This category is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Treaties extended to Christmas Island is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Christmas Island is not a country. Ergo, it does not belong directly in any category named "... by country" (even if intermediate categories are non-diffusing).
All jurisdiction are presently contained in Category:Treaties by country, regardless of status. It promotes finding through category navigation, which is one of the purposes of categories. It makes no sense to only omit the Australian territory ones. And Christmas Island is a "country" in certain senses of the word. What you might mean is that it is not a sovereign state or an independent country. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense to only omit the Australian territory ones. — Agreed. I'm only looking at the Australian ones at the moment because I don't have the time or inclination to fix everything, but my arguments apply equally to other non-countries.
I suggest that in the normal unqualified use of the word "country", Christmas Island is not a country. If you want to use a different, non-common, meaning of "country", it would be appropriate to state how you define a country.
What you might mean is that it is not a sovereign state or an independent country. — No, what I mean is "country" because the parent category is "... by country". If we don't agree what a "country" is, then that is the root cause of at least part of the problem - but that can be solved by a couple of my proposed changes below.
WP:SUBCAT is fairly clear that "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category ... ". There are specific exceptions, and we may choose to invoke them.
Include something at the top of Category:Treaties by country that explicitly defines what is meant by "country" for the purposes of that category, because it is apparently not using the common meaning of "country".
Add {{all included}} to Category:Treaties by country to make it clear that the general SUBCAT rule of "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category ... " does not apply.
In practice, I think the category is using the common definition of "country". But I also think that most people don't know what that common definition is. (I think most people probably interpret "country" as meaning "state".) If most people don't know what the commonly accepted definition of "country" is, I suppose you could argue that that means that it is not the "common definition" of the term, but that gets us into a bit of a semantic circle.
In country, the lede sets out the commonly accepted definition: "a region identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics. Regardless of the physical geography, in the modern internationally accepted legal definition as defined by the League of Nations in 1937 and reaffirmed by the United Nations in 1945, a resident of a country is subject to the independent exercise of legal jurisdiction."
That is what I mean by "country" in this context and what I believe the category Category:Treaties by country means, and I think it also makes sense to use this meaning of "country" in the context of treaty application. If a specific action has to be taken to make a treaty apply to a specific place, then it meets the League of Nations/UN definition of "country". No treaty will apply to Christmas Island unless the specific action is taken (in this case, by the Australian government) to extend the treaty to Christmas Island. So it qualifies as a "country". If treaties ratified by Australia automatically applied to Christmas Island, then Christmas Island would not qualify as a "country". For instance, Queensland is not a country because no special action is required to extend a treaty to Queensland beyond what is required for Australia to adopt it.
This definition of "country" could be explained in Category:Treaties by country if it is thought to be necessary. The non-diffusing template would also be a way to address it without the difficultly of setting out the definition which may not conform with a reader's interpretation of the word. I would be fine with whichever is preferred. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Mitch and Ol'factory for going to the time and trouble to explain.... lets hope that we can get it right now. satusuro 10:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... most people don't know what that common definition is ... you could argue that that means that it is not the "common definition" — I would, indeed suggest that the "common" meaning is the one that most people would take a word to mean. However, I accept that "country" can be defined as something that includes Christmas Island - and in the interests of educating our readers and clearly defining (for the "common" editor) the category scope, we should then include that definition.
(This reminds me of the categories that divide things by "nationality". Users often assume that "nationality" means "citizenship" (which is narrower), just as they probably assume that "country" means "state".) Removing Category:Treaties extended to Christmas Island from Category:Treaties by country would be fine with me, I'm just concerned about what that would mean for many of the other categories presently in Category:Treaties by country, and I think once that is considered it ceases to be the most simple solution. I guess what I am saying is that what is decided here could or perhaps should be implemented across the entire scheme. In such a case the answer would probably be to remove any category contained in a subcategory of Category:Treaties of dependent territories from Category:Treaties by country, though from my view that does offend the true meaning of "country", especially when the word is used in the context of international treaties and law. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both respondees in this dicussion are, I believe the best qualified that I know to hammer this out, thank you gentlemen. I think if there is a point of moving forward, as we have the potential to resolve the issue - the point I'd like to make is that either on the space of the resultant category - main space - where I tend to add various add-ons, there could be some form of comment that could clarify the issue, or some link to something. When we had the edit warring over the word Java, or Perth in the last 10 years almost, there was insufficient annotation or explanation of why or what certain forms of things resulted from those conflicts. I think it is well worth thinking about how to qualify usage where someone with limited english comprehension might in some way be guided to the reason, rather than having to watch further edit wars by eds with limited comprehension of the subtlety or nuance of meaning that determines the usage of terms in category titles or category main space... satusuro 10:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... remove any category contained in a subcategory of Category:Treaties of dependent territories from Category:Treaties by country, ... does offend the true meaning of "country" ,... — Not to make that removal would offend the principles of WP:SUBCAT, given that Category:Treaties of dependent territories is a subcat of "...by country". Diffusing "Treaties by country" by moving specific subcategories into/under Category:Treaties of dependent territories does not imply that those dependent territories are not "countries". Category diffusion is a legitimate way of breaking down larger categories into smaller ones. I think given that Christmas Island's (and other territories') "countryness" is not the same as Australia's, putting them into a diffusing subcategory is a reasonable compromise. See Category:Rivers by country for a similar example - Category:Rivers of the Cook Islands is not directly in Category:Rivers by country, but it is via Category:Rivers by dependent territory. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm not convinced. I think it depends on one's point of view. Ultimately, the point of categorization is to facilitate category navigation, not to have a perfect nesting egg system that follows WP:SUBCAT. From my view, the proposed change wouldn't really facilitate navigation beyond what's already in place. On the contrary, I think it would hinder it. The Category:Rivers by dependent territory is a very new example, and frankly, I think it's not a great system to promote the adoption of. Especially when it comes to geographical features, which are inherently non-political, I don't think it makes much sense to distinguish between "types" of countries within categorization. In that sense, I think deciding whether exceptions to WP:SUBCAT should be made depends highly upon the context of the categories in question. In the case of treaties and international law, the meaning of "country" outside of Wikipedia is clear, so I think it makes more sense within that WP subject area to adopt a definition that might not be assumed to apply elsewhere. (In essence, I guess I am saying that I think real-world realities are far more important than a generalisation set out in WP:SUBCAT.) I also think that it depends on one's viewpoint as to whether removing a category from Category:Treaties by country carries with it the implication that the entity is not a country. Convincing arguments could be made on either side of that issue without too much trouble, and some editors have in the past come to me with such concerns premised exactly on this type of implication-by-categorization. I don't adhere to these types of views, but I know there are a lot of editors who do, and often I feel like I am in a minority in this regard. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we should just ignore SUBCAT - it's quite clear on the matter. At the very least, Category:Treaties by country should be marked as {{all included}}, and intermediate subcategories (of which there are a few) marked as {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}. I propose that we do that (without removing any subcats from their existing parents), at least for now. If you still think that SUBCAT is wrong, you should probably raise a proposal to change SUBCAT. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I suggested anywhere that SUBCAT was "wrong" or that I think ignoring it is the correct course. It does envisage exceptions, and I've gone into quite a bit of detail explaining why I think one might be justified here. I've no objection to adding templates to categories are proposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
