Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< June 1 June 3 >

June 2

Category:Shirley Jackson Award winners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining minor award, like all the others and the previous Cfd on it. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a minor award. Please review the news references in the last month. It also has 35,000 google hits. It also it present at a conference that is well known. The previous comments that it was too "new". Hence why I waited five years to add it back. How is this different then the "Rhysling Award for Best Long Poem winners" or "John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer winners" or "Edgar Award winners". Not as old as the Hugo Award winning writers or Lambda Literary Award winners or Nebula Award winners but still very important to the genre mbfitz

See WP:OCAWARD. The particular problem here is these awards tend to go to the same few people and it’s no help at all to have them all added as categories to the articles, along with their honorary degrees, roles as speakers at conferences, etc. A popular author who's been around for a while, like Neil Gaiman where I noticed this, would up with hundreds of them, in Gaiman's case for his comics, books, television and film work. Better to list them in the article for the award, as has already been done.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at http://www.sfadb.com/. They list it as a major award. Example http://www.sfadb.com/Stephen_Jones Example http://www.sfadb.com/Stephen_King Example http://www.sfadb.com/Neil_Gaiman or a less known author http://www.sfadb.com/Michael_Rowe

mbfitz

Keep: (1) Per "these awards tend to go to the same few people" please review. Please see http://www.sfadb.com/Shirley_Jackson_Awards_All_Nominees 75% have only 1 nominations.
(2) This is defining as it relates to the horror genre. Stephen King has won once.
(3) As per too many awards, why have others awards singled out & been nominated? Why this one? Too many in this genre? Genre too unpopular? --User:MBFITZ
(1) I don't think you've understood "these awards tend to go to the same few people", (2) read WP:DEFINING, (3) WP:OTHERSTUFF. DexDor (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2015 (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:Treasure troves by country

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, though a new nomination with a proposal to change to either "Treasure found in FOO" or something else might be worthwhile. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The latter two lines have been added June 4. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:OVERLAPCAT, a treasure trove is essentially a stack of treasures. Brandmeistertalk 12:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The introduction for Category:Treasure may need to be modified if this gains consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, the concept of treasure trove may be too narrow for separate categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- In UK, Treasure trove is a legal proceeding over the status of a find (law French trover), whether the find is the property of the finder (and/or landowner) or of the crown. In practice in UK today, the finder is compensated, rather than expropriated. How far there are similar laws abroad I do not know. I think the subcategories might be renamed to "treasure found in foo", but I do not think it is useful to have two deparate trees: there will not be enough content. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, it was until they abolished the concept some years ago! See Treasure_trove#United_Kingdom. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning merge but [redacted on relisting] there are a fair number of articles (all Western Hemisphere and largely US) about reputed treasure troves. I incline to the view that these might want to be kept segregated from articles about actual finds. Seyasirt (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: need to consider that this is part of Category:Treasure troves which also holds Category:Treasure troves by continent, Category:Treasure troves by period.
(Note: Originally listed at 2015 April 2)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 22:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. "Treasure trove" is a legal concept, and so is inapt. If this were Category:Treasure caches, I might feel differently. Neutralitytalk 16:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to the form "Treasure found in foo". Treasure trove is a legal concept. In English law, such treasure belongs to the crown, but there can be treasure found in circumstances where it is not treasure trove. The question is whether it as deliberately hidden. "Trove" is law-French from trouver, to find. I was going to suggest "treasure hoards", but a single item can be treasure trove. The ultimate parent should be Category:Treasure. (I had failed to realize that I had voted before). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Peterkingiron as afaics that's the intention of these categories - i.e. it's treasure that has actually been found (unlike, for example, Montezuma's treasure). I checked a sample of the articles in the UK categories and they didn't mention the treasure having been declared treasure trove so the current categorization is incorrect. DexDor (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand the rename. The article Treasure trove says it's a treasure that has been found, so why would we deviate from C2D? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Treasure trove is a subset of found treasure (see the article and Peter's comment above). The exact meaning varies by country. The Treasure trove article is borderline WP:NAD. DexDor (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't judge the quality of the content of the article, but as it stands it clearly covers the 'found' concept and it also covers the different meanings by country, some countries at least. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of the article says "The legal definition of what constitutes treasure trove ... vary considerably from country to country, and from era to era.". Thus, the term is not a good one to use in category titles. DexDor (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet treasure trove is a defining characteristic across the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The correct term is "hoard", which is sufficiently flexible for us just to use that instead. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. If the categories do include unfound hoards, then why do that? Am I misunderstanding the question? Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that trove = found. "Hoard" is ambiguous as it could include unfound treasure. You didn't spell out the full name of categories that you were suggesting, "treasure hoards in Foo" or "treasure hoards found in Foo". – Fayenatic London 10:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the existing categories seem to use "found" & I'm not proposing they should. Why should not any articles on unfound hoards be in the same categories? You've gone up this alley by yourself I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2015 (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:High schools in Thailand

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The stages in the Thai school system are elementary, lower-secondary and upper-secondary. The term "high school" is not used in Thailand. See Education in Thailand#Educational stages. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2015 (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.

National Film Award categories

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. I note, however, that none of these category names match the article name format for the relevant award. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure if this a sufficiently important award to fit the exception in WP:OC#AWARD. —Vensatry (ping) 10:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: National Film Awards are the foremost annual film awards in India, definitely the most important, and the award system is instituted by the Government of India. --jojo@nthony (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning keep: Is the main Category:National Film Award (India) winners also going to be deleted? It's not nominated as of now; but same reasons of WP:OC#AWARD, list-is-better, clutter-noise, etc. would apply there too. If the main category is not being deleted, why can't we keep sub-categories just to make the main category simple? The main category has 390+ articles now and these 7 subcategories.
    Also, the award category business is a bit tricky. WP:DEFINING says that if "reliable sources commonly and consistently define" this concept as regards to the subject, then we can consider it as a WP:DEFINING feature and thus can have a category for it. Many of the biographies we have; let's say in the category Category:Best Actress National Film Award winners have referred to this award in the lead. For some actress, like the newcomers and non-Bollywood, Geetanjali Thapa, Rehana Sultan, Sreelekha Mukherji, Usha Jadhav, Mitalee Jagtap Varadkar, and more, this award itself is the defining feature. Various GAs/FAs or fairly well written articles of these biographies cannot skip mentioning these awards in lead. Even after decades of career in acting it's not possible to skip mentioning that Shabana Azmi is the 5-time winner of this award. For new-comers and others, this Government Award is not only prestigious but also a promotional factor. Film posters of various regional films are re-printed with a mention of these awards on them e.g. File:Dhag poster.jpg. And this all we talked of on-screen personalities. For off-screen and technical awards, being recipient of this award is the most defining thing for many of these entries. Am not saying that all this is applicable for all entries. Like for example Satyajit Ray's NFA as Music Director goes unnoticed for his tremendous work in various other realms of film making. But for Amit Trivedi, winning NFA for his 2nd film is a big deal. Are lists better? Yes! But categories are better still for different purposes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:44, 4 June 2015 (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.

Filmfare Awards categories

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure if this a sufficiently important award to fit the exception in WP:OC#AWARD. —Vensatry (ping) 10:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (copying my comment from above) I'm not commenting on the notability of this award (as I haven't researched it at all) but I'd like to comment on the inconsistency of this deletion proposal. The current categorization method of film award categories is to create a Category:AWARD-CATEGORY AWARD-ORGANIZATION winners as seen in Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners which is placed in Category:Male film actors by award. Also note that these categories also have a list version (Academy Award example again: Academy Award for Best Actor). If this proposal for deletion is because of this categorization method and not because of the notability of this specific award, a much bigger discussion should be made. --Gonnym (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These awards do not rise to the definingnes required for award categories. Gonnym misses the whole point by mentioning notability. If we categorized every person by every notable award they had received, categorization would be a nightmare. We already have come close to that with some individuals. In a few cases we have separate articles just on the awards an individual has received. They then are categorized by most of those awards, creating a double listing of the same thing on the same page. Award categories have spread too far and too wide and need to be brought into conformity with the guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep -- These appear to be among the top awards for Indian films. The Best film award is for Hindi films; some others are for other languages. Exceptionally, we allow Academy Award winners categories, as the top Hollywood award. However Bollywood films will not a look in there. This an exception to the general prohibition in WP:OC#AWARD. My vote is qualified as I do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD and nominate the parent categories for deletion in a next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: These are the most notable film awards. Nationl film awards are given by President of India, but among non-governmental awards these Filmfare awards are most notable, rather rank one awards in India. In India, National Film Awards (India) are equivalent to Academy awards, while Filmfare awards are equivalent to Golden globe. WP:OCAWARD allows making category on award if "receiving the award is a defining characteristic". And this award is indeed a "defining characteristic". --Human3015 knock knock • 15:24, 18 July 2015 (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:China Railways succession templates

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name of the company is not "China Railways", but China Railway. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:12, 2 June 2015 (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:People on Indian postage stamps

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a person (e.g. Charlie Chaplin) has appeared on a postage stamp is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the person. Similarly organizations such as Bombay Dockyard and buildings such as Taj Mahal should not be under Category:Postal system of India. See related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_1#Category:Flora_and_fauna_on_Indian_postage_stamps. DexDor (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's rationale: Most of the people, buildings and monuments featured on Indian postage stamps fall within the scope of WikiIndia and the categories qualify the subject. Issuance of a postage stamp on a person is a national honour, just like an honour like Padma Shri. The logic in applying a category like Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri holds true here as well. Possible exceptions are international figures but Indian postage stamps rarely feature someone or a monument not connected with the country, in one way or another. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, most, but then the category may even define the universal appeal of those great composers. I am not aware of fooian stamps, please enlighten me.--jojo@nthony (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the category may even define the universal appeal of those great composers" – that's the wrong way round. A category is applied if it, here: being on an Indian stamp, defines the person. foo is a customary placeholder name, here: any other nation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Majority is for deletion, so I may try creating a list which should serve the purpose from a reference point of view. Not to argue further, but just to air my views, depiction on the postage stamp by a country is an honour and I feel it works just like any other major award. But for truly great people, awards and honours don't define them much, Jorge Luis Borges is no less a writer even without a Nobel Prize and Mother Teresa is no greater for her Nobel Peace Prize. For a musician like Mozart, who expanded the musical boundaries beyond our imaginations, categorizing him under Category:Musicians awarded knighthoods or Category:People on Indian postage stamps, does not define him, neither qualifies him. Thanks everyone for the discussion. --jojo@nthony (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There exists the list List of people on stamps of India.Shyamsunder In my view the category and the list both can coexist. (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are intended to group together pages on similar subjects (see Help:Category). Do you really think that, for example, Ajanta Caves, Alappuzha lighthouse and Amaravati Marbles are similar subjects? Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri isn't quite as bad (it's recipients are all people and it does not place articles under such totally inappropriate categories - e.g. Marie Curie under Category:Postal system of India). DexDor (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked Marie Curie and I did not find in Category:Postal system of India).
I have voted to keep Category:People on Indian postage stamps not the categories relating to the organisations and buildings and your comments mainly deal with later. I see not much difference between an award and a Commemorative stamp. An award is a prize or other mark of recognition given in honour of an achievement. A Commemorative stamp is a postage stamp issued to honor or commemorate a person. By the way quite a few non-Indians have been conferred with Padma Shri an Indian award so going by your logic we should put them in Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri ?.Shyamsunder (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand how Category:People on Indian postage stamps puts Marie Curie (and Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein ...) under Category:Postal system of India then please read WP:Categorization etc. Re grouping articles about similar topics - the category currently includes, for example, Francis of Assisi and Yuri Gagarin. Re Padma Shri - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. DexDor (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete: Being a little bit of philatelist, I'm sympathetic to the goals (and to the fact that philatelic information is encyclopedic even if non-stamp-collectors think it's trivial; we don't want to lose the information). While it is true that categories and comparable lists can co-exist, this does not mean that they must. Lists and categories serve different purposes. This intersection is non-defining, so this does not meet our categorization criteria. At a minimum, these (and the other, related one in the slightly previous CfD) should be listified to userspace for sourcing and development.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many/most of the articles in these categories make no mention of the subject being on an Indian stamp (let alone with a reference) - so presumably the category was created using a (off-wiki) list. As such, I don't think that listification should be a pre-requisite for these categories to be deleted. DexDor (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listification in a non-article space would be helpful like SMcCandlish says. When sourced, a single liner in these biographies would also be encyclopedic even if the list-form is disliked by non-stamp-fancy people. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The list is already available List of people on stamps of India. The list and category both should be allowed to exist as is case with numerous other topics for example the List of people from New York and Category:People from New York. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still feel that the basic tenet is being overlooked. Being featured on the postage stamp of the largest democracy in the world is an honour and arguments should not be based on exceptions (like in the case of Mozart and Chopin). Honours assume different meanings with regard to different people. F. W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela were joint winners of the Nobel peace prize in 1993 and while it was the crowning glory for the former adding value to his c.v., the prize served only to add a passing reference in the case of Mandela, considering his overall stature. --jojo@nthony (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In a country of over a billion people only 1000 or less people have been honored with commemorative stamps in last 70 plus years. Shyamsunder (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's an honour to be featured on a postage stamp (or to be featured in a TV program or to be on the school curriculum or to have something named after one or to be invited to open something...), but is it a WP:DEFINING characteristic of all its recipients? Categorization is for grouping together articles on similar topics so the number of (non-wiki-notable) people in India has no relevance. DexDor (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though specified per WP:DEFINING, categorization does not always need to refer equally to all its participants. Take the case of Category:Year of birth missing or Category:Prisoners and detainees of British India, will all the inclusions therein be on a comparable platform? No category does that. It, then, works as a tool, for contributors to work on for further development of articles or for populating lists which in turn acts as the tool. It is for this reason, even WP:EPONYMOUS is allowed on Wiki, I guess. If your argument is followed, only biological categories will remain in Wiki. Your comparisons remind me of an attempt to compare receiving a Nobel Prize to getting a chance to inaugurate a local school, both honours by themselves, but measuring differently on a notability scale. A category is primarily a navigational tool, and if used with discretion, it is a fantastic tool. Further, the (non wiki notable people) make an honour notable. If Nobel Prize is distributed thrice a year to every other aspirant and his friend, it will cease to be the Nobel Prize we know--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand much of your comment, but I'll respond to a couple of points in it. Category:Year of birth missing is a (hidden) maintenance category (part of wp administration); it's categorizing articles by a characteristic of the article (being a biography without a y-o-b) rather than categorizing by a characteristic of the article's subject - hence it has little/no relevance to this discussion. You refer to categories being used (by which I assume you mean categories being added to articles) "with discretion", but this category includes articles like Karl Marx (which mentions neither India nor stamps) - how is that "with discretion" ? If we categorized people by which countries stamps they appear on (and, by extension, banknotes etc) (even when there is no mention in the article!) then articles for Darwin, Einstein etc could be in hundreds (possibly thousands) of categories. DexDor (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2015 (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:Years of the 21st century in Zanzibar

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. One of the articles is within Category:History of Zanzibar already; I will add the other to it, otherwise it would be removed from the Zanzibar hierarchy altogether. – Fayenatic London 15:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Along with WP:SMALLCAT concerns, everything after the 1960s is under the Tanzania category. This isn't the Sultanate of Zanzibar sections discussed below but the semi-autonomous region within Tanzania. We don't need categories for the sub-regions within countries. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2015 (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:Years in Zanzibar

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 on renaming to "Sultanate of". There is also no consensus on the alternative proposals for merging years to decades, or for keeping years but merging decades. – Fayenatic London 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proposing a move of the entire structure to the Sultanate of Zanzibar. Zanzibar refers to the current semi-autonomous region within Tanzania. The proper naming is the Sultanate of Zanzibar which is the Keyna/Tanzania area that covers the 1850s-1964 timeline. For example, all the sub-categories within the Category:Establishments in Zanzibar by year structure that use the templates link to Zanzibar even though they should be linking to the Sultanate from that time period. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed: I do not see any need to include "Sultanate" in the category titles for years, decades etc. As I said recently (Cfr 22 May) re the proposal to use "Ethiopian Empire" for earlier years/centuries rather than “Ethiopia”, the titles for countries do not normally change if a country becomes a people’s republic or republic rather than a monarchy or changes the area included (eg for India which went from British rule to a Dominion then a Republic in the 1940s; and lost Pakistan, which then lost Bangladesh). Exceptions are the Congo (as there are two "Congo" countries) and the Republics of Ireand (only part of Ireland) and Macedonia (a name the Greeks object to). Zanzibar went to a British protectorate under the Sultan to independence then to a People’s Republic then to part of Tanzania in the years 1963 & 1964 so I would favour retaining the “Years in Zanzibar” up to 1964, when it became part of Tanzania and upmerging later years, decades etc into years, decades in Zanzibar. But 21st century in Zanzibar could be retained as we do have centuries in large cities and other country subdivisions eg Category:Centuries in Moscow. And if Tanzania dates fron 1963 or 1964 merge Category:1962 in Tanzania and perhaps Category:1964 in Tanzania to Tanganikya or Zanzibar categories. Hugo999 (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename, per Hugo999. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at times Zanzibar had power over areas beyond the island itself and we should reflect this in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all decades. There is no need to add "sultanate", as there is no need to disambiguate. Zanzibar was an independent state or a British protectorate, so that it should be allowed. Upmerge the years, as there are not enough articles to justify having a greater split than decades. This rule should apply up to 1964, when Zanzibar was subsumed in Tanzania. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the independent state? Zanzibar links to the current state within Tanzania. There is Zanzibar#British_protectorate but there's no separate category (and thus name) for that. However the Sultanate did continue until 1964 so I think it's fair to continue it under the Sultanate category (but put those years of the protectorate under the British Empire category stuff). Do you propose a separate category structure for Zanzibar (British protectorate) to cover this timeframe? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a consensus is emerging that it's not needed to add type of regime (neither sultanate nor proctectorate in this case) unless there's clear disambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all decades as an unnecessary extra level of navigation. One could argue that finding years is easier when you have 100 on one screen as opposed to 10 screens of 10. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: keep years as well as decades, as is usual for all countries (here a former country). Note that all the years in a century are avaliable for countries in the standard category "Years of the XXth century in Fooland" Hugo999 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support in that the Sultanate included Kenya it appears until the 1880s. Tim! (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2015 (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/2015_June_2&oldid=1138408831"