Category talk:Establishments by year

message: Should the Establishments by year really include countries?
It seems to me it may not be the best use of the category.
If so, what should be the criteria?
For example Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago have had the Cat:1962 establishments added however, those islands physically existed before their independence in (1962).  They also had sovereignty way before, while still under Britain.  The Spanish established Jamaica and Trinidad in 1400's and the French re--established Trinidad later and the British re-re-established both there-after.  The Arawak and Carib nomads from South America were in the islands from the B.C. era as well...
My point is- if this was applied to the USA for example would you apply establishment to the time of settlement? The time of the Declaration of Independence or just after independence?  Or what about during when the Earth created the land mass? Etc.
If this about the government(politcal), would something like the French revolution or the Republic of Texas be a Disestablishment? CaribDigita 18:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would err on the side of non-inclusion for most countries.  These categories are probably best applied to specific regimes/dynasties/governments; for instance, I don't think there's any problem with filing Joseon Dynasty under :Category:1392 establishments.  Similarly we could file French First Republic under :Category:1792 establishments, but we wouldn't file France itself anywhere.  -- Visviva 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: earlier comments

message: It has been said that :Category:births by year and :Category:deaths by year are for people and not animals. However, could :Category:Establishments by year and :Category:Disestablishments by year be used on animals? Q0 08:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Animals are not "established," (although specific breeds might be) they are born.  If "births" is reserved for human births (which seems odd), then perhaps we could have :Category:Animals by year of birth or some such... Provided we have enough animal articles to justify such a scheme.-- Visviva 10:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the same provision. __meco 07:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals 

message: Do we have a separate category for buildings, or do they go under establishment and disestablishment? I can see how the intangible concept that fills a building (e.g. a company) would be called an establishment, and would be said to be established in a certain year, but is the building itself really "established"? Are buildings officially "disestablished" when they are destroyed in fire, war, or intentional dismantling? LordAmeth 01:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updating this very old thread for the sake of future searchers.  See .  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buildings 

message: A new subsetting for introductions, see my newly created categoeries for:
*Category:Characters introduced in 1966
*Category:Characters introduced in 1987
*Category:Characters introduced in 1990
*Category:Characters introduced in 1999
Please help populate these categories, and help in by adding some more. Thanks! --Roadrunner3000 01:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters introductions categories

message: I created a corresponding hierarchy on the Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia. Norway is a seafaring nation, and after categorizing the Norwegian article equivalent to MS Berge Istra and MS Berge Vanga I received stark criticism that it was quite unnatural to characterize the establisment or disestablishment of a ship, and consequently the categories were removed from those articles. Would a solution to this dilemma, if we here at the English Wikipedia decide to take on this issue as well, be to create a separate sub-hierarchy for vessels, be it seafaring ships, space ships, and maybe other entitites ill-fitting in the current category structure? __meco 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships 

message: The questions above about buildings and ships have got me thinking that what we could do with is a parent category for Births, Establishments and Introductions as well as a parent category for Deaths and Disestablishments.  These two categories would be abstractions of their child categories.  These very general categories could then accommodate things like demolitions, launchings, scappings and sinkings etc.   The problem is that there does not seem to be words in English for these concepts.  The best I could come up with was :Category:Beginnings by year and :Category:Endings by year however these seem horribly clumsy.  The computer scientist in me likes the idea; the grammarian does not. Any ideas? Greenshed 00:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstraction of Births, Establishments and Introductions as well as Deaths and Disestablishments 

message: I think it is a good idea if the whole set of :Category:Educational Institutions by year of establishment is linked to the corresponding :Category:Establishment by year category's. Like a subset. For example, the :Category:1914 Establishments would show a link to :Category:Educational Institutions established in 1914. I think this is important, because all year/decade/century-pages show a link to the :Category:Establishments of that year/decade/century, but there is no link to the educational institutions category. What do you guys think? Omegastar (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking establishments by year and educational establishments by year

message: The article for Dedham, Massachusetts recently had the Established in 1635 category added to it.  The plantation was first settled in 1635, under a different name, but the Town of Dedham was not incorporated as a town until 1636.  Which should we use?  --BrianCUA (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settled vs Established