then we will also need to decide what to do about the "FOOian architects" categories, because they may not all be working exclusively (or at all) in their country of birth. Sionk (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO that's not a problem, because WP:SUBCAT is flexible enough to allow some exceptions. – Fayenatic London 09:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the French-outside-France category is not being retained, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_28#Category:French_architecture_outside_France. – Fayenatic London 14:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To clarify my above oppose !vote, I'm not opposed to a solution that includes a manual adjustment of the above-identified subcategories, though I don't have a preference as to the specific method. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the overseas content is or can be held via sub-cats, and I believe the exceptions in those are allowable under the SUBCAT rule. But if we change to "in", how would we keep Four Boxes Gallery in Denmark and Shofuso Japanese House and Garden with the Japan hierarchy, if "Japanese architecture outside Japan" is not allowed? They seem to be unquestionably Japanese architecture. E.g. we could
    (i) Keep the existing "of" category names.
    (ii) Rename all using "in", but recreate old names as parents where needed. That would be somewhat messy and confusing.
    (iii) Use "construction" rather than "architecture". There are multiple pages for "French construction outside France" and likewise for Soviet. However, there may be only one candidate for "Thai construction outside Thailand".
    (iv) Set up a Japanese sibling to Category:Buildings and structures by Danish architects either as a sub-cat or with "see also" links to the national category, and allow these to hold articles directly (unlike the present Danish example) if outside the country, and keep them even for a very few pages. Note that this solution would still lose imitative examples like Grauman's Chinese Theatre in US. As for the "true collaboration"[1] King Chulalongkorn Memorial Building in Sweden, Thai artists decorated it but the architect is not recorded; however, it would not improve Wikipedia to remove it from the Thai hierarchy.
  • It seems to me that these Japanese & Thai examples are stronger cases for retention in the national hierarchy than the French category criticised by Santasa99 above. Overall, despite the support from some editors for changing to "in", I now think it is best to keep the status quo using "of". – Fayenatic London 09:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I was talking about whole time, from where the whole confusion stems from: "Japanese House" and "Japanese Garden" are style's authentic names, these are not national/state preferential attributes. Japanese House can be Danish, designed by Dane erected in Danmark. This makes considerable problem: there is no city on planet without all kinds of arch styles, architecture in Danmark consists mostly of, say, Secession, and variety of other styles, including Japanese House; whereas architecture in Japan consists mostly of Japanese House, and all other styles you can get even a Secession. (Remark: however, even as the style name they are often colloquial because in Japanese they have different distinct names, because not all Japanese houses and gardens are designed in the same style.) If it helps, I would go with (iv) . ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or combo between (iii) and (iv), and/or whatever is easier to implement. ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional remark - after checking some more, I also agree that "of", for now, could be better option than "in"; "of" is all encompassing, sort of speak, and there would be no need for further adjustments in subs, right(?). ౪ Santa ౪99° 07:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Fayenatic london, let's solve this problem once and for all going as you initially intended - by using "in". I checked a little bit and "Arch of Thai" has no sub-cat that contains Thai styles because "Thai arch styles" do not exist (I don't know if we have any article about particular Thai style nor if such styles exist); "Arch of Japan" has ("Japanese architectural styles"), but it's buried in "Japanese architectural history"‎. What we need to do is to create "Traditional arch styles of Japan", which would contain page "Japanese-Western Eclectic Architecture", and sub "Japanese architectural styles"‎, and I didn't look up for it but if we have Japanese garden pages and sub-cat that should also go in "Traditional". This new "Traditional arch styles of Japan" should, then, be included into "Arch styles" and into "Arch in Japan". ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant let's give it a try. ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly, "Japanese architectural styles" is not included into "Arch styles" at all at this point. ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have some Thai pages on specific way of building, sort of styles, which means we could create "Arch styles of Thai" ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One difficulty I have with that is that there is some separation between "architectural styles" and "architecture by (period or) style"; indeed, I was trying to extend and complete that separation at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Architecture by country and style, and the word-choice issue there prompted me to open the present CFD. That is, to distinguish between (i) articles about styles, and (ii) sub-cats containing buildings by style. Under that distinction, "Traditional architectural styles of Japan" would not contain articles on buildings, so what we would need would be Category:Traditional architecture of Japan. Of course, it would bolster that category (defining its separation from e.g. neoclassical, modernist and Postmodern architecture in Japan) to have a sub-cat for articles on trad styles. Do you think it would be legitimate to set up "Traditional architecture of Japan" and Category:Traditional architecture of Thailand? These could them also contain the few articles on buildings overseas. – Fayenatic London 13:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we could/should create Traditional arch of Japan (probably Thai too). I will check a little bit more vis-a-vis how many articles we have on style and how many on specific buildings that we could include (this should apply also to Thai, Korea, and we have one such on Chine(!)), and I will get back to your post later or tomorrow night). ౪ Santa ౪99° 18:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I created List of partitions of traditional Japanese architecture and the associated category. I was aware, naming it, of buildings outside of Japan that used these elements, and many buildings in Japan that didn't, and was trying to write a suitable title. My cat creation edit comment also says that I wasn't sure what supercats to put it in! So I'll have a try at a coherent, workable ontology. It may not be very good; I expect criticism.
    It seems we have two independent types of divisions. Geographic location is simple; we can usually all agree on whether a building is in, say, Basel or not. And what continent Basel is on (catting a building by well-defined time period, like Category:17th-century BC architecture, or time and place, like Category:Architecture of the Azuchi-Momoyama period, are similarly noncontroversial). The other division is cultural and stylistic.
    There's an analogy in food; Japanese food in California, and Californian food in Japan, are quite dissimilar from Japanese food in Japan and Californian food in California. You can find "Chinese food" almost anywhere, but it isn't the same everywhere. It's food conceived using food cultural and techniques originally from China, but adapted to local ingredients and other local cuisines. There is a strong difference between endonyms and exonyms; food in China is more likely to be labelled "Shanghai" or something more specific.
    Architecture is similar. We have Queen Anne style architecture, the rather different British Queen Anne Revival architecture, and the dramatically different New World Queen Anne Revival architecture, including Queen Anne style architecture in the United States and the Federation Queen Anne style in Australia. Category:Queen Anne architecture in Canada contains a mix of British-revival-like Queen Anne buildings, like the Bank of Montreal National Historic Site, and US-style Queen Anne buildings, like 223 Robert Street. These are all countries where many people speak English.
    There is also a strong difference between architectural endonyms and exonyms. Japan has native terms like Sukiya-zukuri style, but outside Japan, it's usually all lumped together as "Japanese architecture". This is an expression of systemic bias; the fact that it's common for English sources to be vaguer about stuff in non-English-speaking countries does not justify the use of vaguer terms. Sometimes exonyms are more precise; all the above Queen Anne styles were called just plain "Queen Anne" locally.
    My opinion: we should certainly categorize buildings by current location. This will eliminate most of the "But it wasn't part of Poland at the time" and "What polity was this Neolithic structure built by?" debates. If we do this by continent and country, we avoid most of the problems with overlapping geographic designations. Ultimately, this should be done by geographic coordinate system co-ordinates. Likewise, time period is done by date(s) of construction.
    We should also, independently, categorize by style. Where possible, we should use precise endonyms, using exonyms where they are more precise and supported by the balance of RS. A lot of these will be fusion terms, like Indo-Saracenic architecture, which should be a subcat of all the parent styles.
    Style endonyms in turn can be categorized by place of origin, so Sukiya-zukuri could be a subcat of Category:Architectural styles originating in Japan (on reflection I think this better than the vaguer "traditional"). If there are multiple places of origin, we can add several, or a more general geographic term. Where geographic terms overlap, well, something may originate in the Caucasus Mountains and in multiple countries in that area. We should also add terms that imply both place and time of origin, like Category:Architectural styles originating in the Azuchi-Momoyama period or Category:Architectural styles originating in the Ottoman Empire. Archaic geographical terms, from the time of origin, should take precedence here, and in case of doubt, several should be added. Add all that apply and aren't redundant. We might also want Category:Architectural styles common in Japan, with temporal subcats, for styles currently or formerly widespread there.
    We should categorize articles on architectural elements, techniques, materials, etc. by the style(s) of which they are typical, and the time periods and geographic region(s) in which they originate. For some modern things, the practical location of origin might be "global".
    Any opinions on categorizing things by religion, like Category:Islamic architecture or Category:Hindu architecture or Category:Christian architecture? The last contains only religious buildings and elements, the second mostly religious, but some secular, and the first has many secular entries. I found this discussion while looking into those on account of a renaming dispute. HLHJ (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm just going to copy my comment from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_2#Architecture_by_country_and_style -
    Ok, so, I have no opinion on the nom, but I think the problem this discussion seems to be having, is noted right in the article, Architecture:
    • "It is both the process and the product of sketching, conceiving, planning, designing, and constructing buildings or other structures."
    So for the question of "of" vs "in", for me it's a simple question:
    Is the intention to consider the category contents as art (the abstract - the "process") or a contructed object located somewhere (the concrete - the "product")?
    If it's art, then we should use "of". If it's an object, then it should be "in"
    And by the way - this issue exists in most of art, especially the fine arts. So we probably should keep that in mind, as this could/should probably lead to some broader discussions. - jc37 01:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod has stopped replying in the other discussion, but given his wider interest in arts topics, he may wish to respond to Jc37 above. – Fayenatic London 13:54, 8 November 2022 (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:University of the People alumni[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Category:University of the People alumni

Category:Editor's pronouns templates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Category:Editor's pronouns templates

Category:People from Udmurtia[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each Rathfelder (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This contains 8 articles on ru.wiki, so I think there is room to grow. OTOH, almost all of those articles are in the subcat Category:People from Kambarsky (i.e. the town), so perhaps we can just have that when the time comes and let the district go... Furius (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it makes much more sense to categorise people by towns and cities. That is almost always where they do whatever makes them notable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then: Keep: Category:People from Yakshur-Bodyinsky District (5 articles on uk.wiki), Category:People from Votkinsky District (11 on ru.wiki), Category:People from Vavozhsky District (8 on uk.wiki), Category:People from Mozhginsky District (18 on uk.wiki), Category:People from Malopurginsky District (6 on uk.wiki), Category:People from Kiznersky District (9 on ru.wiki), Category:People from Igrinsky District (16 on ru.wiki). Delete Category:People from Kambarsky District and the rest. Furius (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:52, 2 October 2022 (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.

Medieval Iraqi people[edit]

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: manual merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: selectively merge and delete, Iraq did not exist in the middle ages. Most articles are in an Abbasid Caliphate category where they properly belong, so these articles do not have to be included in the merger. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2022 (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.

People from sultanates[edit]

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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per precedent in this earlier discussion about empires. Presumably sultanates should be treated the same way as empires. Some subcategories already use "from", they have not been included in this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but why is Category:Scholars of the Mamluk Sultanate to be renamed to "historians"? Surely an error. That historians category needs to be checked that it is about chroniclers etc, not modern historians who study the period. I might have preferred "in" to "from", which only goes well with expatriate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_2&oldid=1125646910"