Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 1: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:14, 1 March 2019 editKoavf (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,174,994 edits →Category:Establishments in New York City by year ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:10, 1 March 2019 edit undoMarcocapelle (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers556,695 edits →Category:Establishments in New York City by year Next edit →
Line 67:		Line 67:
	:::::::::You may be right that {{tq\|everyone else understands what to do}}. But they will do so only after jumping back and forth between your rationale and your category listing to figure it out, because you are too stubbornly lazy to explicitly clarify your intentions like everyone else does. And as usual, you'd prefer to go several rounds of moaning about it rather than fix the problem. --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)		:::::::::You may be right that {{tq\|everyone else understands what to do}}. But they will do so only after jumping back and forth between your rationale and your category listing to figure it out, because you are too stubbornly lazy to explicitly clarify your intentions like everyone else does. And as usual, you'd prefer to go several rounds of moaning about it rather than fix the problem. --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{Ping\|BrownHairedGirl}} The fact that it is not harder to type <code><nowiki>{{subst:cf}}</nowiki></code> instad of <code><nowiki>{{subst:cfm}}</nowiki></code> is ''exactly'' what I would use to point out how I was not being lazy. If doing two things take the same amount of effort, then it's not "lazy" to pick one over the other. {{shrug}} I already explained how my reasoning is laid out here because it's in distinction to other times when we merge and don't delete. If other editors are too '''''lazy''''' to click on the link and read the CfD then why am I supposed to care? They clearly aren't very invested in the discussion if they're not willing to click on a link and read 173 words. But I'm the "lazy" one here??? {{shrug}} And you came here not to discuss the actual substance of the nomination but to moan endlessly but I'm the one who moans endlessly??? {{shrug}} Each time you post here, I get more confused as to what your point is: No, I was not being lazy and it's actually lazy if someone won't read CfD to understand what is being proposed. Thanks anyway. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 05:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)		::::::::::{{Ping\|BrownHairedGirl}} The fact that it is not harder to type <code><nowiki>{{subst:cf}}</nowiki></code> instad of <code><nowiki>{{subst:cfm}}</nowiki></code> is ''exactly'' what I would use to point out how I was not being lazy. If doing two things take the same amount of effort, then it's not "lazy" to pick one over the other. {{shrug}} I already explained how my reasoning is laid out here because it's in distinction to other times when we merge and don't delete. If other editors are too '''''lazy''''' to click on the link and read the CfD then why am I supposed to care? They clearly aren't very invested in the discussion if they're not willing to click on a link and read 173 words. But I'm the "lazy" one here??? {{shrug}} And you came here not to discuss the actual substance of the nomination but to moan endlessly but I'm the one who moans endlessly??? {{shrug}} Each time you post here, I get more confused as to what your point is: No, I was not being lazy and it's actually lazy if someone won't read CfD to understand what is being proposed. Thanks anyway. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 05:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
			::::::::::: This side discussion has taken long enough now, it is time for action. Please change the nomination from delete to merge. ] (]) 06:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

	==== British Empire ====		==== British Empire ====

Revision as of 06:10, 1 March 2019

< February 28	March 2 >

March 1

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Miniature wargames

Propose merging Category:Miniature wargames to Category:Miniatures games‎

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates the extensive Category:Miniatures games hierarchy, which is a daughter of Category:Wargames Le Deluge (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Prefer reverse merging per article title Miniature wargaming. But merging in either direction should happen anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focusing on direction of a potential merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob₁₃ 01:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Establishments in New York City by year

Nominator's rationale: /Merge to establishments in New York (state) by year. This is way too fine-grained. If we are going to make establishments by year categories (minus contemporary city-states like Singapore), then we'll end up with tens of thousands of categories like Category:1511 establishments in Paris and Category:1982 establishments in Indianapolis. The by-state categories are fine-grained enough--we shouldn't move to third-level administrative subdivisions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as nominated. @Koavf: The nomination as set out would remove all these pages from the parent New York (state) categories. That's destructive; if these cats are to be removed, each NYC category should be merged to the equivalent New York (state) category, and the merge targets should be listed.

Some context: I created Category:Establishments in New York City by year as a container for its subcats, which were all created by @MainlyTwelve. (See User talk:MainlyTwelve#Non-existent_categories and my group nom of other similar cats at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Establishments_in_Pennsylvania_by_city.)

I lean towards deleting them all, but would prefer to wait until the outcome of the Pennsylania discussion before making a decision on this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: What are you talking about? How is "merge to establishments in New York (state) by year" going to remove them from "the parent New York (state) categories"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: please read the nomination. The category listing says delete, and gives no merge targets. The rationale below says "merge", which contradicts that.

If you intend categories to be merged, please say so in the category listing, and list all the merge targets. Just like every other merge nomination at CFD is done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's weird how I've made many similar nominations and they all passed without this procedural nitpicking. E.g. Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_6#Category:American_Jewish_conservatives--I don't see anyone else who just doesn't get it or who thinks that some minor method of typing out things is a problem. BHG will BHG, I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf, no there's nothing weird about it. It's simply a matter of Koavf being fundamentally lazy about communication, as usual. Koavf will Koavf.

The reason for setting out in the nomination is so that any editor reading the page can see at a glance exactly what is being proposed, without having to read the rationale. If there is a consensus to merge or delete, then that listing is copied by the closer to feed to the bots ... and if it isn't available in advance, the closer has to create it. There's a higher risk of error if the listing is done at that point, because it cannot be scrutinised by the editors taking part in the discussion.

So what Koavf's laziness does here is dump on to the closer the work which he should have done himself, and deprive other editors of a clear view of his proposals. WP works by consensus, and consensus is built by clear communication, not by this lazy Koavf style of go-figure-out-what-I-meant-because-I-couldn't be-bothered-doing-it-like-everyone-else-does. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Nothing I did was motivated by laziness and nothing I did was "lazy"; maybe "malformed" or "mistaken" but hey, why not just leap to the rudest thing and try to litigate someone's vices and mental state in public, huh? Here is a helpful page for you to read: WP:AGF. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf, There no point in you now citing AGF. I made a neutrally-worded point above about the omission, and you chose to personalise your reply as "BHG will BHG". .

I didn't "leap" to any conclusion. I reached it slowly as the evidence accumulated over several years, and repeated requests and reminders to you had little or no effect. We had a long discussion about it last year on your talk.

The first few dozen times, I assumed in good faith that it was an error, but when I saw a consistent pattern which didn't change in response to requests, I realised that it was something else. And now, once again, you gone several rounds of complaining rather than simply fix the error. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And I'm arguing that it's not an error or not an error worth correcting if the only person who is flummoxed is you. It's not a big deal and everyone else understands what to do. I don't know about any bot but I can painlessly recategorize these by merging them into the appropriate parent category in literally one minute with a few clicks. If the formatting of the nomination is really a problem, I just don't see why it didn't come up at the instance I linked above. Again, nothing "lazy" here but you like making pronouncements about my moral character when it's not really warranted, which is typical of every time you've been upset with something on my talk page. If you think I'm going to let you derail this conversation more, you're wrong: we'll see if everyone else here thinks this really requires some procedural close (unlike, e.g. the example linked above). If this is just you not liking something again, then that doesn't motivate me very much. If this is a genuine problem, then I assume someone else will say something and that is compelling to me. Endless rounds of you calling me names, talking down to me, or trying to impugning my character are frankly boring, if nothing else. Also, for anyone who wants to ask questions in good faith to understand my reasoning, I think it is worth actually deleting the categories rather than merging them and using {{catredirect}} (as I did here); hence my suggestion that we both delete and merge. If anyone has a better way of formatting this so that some bot doesn't get confused, I'm all ears. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf, sigh. I am not flummoxed. I am just fed up at having to go an extra few steps to figure out your intentions because you are too stubbornly lazy to set them out clearly.

Your suggestion that we we both delete and merge is precisely what a CFD merge has meant for the last 13 years. The section heading at WP:CFDW is Move/merge, then_delete; In 2006 it was Move/Merge and delete. Your idea that this is something novel is quite extraordinary for someone who as participated at CFD for so many years.

Note that the categories are all tagged for deletion rather than merger. How hard is it for you to type {{subst:cfm}} instad of {{subst:cfm}}? Yes, both forms link to the discussion ... but the category page should display what's actually intended,

You may be right that everyone else understands what to do. But they will do so only after jumping back and forth between your rationale and your category listing to figure it out, because you are too stubbornly lazy to explicitly clarify your intentions like everyone else does. And as usual, you'd prefer to go several rounds of moaning about it rather than fix the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: The fact that it is not harder to type {{subst:cf}} instad of {{subst:cfm}} is exactly what I would use to point out how I was not being lazy. If doing two things take the same amount of effort, then it's not "lazy" to pick one over the other. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I already explained how my reasoning is laid out here because it's in distinction to other times when we merge and don't delete. If other editors are too lazy to click on the link and read the CfD then why am I supposed to care? They clearly aren't very invested in the discussion if they're not willing to click on a link and read 173 words. But I'm the "lazy" one here??? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And you came here not to discuss the actual substance of the nomination but to moan endlessly but I'm the one who moans endlessly??? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Each time you post here, I get more confused as to what your point is: No, I was not being lazy and it's actually lazy if someone won't read CfD to understand what is being proposed. Thanks anyway. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This side discussion has taken long enough now, it is time for action. Please change the nomination from delete to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

British Empire

Propose merging:

Category:1983 in the British Empire to Category:1983 in British Overseas Territories

39 more "British Empire" to "British Overseas Territories"
Category:1983 disestablishments in the British Empire to Category:1983 disestablishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1983 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1983 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1984 disestablishments in the British Empire to Category:1984 disestablishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1984 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1984 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1984 in the British Empire to Category:1984 in British Overseas Territories Category:1985 disestablishments in the British Empire to Category:1985 disestablishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1985 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1985 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1985 in the British Empire to Category:1985 in British Overseas Territories Category:1986 disestablishments in the British Empire to Category:1986 disestablishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1986 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1986 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1986 in the British Empire to Category:1986 in British Overseas Territories Category:1987 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1987 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1987 in the British Empire to Category:1987 in British Overseas Territories Category:1988 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1988 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1988 in the British Empire to Category:1988 in British Overseas Territories Category:1989 disestablishments in the British Empire to Category:1989 disestablishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1989 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1989 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1989 in the British Empire to Category:1989 in British Overseas Territories Category:1990 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1990 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1990 in the British Empire to Category:1990 in British Overseas Territories Category:1990s in the British Empire to Category:1990s in British Overseas Territories Category:1990s disestablishments in the British Empire to Category:1990s disestablishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1990s establishments in the British Empire to Category:1990s establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1991 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1991 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1991 in the British Empire to Category:1991 in British Overseas Territories Category:1992 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1992 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1992 in the British Empire to Category:1992 in British Overseas Territories Category:1993 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1993 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1993 in the British Empire to Category:1993 in British Overseas Territories Category:1994 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1994 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1994 in the British Empire to Category:1994 in British Overseas Territories Category:1995 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1995 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1995 in the British Empire to Category:1995 in British Overseas Territories Category:1996 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1996 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1996 in the British Empire to Category:1996 in British Overseas Territories Category:1997 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1997 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1997 in the British Empire to Category:1997 in British Overseas Territories Category:1998 establishments in the British Empire to Category:1998 establishments in British Overseas Territories Category:1998 in the British Empire to Category:1998 in British Overseas Territories

39 more "British Empire" to "British Overseas Territories"

Category:1967 in British Overseas Territories to Category:1967 in the British Empire

16 more "British Empire" to "British Overseas Territories"
Category:1960s in British Overseas Territories to Category:1960s in the British Empire Category:1970s in British Overseas Territories to Category:1970s in the British Empire Category:1967 in British Overseas Territories to Category:1967 in the British Empire Category:1970s establishments in British Overseas Territories to Category:1970s establishments in the British Empire Category:1971 in British Overseas Territories to Category:1971 in the British Empire Category:1975 in British Overseas Territories to Category:1975 in the British Empire Category:1979 establishments in British Overseas Territories to Category:1979 establishments in the British Empire Category:1979 in British Overseas Territories to Category:1979 in the British Empire Category:1971 in British Overseas Territories to Category:1971 in the British Empire Category:1980 in British Overseas Territories to Category:1980 in the British Empire Category:1981 in British Overseas Territories to Category:1981 in the British Empire Category:1980 elections in British Overseas Territories to Category:1980 elections in the British Empire Category:1981 elections in British Overseas Territories to Category:1981 elections in the British Empire Category:1982 in British Overseas Territories to Category:1982 in the British Empire Category:1982 disestablishments in British Overseas Territories to Category:1982 disestablishments in the British Empire Category:1982 establishments in British Overseas Territories to Category:1982 establishments in the British Empire

16 more "British Empire" to "British Overseas Territories"

Nominator's rationale. Summary: to set 1982 as the last year of the British Empire, for categorisation purposes.

The British Empire was never formally abolished. Most of its territories were decolonised by the 1960s, and the last significant area of land to gain independence was Zimbabwe in 1980. Since the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, the United Kingdom's external territories consist of only a few islands, known collectively as the British Overseas Territories. So for example, the South Atlantic island of Saint Helena became a British Crown colony in the 19th century, and has remained under British rule ever since, but is now labelled as a British Overseas Territory.

Those two terms — British Overseas Territory and British Empire — both refer to the same thing, i.e. a set of external territories ruled by the United Kingdom. The terminological change reflects political sentiment in changed times, but the common factor is British rule.

All of these UK's external territories are categorised on en.wp under Category:British Empire, and Category:British Overseas Territories.

However, there was no formal announcement or grand ceremony to announce the end of Empire; in public perception, the change is a fuzzy process. This has led to our chronological categories developing an overlap from 1967 to 1998, e.g. we have:

... with numerous duplications in the intervening years.

This duplication is unhelpful to navigation, and conveys no distinction other than editors' choice of terminology.

So this nomination to proposes to set a single point for the change of name:

1982 as the last year of the British Empire
1983 as the first year of the British Overseas Territories

That choice derives from British Empire#End_of_empire and British Overseas Territory#History. It draws on two changes in the terminology of UK law:

the British Nationality Act 1981. In Schedule 6 it reclassified the remaining Crown colonies as "British Dependent Territories". The Act entered into force on 1 January 1983 (see the commencement order)
the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, which relabelled them as "British Overseas Territories"

The distinction between "British Dependent Territories" and "British Overseas Territories" seems to be widely regarded as insignificant, and on Misplaced Pages British Dependent Territory is a redirect to British Overseas Territory. So we need only two sets of chronology categories; British Empire until 1982, and British Overseas Territories from 1983. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject notifications: WikiProject United Kingdom and WikiProject British Empire . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Tagging Categories all tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:14, 1 March 2019 editKoavf (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,174,994 edits →Category:Establishments in New York City by year ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:10, 1 March 2019 edit undoMarcocapelle (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers556,695 edits →Category:Establishments in New York City by year Next edit →
Line 67:		Line 67:
	:::::::::You may be right that {{tq\|everyone else understands what to do}}. But they will do so only after jumping back and forth between your rationale and your category listing to figure it out, because you are too stubbornly lazy to explicitly clarify your intentions like everyone else does. And as usual, you'd prefer to go several rounds of moaning about it rather than fix the problem. --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)		:::::::::You may be right that {{tq\|everyone else understands what to do}}. But they will do so only after jumping back and forth between your rationale and your category listing to figure it out, because you are too stubbornly lazy to explicitly clarify your intentions like everyone else does. And as usual, you'd prefer to go several rounds of moaning about it rather than fix the problem. --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::::{{Ping\|BrownHairedGirl}} The fact that it is not harder to type <code><nowiki>{{subst:cf}}</nowiki></code> instad of <code><nowiki>{{subst:cfm}}</nowiki></code> is ''exactly'' what I would use to point out how I was not being lazy. If doing two things take the same amount of effort, then it's not "lazy" to pick one over the other. {{shrug}} I already explained how my reasoning is laid out here because it's in distinction to other times when we merge and don't delete. If other editors are too '''''lazy''''' to click on the link and read the CfD then why am I supposed to care? They clearly aren't very invested in the discussion if they're not willing to click on a link and read 173 words. But I'm the "lazy" one here??? {{shrug}} And you came here not to discuss the actual substance of the nomination but to moan endlessly but I'm the one who moans endlessly??? {{shrug}} Each time you post here, I get more confused as to what your point is: No, I was not being lazy and it's actually lazy if someone won't read CfD to understand what is being proposed. Thanks anyway. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 05:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)		::::::::::{{Ping\|BrownHairedGirl}} The fact that it is not harder to type <code><nowiki>{{subst:cf}}</nowiki></code> instad of <code><nowiki>{{subst:cfm}}</nowiki></code> is ''exactly'' what I would use to point out how I was not being lazy. If doing two things take the same amount of effort, then it's not "lazy" to pick one over the other. {{shrug}} I already explained how my reasoning is laid out here because it's in distinction to other times when we merge and don't delete. If other editors are too '''''lazy''''' to click on the link and read the CfD then why am I supposed to care? They clearly aren't very invested in the discussion if they're not willing to click on a link and read 173 words. But I'm the "lazy" one here??? {{shrug}} And you came here not to discuss the actual substance of the nomination but to moan endlessly but I'm the one who moans endlessly??? {{shrug}} Each time you post here, I get more confused as to what your point is: No, I was not being lazy and it's actually lazy if someone won't read CfD to understand what is being proposed. Thanks anyway. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 05:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
			::::::::::: This side discussion has taken long enough now, it is time for action. Please change the nomination from delete to merge. ] (]) 06:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

	==== British Empire ====		==== British Empire ====