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. After over a month, there's no consensus here. Editors seem split between wanting a merge to Egypt-based categories, wanting a merge to Mamluk-based categories, and wanting a merge to "in Mamluk Egypt"; there are also objections to all these options. (non-admin closure)power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An obvious case of duplicity and anachronism, as Egypt is generally referring to the modern Republic of Egypt. Further centuries (17,18,19) will follow to be renamed to Ottoman Egypt after this vote is concluded.GreyShark (dibra) 21:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. The duplicate needs to be solved. However Egypt is generally referring to the Middle-Eastern country which has existed since the most ancient times under a variety of political regimes. Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) was only one of these many regimes. The long-term widely understood unambiguous name Egypt should be preferred. Additionally, it allows for a comprehensive and structured chronology tree under the same name. Place Clichy (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reverse merge the "Sultanate" categories to the Egypt categories. This is another in a succession of Egyptian states, not an entirely different country. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. The Mamluk Sultanate of Cairo was a large medieval polity covering wider Egypt, Levant and Hejaz. A reverse merge would include many events in the Levant under "Egyptian" tree, such as the Battle of Marj al-Saffar (1303) (Medieval Syria), Zahiri Revolt (Medieval Syria) and more.
2. The Mamluk Sultanate tree is much more developed than the Egyptian one for this period; a reverse merge would not resolve duplicity, but rather would create much more duplicity for the period, unless all Mamluk Sultanate categories are renamed to Egyptian ones, which would in turn worsen the problem stated in (1) - many Mamluk Sultanate articles are in fact outside of geographic Egypt and outside of the modern Arab Republic of Egypt.
3. By previous precedents the community decided to rename anachronistic categories of previous empires to contemporary entities - see the case of years in Turkey (Turkish Republic) and in the Ottoman Empire, which is synonymous to the discussed case of years in Egypt (Egyptian Arab Republic) and in the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo).
Considering the above points, I may suggest Option B - creating another subtree for the Mamluk Sultanate named Mamluk Egypt (referring only to the Egyptian province of the Mamluk Sultanate), which can be also put under the Egyptian tree, and hence renaming "Egypt"ian categories to "Mamluk Egypt"ian categories. This would be in line with previous rename of Egyptian categories to Roman Egypt for the 1st-6th centuries CE, though we do not yet have Mamluk Egypt article for the matter. I also think it would be helpful to bring participants of previous precedents (such as Turkey/Ottoman Empire) here for a more profound discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 19:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP:OR - we have a fair map of Mamluk provinces, with Egypt+Sinai as a single administrative unit, and 6 more Mamluk provinces in the Levant - see [1]. I agree though that Option A would be better than Option B.GreyShark (dibra) 06:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article and map are about Jordan, the article does not mention anything about Egypt being one whole province. It is uncertain whether the author did not draw provinces in Egypt on the map because Egypt was one whole province or whether the author did not draw them simply because Egypt was out of scope for him. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well here we go - a Mamluk Sultanate map for 1317 - provinces of al-Misr (lower Egypt+Sinai+Libyan coast, al-Wahat (some of upper Egypt and Western Desert), client Kingdom of Makuria, Makka Sharifate, al-Karak, Safad, Dimashq, Tarabulus, Halab and al-Tughub.GreyShark (dibra) 16:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So that would imply we should create al-Misr and al-Wahat subcategories. I'm not sure if that would be helpful. Then better leave the sultanate undivided. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Mamluk Sultanate of Cairo was a large medieval polity covering wider Egypt, Levant and Hejaz. A reverse merge would include many events in the Levant under "Egyptian" tree" I fail to see the point here. The Sultanate's predecessor was the Ayyubid dynasty, which also ruled from Cairo and also controlled much of the Levant. Previously the Fatimid Caliphate ruled from Cairo and controlled much of the Levant. Centuries before, the Ptolemaic Kingdom ruled from Alexandria and controlled much of the Levant. Before it, the New Kingdom of Egypt controlled much of the Levant, and the Middle Kingdom of Egypt was at least trying to conquer Canaan. Egypt's history is interwined with the Levant for millennia. How is this any different? Dimadick (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman Syria is a subcat tree of Ottoman Empire. I don't mind to further split category trees for all successive Syrian provinces (Aleppo, Damascus, Tripoli, Safed and post-Tanzimat provinces), but those would mostly result in smallcat trees at this point, whereas Ottoman Empire tree is too broad.GreyShark (dibra) 20:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reverse-merging as historically and geographically inaccurate. In terms of what should happen, I will defer to editors who have spent more time in related discussions, but in general I think we should categorize history as it happened, not anachronistically based on the borders of future polities. Egypt may be one of the few cases where using the name of the modern-day polity is acceptable given the longevity of Egyptian history, but I will agree with GreyShark that the current category scheme is quite convoluted. -- Black Falcon(talk)18:56, 16 December 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The problems with this category include (1) the name (the capital and singular), (2) the categorization (circular or placing an organization in people categories), (3) defingness (McNulty Prize is a redlink, this doesn't mention the award...). If this prize ever becomes sufficiently important that it's (always) defining the category could be recreated (with a more appropriate name). DexDor(talk)18:55, 21 November 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
AGREE. I agree as original creator of that cat. oops, sorry! I created another one. to replace that one, but forgot to delete that one. I will correct it. by the way, User:BrownHairedGirl. I would be glad to have a sense of humor about your comment above about me personally... if you could kindly please accompany it with any sort of greeting or acknowledgment to me as a fellow Wikipedian. as it is, I would appreciate it if you could please try to accompany any such personal comments with a wee bit of humor, or else simply refrain. actually , "another oddity by Sm8900" is really not that bad. I hope you meant it as a slight whimsical dig rather than any diminishment of my role here.
with that said, if you are interested in various oddities and cats created by me, don't stop there. this one is pretty interesting. so is this one, and this one. is that better? and with that said, actually I truly applaud and admire your diligent efforts here at Wikipedia., I am sure we will have many positive and enriching interactions in the future. I do truly value your work and effort, both here on this page, and generally for Wikipedia, seriously. :-) I appreciate your help. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900: I'm sorry, but I didn't mean that comment whimsically. Some of your categorisation efforts such as Category:Diplomatic conferences look like good work, are a bit of but I'm sorry to say that a lot of your edits to years-related categories have been a mess. AS you may have noticed, I habe undone some of it ... and there are several CFD noms of your creations. That is usually a good sign that your work is at best controversial. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
okay, with that said, I do appreciate your reply. and if that is your response to me, it is your right to do so. I offered to restore a more collaborative atmosphere in our discussions, but for the time being it appears that you prefer to decline to do so. on the other hand, your comments on various items are entirely valid. and as you note, any edits, new categories, or other actions by myself are fully subject to comment and revision by other editors here. that is simply one ongoing aspect of being at Wikipedia.
I do appreciate your comment to me, even if we differ on the best or most appropriate atmosphere in which to approach this combined effort. I will take note of your comments and feedback, and will give them some thought. i appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Concur. that idea sounds fine to me. if others here agree with that specific formulation, then i think i would be fine with that. by the way, just a bit of context, I set up that cat originally, because its contents were previously in the category Category:Lists by year; clearly, that was not correct at all, so that was the main and only reason that i got involved in the first place. @BrownHairedGirl:, I hope that sounds helpful. I appreciate your comment and input on that. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and thanks for the correction regarding its basis on builder, rather than year. as noted above, they seemed to have been in Category:Lists by year on a long-standing basis, so i thought it had to continue on that basis. next time, I will try to check more closely. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that it is a "not" based category (i.e. it categorizes users based on something they do not do, which has extensive precedent for deletion) and based on the category being impossible to use for collaborative purposes, i.e. there is no reasonable expectation that this category could be used for encyclopedic collaboration based on users categorizing themselves by this characteristic. VegaDark (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this could be rephrased as "Wikipedians who are teetotalers" to avoid that pesky "not". It's no less useful than many, many other Wikipedian categories; members may be interested in articles such as Alcoholics Anonymous. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's been previously deleted, actually. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/June_2007#Category:Wikipedian_Teetotalers. Almost certainly this category would qualify for a speedy deletion as recreation of previously deleted content. As for "It's no less useful than other Wikipedian categories", that certainly sounds like a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Those categories should be deleted as well if that is the case. And I think it is highly suspect to suggest that someone who doesn't drink alcohol would be interested in collaborating on articles about groups of people who have that in common. I do (or don't do, in this case) many things in my daily life that I have no interest in collaborating on articles about. I agree with Marcocapelle that those who wish to collaborate on such articles can try and create a category that better fits that goal, such as Wikipedians interested in alcohol abuse (I would warn that such a category may have an overly narrow scope, however). VegaDark (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2018 (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.
