Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:States

As per Wikipedia, there are several types of states, namely sovereign states, nation states, constituent states etc. However, this category deals with only constituent states, or more specifically, federated states. I have created Constituent states and Sovereign states for this and moved the info present in States to the respective subcats. However, JopkeB reverted my edits, citing info loss. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to start this discussion.

What I want is, that it is absolutely clear to visitors who are not familiar with the exact meanings of and differences between states, countries, constituent states, sovereing states and so on, what each of these categories is about. Yesterday I was confused because only the Wikidata item was left and that was not enough for me to understand what this category is about, so I reverted your edits. I hope that you can give here an overview of the involved categories with short descriptions and your view of the category structure. Perhaps we can include this overview (with links) in all of the involved categories when this discussion has been closed. JopkeB (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crouch, Swale: Could you perhaps be more specific? What Wikipedia page(s) do you refer to? JopkeB (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JopkeB: w:State, of which w:States redirects to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, thanks for your quick reply. JopkeB (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose disambiguation — While there are several things that can be called "states", the States category should focus on states as a type of polity, including sovereign states and constituent states. Also, the States and territories by year of establishment category tree should drop the term "states", as all states (sovereign or constituent) may be considered as territories. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that before we can discuss whether this category should become a disambiguation one or not, let's first have an overview of the involved categories with short descriptions and perhaps a proposed category structure. --JopkeB (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My current proposal is to define the category States as political entities that maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, and it includes both Sovereign states and Constituent states. I have proposed the following category scheme for states (the list is not necessarily exhaustive):

• States
  • Flags of states
    • Flags of constituent states
    • Flags of sovereign states
  • Maps of states
    • Maps of constituent states
    • Maps of sovereign states
  • States by type
    • Constituent states
      • Federated states
        • States of India
        • States of the United States
      • States of Myanmar
    • Federations
    • Kingdoms
    • Sovereign states
  • State governments
    • State government buildings
    • State roads

The Sovereign states category should also be categorized under Countries by status because countries generally include sovereign states (excluding the kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands). --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start.

 Agree

• States are political entities and include Sovereign states.
• Constituent states was moved (by you) to Federated states (I agree with this move); please adjust the scheme.

 Disagree

• Federated states‎ should be a subcategory of Federal countries, not of States themselves.

Proposals for descriptions of Commons categories (derived from EN-WP, unless otherwise stated), and a little bit hierarchical ordening in advance:

• Country = a region that is identified as a distinct national entity in a political geography (= current description in Commons)
• State = political entity, centralized political organization that regulates law and society within a territory.
  • Sovereign state = state that has the highest authority over a territory
    • Administrative division = geographical areas into which a particular independent sovereign state is divided (like subnational states/federated states), autonomous communities, provinces, oblasts and municipalities)
• Federation = [no description in EN-WP] umbrella category for all types of cooperating political entities (made up by me)
  • Federal country = political union of partially self-governing regions under a federal government; federation of states (like USA, Germany, India, UAE and many more)
    • Federated states (= Constituent states) = parts of a federal country; a political subdivision of a [sovereign, my addition] state; geographical areas into which a particular independent sovereign state is divided
  • Confederation = political union of sovereign states united for purposes of common action (like the Europen Union and the African Union)
• Dependent territory = territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty and remains politically outside the controlling state's integral area (like colonies)

 Question @Sbb1413 and Crouch, Swale: Do you agree with these descriptions for Commons? Are any other main categories involved (what did I forget)?

After we agree, we can discuss whether:

• States should be a disambigious page
• What a good category structure would be.

JopkeB (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as I mentioned its a DAB on Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: That was not the question yet. The question for now is: Do you agree with the descriptions in the proposal? If we all do, then we can discuss whether it should be a DAB or not and the category structure. Please, one step at a time. JopkeB (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes apart from the point that "State" is for "political entity" but should be a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion about Wales (which is much broader than Wales alone) I propose to put this discussion on hold, until that discussion has been closed. Conclusions there can be:

• Countries/souvereign states will be the highest level.
• Countries = souvereign states and the last one eventually might get a redirect.

These conclusions might have consequences for this discussion, for the descriptions and category structure and so we'll better wait. --JopkeB (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB and Sbb1413: Based on the recent comments by Sbb1413, its seems "states" has indeed become part of the discussion on "countries" and that what we do for both is a bit interlinked, so is there any objection to simply subsuming this into the discussion there at this point? Once that one is settled, we can still open a new 'states' discussion or even just re-open this one if it is needed. Josh (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I have no objection. But @Joshbaumgartner: how would you do the subsuming? Would all of this discussion or parts of it be included in the Wales discussion? JopkeB (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB Generally, when I have done so in the past, I do a few steps:

1. On the subsumed discussion:
   1. Summarize the reason for subsuming and link to the continuing discussion.
   2. Close the subsumed discussion and ping all participants in it, as well as the other normal steps with closing a discussion.
   3. The only exception to normal process is that instead of simply removing the CfD template from affected categories, I replace them with a CfD template linked to the continuing discussion, and add both the subsumed and continuing discussions to their talk pages.
2. On the continuing discussion:
   1. Add a line at the top of the discussion: ":see subsumed discussion at <link>."
   2. Add new comment indicating that another discussion (linked) has been subsumed into this one.

I don't copy the text over, as duplicating comments is not a great thing to do. Including the discussion as a template as I do on talk or summary pages doesn't really work, even collapsed, due to the header levels used. So far I've not heard any negative feedback to the process I outlined above, though admittedly this is an unusually involved discussion. Josh (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good plan to me. Still one question: When the Wales discussion will be closed, will the consequences for this discussion be implemented as well, or will there be a new discussion? JopkeB (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB If there are matters here which in fact are not addressed by the conclusions there, thus leaving something unresolved when that discussion is closed, then a fresh discussion can be opened to cover that unresolved portion. If you feel there is a subject in this one that is unlikely to be considered in the new one, I suppose you can leave this open with the scope narrowed to that specific topic, though I haven't done that myself yet. The thing we really want to avoid (and the reason to subsume in the first place) is reaching contradictory consensus in two different discussions. Josh (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]