Category:Historical sources on Alexander the Great
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:Delete with the note that it appears all three keeps were from the same editor. Listify made a case, but since most of the information already exists in
Historical Alexander the Great, the list basically exists.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. An overly Alexander-centric category. The sources in the category are not notable exclusively for being sources on the life of Alexander the Great. We don't categorize sources by person because they happen to mention that person. Some of the articles included are persons, and we certainly don't categorize historians by people they mention in their written works. The subcategories are also somewhat suspect, though I'm not sure what to propose there.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep:
Agree, not notably exclusive. But, that distinction is irrelevant. These are major sources on Alexander and that distinction is relevant. For example, Plutarch is a major source on numerous historical persons. That he does not treat any exclusively is of no consequence whatever.
Agree, we don't categorize historians by people they (only) mention. But, that is irrelevant. This is a categorization of Alexander, not of the historians. These are major sources on Alexander.
Rationale about the "suspect" is unelucidated and admittedly unclear. We do not delete on "suspicions."
Conclusion. Alexander is a major historical figure. It is very useful to the interested public to know the historical sources of his life and times. The rationale for deletion does not provide reasons that are to the point. Ergo keep and expand the category.
Dave (
talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstood much of what I wrote. For one, this is not a "categorization of Alexander", it is a categorization of articles about historians and historical sources. We don't categorize historians or historical sources by people for whom the historians or works are sources for, major or otherwise. Second, the subcategories are not nominated; I was just commenting that they were probably not appropriate categories (they have disappeared from the category since the creator has moved them around). Finally, see
WP:USEFUL.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Instead of "categorization of Alexander", plug in "categorization of articles about Alexander." Doesn't change the argument. In general the point is categories and articles are to be treated differently and your arguments although they might or might not apply to articles do not apply to categories. Anyway I took a hand as requested. I'm getting back to articles. There are now two points of view on the boards. I favor diversity. There is no "right way" to categorize. So, I have no problem with any of you doing as you see fit. I suggest MORE categorization. Ciao.
Dave (
talk) 10:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Elucidation. Information about ancient people is often legendary or of questionable authenticity. An evaluation of sources is often required. Such evaluation is a generally accepted genre.
Dave (
talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Category: Lost works which presumably includes also names of authors. A whole wiki-article on a lost work of a reported author by a secondary source is needless.
Catalographer (
talk) 06:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Partial agreement, such an article may well be useless. However, the deletion request does not concern articles but is about a category. The articles would not be deleted but recategorized. Ergo the criticism is irrelevant.
To change the subject, none of the articles in this category are primarily about a lost work of a reported author by a secondary source. The topics are more general, the authors are not reported ones but are ones, and often they are not secondary sources but primary ones. Ergo the criticism is misdirected as well as irrelevant.
Ancient authors generally worked in libraries evaluating previous authors on their topic. They were influenced by and often plagiarized those authors. It is very useful to the interested public to know who wrote about the topic and what he wrote. The influence might be assessed or a copy identified. Ergo keep and expand this subcategory.
Dave (
talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
A category: Contemporary Historians of.. is included in the Lost works and a category : Ancient Historians on... would exclude Babylonian chronicles and Book of Arda Viraf the oriental sources
Catalographer (
talk) 06:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator, together will all its subcategories.
Debresser (
talk) 08:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep and expand
Dave (
talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I'd say, delete that one too!
Debresser (
talk) 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
The recommendation to change the name is based on the implied argument that names can go in only if they are like other names. Such a rationale is false. Wikipedia can never expand under it. Despite its faults Wikipedia relies on the inventive presentations of its contributors. This inventiveness is not original research but is a presentational or communicative inventiveness and therefore is a necessary asset. The argument is false; ergo, keep the name as is.
Dave (
talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Those are articles, not categories. I think the articles are probably fine, but not corresponding categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
These articles are so important to the proper assessment of ancient information that I would say, if we are going to delete them, let Wikipedia delete all the articles on ancient history and not presume to dabble in it. The topics will keep coming up because a major part of ancient lore is the assessment of its historical validity. Keep the alexandrine category and keep all these articles as well.
Dave (
talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify and Delete to start
User:Catalographer's proposed article. Imagine how many of these categories we could have and these should probably be in the main article, but let's see what Catalographer comes up with as a stand alone attempt.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. The creator has now inappropriately re-jiggered things mid-discussion and has created
Category:Historians whose work on Alexander the Great has been lost, which essentially has the same problems as the originally nominated category. I've added this new one to the nomination. The subcategories have also disappeared from listing in the originally-nominated category. (Perhaps someone could have a word with the creator about not doing these kinds of changes mid-discussion. I would do it, except I am the nominator so maybe not the best party to try from a "neutrality" standpoint.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
You are right. This new category, as well as all (previous) subcategories, are all included in my delete.
Debresser (
talk) 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Side recommendation: Keep all the categories and add more. Wikipedia in my opinion is so short of categories that I can never find the right ones when I work on articles. There is no limitation of the number of categories. Categories are different from articles. There are and should be many ways to view an article. It is not necessary therefore to constantly combine categories. Make all the categories we choose. They are not mutually exclusive.
Dave (
talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
A survey of the ancient literature on Alexander would actually be good; although it should probably be an article, not a category, so we can distinguish the
Alexander Romance from
Arrian. Is there any intention of completing the cat, so it includes Plutarch or Diodorus? if not, it doesn't strike me as very useful.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Articles are not categories. We are not faced with an "either/or" choice. Categiries can be numerous and multiple and lead into the topic from many points of view. Articles are somewhat restricted. The philosophy of articles therefore cannot be applied to categories. A category is an index entry. In the index we can have many "see also."
Dave (
talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify and delete -- The resultant list should ultimately be converted to the suggested article surveying the sources on Alexander.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree, such an article would be a great thing. However, this discussion is not primarily about article development, but about the use of categories and in particular whether the Alexander categories need to be changed, combined or deleted. Keep all categories.
Dave (
talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (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.
Category:Executed people by Alexander the Great
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:Rename per nomination and undo the out of process moves during the discussion. Having said that, new subcategories can be created under the new parent if appropiate. Clearly the out of process changes require this unorthodox close. The close would have been easier without this extra drama, but all that aside, there is consensus for the new name of this category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)reply
What about the
Category:Conspirators against Alexander I added alleged or real ; category
Somatophylakes two of them did not serve Alexander, which is mentioned. So we can add a clarification about who was killed by Alexander himself, by a third-person under his orders or through judicial procedure.
Catalographer (
talk) 07:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Adolf Hitler and
Third Reich are synonymous entities. Stalin and Soviet Union, Alexander and Macedonia, Caesar and Rome are not.
Catalographer (
talk) 07:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator. Disagree with the last comment from
Catalographer. His rational is probably that the Third Reich stood only while Hitler was alive, not like Rome, Macedonia and the Soviet Union which existed before and after Ceasar, Alexander and Stalin. Still that is not enough of an argument in this context.
Debresser (
talk) 08:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Most of the cases are conspiracies, related personally to Alexander. Moreover I have not heard of any person killed by the hands or the gun of Adolf himself
Catalographer (
talk) 11:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
In the modern legal and state context it may sound unfamiliar, but in the ancient context it is the exact wording.
Catalographer (
talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't think they spoke English in the ancient context.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I am not referring to People executed or Executed peopleCatalographer (
talk) 10:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I mean this
The king(Βασιλεύς, Basileús) headed the central administration: he led the kingdom from its capital, Pella, and in his royal palace was conserved the state's archive. He was helped in carrying out his work by the Royal Secretary (βασιλικὸς γραμματεύς, basilikós grammateús), whose work was of primary importance, and by the Council.The king was commander of the army, head of the Macedonian religion, and director of diplomacy. Also, only he could conclude treaties
Treaties were normally made in the king's name alone.
Catalographer (
talk) 10:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Alternative solution : People executed during the reign of Alexander the GreatCatalographer (
talk) 10:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. The current name suggests that Alexander made some people, and someone executed them.
Jafeluv (
talk) 10:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom; generally speaking "executed by" connotes "executed under the authority of/at the direction of" not "personally executed by" otherwise Hitler and Stalin executed no-one.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Now the new category was speedily deleted and emptied, and I don't know where the articles are. What a mess!
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, Carlos etc.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:58, 25 July 2009 (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.
Category:People involved with Shinto
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:rename.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I propose changing the name of this category to make it a category for "adherents" or "practitioners" of Shinto, rather than the rather loose name and definition that currently exist. I realise that to some extent Shinto is different than some other religions, in that its "adherents" often are adherents of other religions in addition to Shinto. (I'm not even sure if it would be proper to refer to a follower of Shinto as an "adherent".) For these reasons, I've been unsure what exactly would be the proper name for this category. I raised the issue at the
Shinto task force but didn't get a response, so I've just decided to propose Shintoists, which is found in
OED. Shintos apparently could also be appropriate.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Shintoists, per OED. Personally, I don't like "Shintos", it sounds a bit like "Islams".
VsevolodKrolikov (
talk) 07:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Shintoists i suppose one day we may have enough articles on people associated with shinto (scholars, etc) who are not themselves shintoists, thus requiring an "involved" or "associated" cat, but i suspect this is adequate for now. on a par with buddhists, christians, etc.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk) 23:02, 21 July 2009 (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.
Category:The Rasmus music videos
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:Delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 08:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Redundant to
Category:The Rasmus songs, as you can't have a music video without a song; also, no other "music video by artist" categories seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep – and move to
Category:Music videos and DVDs, where many others are to be found. It isn't redundant as one can have a song without a video.
Occuli (
talk) 21:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. That's not what video categories are for. Instead, they are for video collections. See
category:U2 videos, for example.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 05:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are no separate articles for the videos, so it makes no sense to categorize them as videos rather than songs. The category would make sense if there were articles about the music videos themselves.
Jafeluv (
talk) 11:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - in the absence of articles that are specifically about the videos rather than the songs the category is duplicative. Do we even have any articles that are specifically about a music video rather than being an article about the song which includes a section on the video? On a side note, the entire categorization structure for music video and DVD release is a mess and at some point it needs to be addressed.
Otto4711 (
talk) 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
We do have some articles specifically about a music video, eg
Thriller (music video). We have others with a reasonable section about the related video eg
Jaded (Aerosmith song) (which could be categorised more neatly and with less clutter via a redirect from
Jaded (music video), or similar, although Otto seems to dislike this method). And I'm sure there are plenty with no mention in the song article of a video, and yet others which have a notable video not mentioned anywhere (eg
House of the Rising Sun, Animals version, has a video mentioned in
music video and which my son found on Utube and was enthusing about yesterday).
Occuli (
talk) 11:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
As I mentioned in the umbrella nomination, I couldn't find any individual-song-music-video articles other than the Thriller one.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying that I don't "like" the method; I'm saying that with the current constitution of the music videos category, dumping a bunch of redirects into it would make a bad situation worse. I also think that the idea should be discussed before implementation and if consensus is to implement it some sort of guidelines should be in place so that every song article that mentions having a video doesn't end up with a redirect.
Otto4711 (
talk) 21:03, 23 July 2009 (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.
Category:Types of running
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.
Comment – there is
Category:Types with a number of subcats similar to this one. Perhaps someone will explain why these are useful.
Occuli (
talk) 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator. And somebody should tackle the other ones in
Category:Types as well.
Debresser (
talk) 08:53, 21 July 2009 (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.
Category:New Zealand umpires
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.
Then you ve got baseball umpires too, for ten or so more countries. Does seem a good one to have ultimately
Mayumashu (
talk) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Sounds reasonable to me, too - though I'd point out to Occuli that the
ICC has over 100 member countries, so "not many nations play cricket" is perhaps debatable.
Grutness...wha? 00:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
How many of them have notable umpires?
Occuli (
talk) 08:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Point taken, though there are a number with redlinks in various international cricket competition articles that suggest that quite a few might have at least one.
Grutness...wha? 01:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep as a reasonable category whose larger structure is at this moment still underdeveloped.
Debresser (
talk) 08:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment it's highly unclear what kind of Umpires this is for, so it needs to be renamed if it is kept.
76.66.192.64 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 03:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC).reply
Rename to
Category:New Zealand cricket umpires to make it obvious that the category is for cricket umpires and not for tennis, field hockey or any other sport. –
PeeJay 08:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename as per above. Seems like a reasonable category, so long as it is made clear that it is for cricket umpires. —
AustralianRupert (
talk) 10:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
What PeeJay/Jay said. --
Dweller (
talk) 12:44, 23 July 2009 (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.
Category:Canadian sport officials
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:rename.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:18, 27 July 2009 (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.
Category:Olympic athletes of Canada
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: for clarity, as 'athlete' tends to mean any sportsperson in North America
Mayumashu (
talk) 11:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'd never be able to find anything if this were the name. For me they are just "Olympic athletes".
Debresser (
talk) 08:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support as usage in Canada and the US means that these categories as currently named are identical to "xxx Olympians", which is not what they are supposed to categorize.
76.66.192.64 (
talk) 03:53, 22 July 2009 (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.
Category:UFC champions
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:rename.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Expand abbreviation to match parent category and most other related categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 07:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Rename to match title of parent article.
Alansohn (
talk) 01:33, 24 July 2009 (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.
Category:Dragon Magazine covers
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:keep.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep For magazines were we do have a substantial number of such Fair Use images there should be no controversy connected with maintaining these subcategories, indeed many already exist. __
meco (
talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (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.
Category:Fair use BusinessWeek magazine covers
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:keep.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Not useful. Just one entry. There's nothing special about Business Week magazine covers in regard to fair usability.
Damiens.rf 02:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep – an excellent way of subcatting the large and inscrutable
Category:Fair use magazine covers (I have added 2 more covers). Images are hardly ever in more than 2 or 3 categories so OCAT does not arise. Going back to first principles, what are the defining characteristics of an image of a BusinessWeek cover?
Occuli (
talk) 09:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep per my rationale given above at Category:Dragon Magazine covers. __
meco (
talk) 14:51, 26 July 2009 (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.
Category:Historical sources on Alexander the Great
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:Delete with the note that it appears all three keeps were from the same editor. Listify made a case, but since most of the information already exists in
Historical Alexander the Great, the list basically exists.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. An overly Alexander-centric category. The sources in the category are not notable exclusively for being sources on the life of Alexander the Great. We don't categorize sources by person because they happen to mention that person. Some of the articles included are persons, and we certainly don't categorize historians by people they mention in their written works. The subcategories are also somewhat suspect, though I'm not sure what to propose there.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep:
Agree, not notably exclusive. But, that distinction is irrelevant. These are major sources on Alexander and that distinction is relevant. For example, Plutarch is a major source on numerous historical persons. That he does not treat any exclusively is of no consequence whatever.
Agree, we don't categorize historians by people they (only) mention. But, that is irrelevant. This is a categorization of Alexander, not of the historians. These are major sources on Alexander.
Rationale about the "suspect" is unelucidated and admittedly unclear. We do not delete on "suspicions."
Conclusion. Alexander is a major historical figure. It is very useful to the interested public to know the historical sources of his life and times. The rationale for deletion does not provide reasons that are to the point. Ergo keep and expand the category.
Dave (
talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstood much of what I wrote. For one, this is not a "categorization of Alexander", it is a categorization of articles about historians and historical sources. We don't categorize historians or historical sources by people for whom the historians or works are sources for, major or otherwise. Second, the subcategories are not nominated; I was just commenting that they were probably not appropriate categories (they have disappeared from the category since the creator has moved them around). Finally, see
WP:USEFUL.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Instead of "categorization of Alexander", plug in "categorization of articles about Alexander." Doesn't change the argument. In general the point is categories and articles are to be treated differently and your arguments although they might or might not apply to articles do not apply to categories. Anyway I took a hand as requested. I'm getting back to articles. There are now two points of view on the boards. I favor diversity. There is no "right way" to categorize. So, I have no problem with any of you doing as you see fit. I suggest MORE categorization. Ciao.
Dave (
talk) 10:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Elucidation. Information about ancient people is often legendary or of questionable authenticity. An evaluation of sources is often required. Such evaluation is a generally accepted genre.
Dave (
talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Category: Lost works which presumably includes also names of authors. A whole wiki-article on a lost work of a reported author by a secondary source is needless.
Catalographer (
talk) 06:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Partial agreement, such an article may well be useless. However, the deletion request does not concern articles but is about a category. The articles would not be deleted but recategorized. Ergo the criticism is irrelevant.
To change the subject, none of the articles in this category are primarily about a lost work of a reported author by a secondary source. The topics are more general, the authors are not reported ones but are ones, and often they are not secondary sources but primary ones. Ergo the criticism is misdirected as well as irrelevant.
Ancient authors generally worked in libraries evaluating previous authors on their topic. They were influenced by and often plagiarized those authors. It is very useful to the interested public to know who wrote about the topic and what he wrote. The influence might be assessed or a copy identified. Ergo keep and expand this subcategory.
Dave (
talk) 10:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
A category: Contemporary Historians of.. is included in the Lost works and a category : Ancient Historians on... would exclude Babylonian chronicles and Book of Arda Viraf the oriental sources
Catalographer (
talk) 06:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator, together will all its subcategories.
Debresser (
talk) 08:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep and expand
Dave (
talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I'd say, delete that one too!
Debresser (
talk) 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
The recommendation to change the name is based on the implied argument that names can go in only if they are like other names. Such a rationale is false. Wikipedia can never expand under it. Despite its faults Wikipedia relies on the inventive presentations of its contributors. This inventiveness is not original research but is a presentational or communicative inventiveness and therefore is a necessary asset. The argument is false; ergo, keep the name as is.
Dave (
talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Those are articles, not categories. I think the articles are probably fine, but not corresponding categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
These articles are so important to the proper assessment of ancient information that I would say, if we are going to delete them, let Wikipedia delete all the articles on ancient history and not presume to dabble in it. The topics will keep coming up because a major part of ancient lore is the assessment of its historical validity. Keep the alexandrine category and keep all these articles as well.
Dave (
talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify and Delete to start
User:Catalographer's proposed article. Imagine how many of these categories we could have and these should probably be in the main article, but let's see what Catalographer comes up with as a stand alone attempt.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. The creator has now inappropriately re-jiggered things mid-discussion and has created
Category:Historians whose work on Alexander the Great has been lost, which essentially has the same problems as the originally nominated category. I've added this new one to the nomination. The subcategories have also disappeared from listing in the originally-nominated category. (Perhaps someone could have a word with the creator about not doing these kinds of changes mid-discussion. I would do it, except I am the nominator so maybe not the best party to try from a "neutrality" standpoint.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
You are right. This new category, as well as all (previous) subcategories, are all included in my delete.
Debresser (
talk) 21:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Side recommendation: Keep all the categories and add more. Wikipedia in my opinion is so short of categories that I can never find the right ones when I work on articles. There is no limitation of the number of categories. Categories are different from articles. There are and should be many ways to view an article. It is not necessary therefore to constantly combine categories. Make all the categories we choose. They are not mutually exclusive.
Dave (
talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
A survey of the ancient literature on Alexander would actually be good; although it should probably be an article, not a category, so we can distinguish the
Alexander Romance from
Arrian. Is there any intention of completing the cat, so it includes Plutarch or Diodorus? if not, it doesn't strike me as very useful.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Articles are not categories. We are not faced with an "either/or" choice. Categiries can be numerous and multiple and lead into the topic from many points of view. Articles are somewhat restricted. The philosophy of articles therefore cannot be applied to categories. A category is an index entry. In the index we can have many "see also."
Dave (
talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Listify and delete -- The resultant list should ultimately be converted to the suggested article surveying the sources on Alexander.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree, such an article would be a great thing. However, this discussion is not primarily about article development, but about the use of categories and in particular whether the Alexander categories need to be changed, combined or deleted. Keep all categories.
Dave (
talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (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.
Category:Executed people by Alexander the Great
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:Rename per nomination and undo the out of process moves during the discussion. Having said that, new subcategories can be created under the new parent if appropiate. Clearly the out of process changes require this unorthodox close. The close would have been easier without this extra drama, but all that aside, there is consensus for the new name of this category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)reply
What about the
Category:Conspirators against Alexander I added alleged or real ; category
Somatophylakes two of them did not serve Alexander, which is mentioned. So we can add a clarification about who was killed by Alexander himself, by a third-person under his orders or through judicial procedure.
Catalographer (
talk) 07:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Adolf Hitler and
Third Reich are synonymous entities. Stalin and Soviet Union, Alexander and Macedonia, Caesar and Rome are not.
Catalographer (
talk) 07:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator. Disagree with the last comment from
Catalographer. His rational is probably that the Third Reich stood only while Hitler was alive, not like Rome, Macedonia and the Soviet Union which existed before and after Ceasar, Alexander and Stalin. Still that is not enough of an argument in this context.
Debresser (
talk) 08:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Most of the cases are conspiracies, related personally to Alexander. Moreover I have not heard of any person killed by the hands or the gun of Adolf himself
Catalographer (
talk) 11:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
In the modern legal and state context it may sound unfamiliar, but in the ancient context it is the exact wording.
Catalographer (
talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't think they spoke English in the ancient context.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I am not referring to People executed or Executed peopleCatalographer (
talk) 10:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I mean this
The king(Βασιλεύς, Basileús) headed the central administration: he led the kingdom from its capital, Pella, and in his royal palace was conserved the state's archive. He was helped in carrying out his work by the Royal Secretary (βασιλικὸς γραμματεύς, basilikós grammateús), whose work was of primary importance, and by the Council.The king was commander of the army, head of the Macedonian religion, and director of diplomacy. Also, only he could conclude treaties
Treaties were normally made in the king's name alone.
Catalographer (
talk) 10:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Alternative solution : People executed during the reign of Alexander the GreatCatalographer (
talk) 10:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. The current name suggests that Alexander made some people, and someone executed them.
Jafeluv (
talk) 10:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom; generally speaking "executed by" connotes "executed under the authority of/at the direction of" not "personally executed by" otherwise Hitler and Stalin executed no-one.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Now the new category was speedily deleted and emptied, and I don't know where the articles are. What a mess!
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom, Carlos etc.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:58, 25 July 2009 (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.
Category:People involved with Shinto
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:rename.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I propose changing the name of this category to make it a category for "adherents" or "practitioners" of Shinto, rather than the rather loose name and definition that currently exist. I realise that to some extent Shinto is different than some other religions, in that its "adherents" often are adherents of other religions in addition to Shinto. (I'm not even sure if it would be proper to refer to a follower of Shinto as an "adherent".) For these reasons, I've been unsure what exactly would be the proper name for this category. I raised the issue at the
Shinto task force but didn't get a response, so I've just decided to propose Shintoists, which is found in
OED. Shintos apparently could also be appropriate.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Shintoists, per OED. Personally, I don't like "Shintos", it sounds a bit like "Islams".
VsevolodKrolikov (
talk) 07:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Shintoists i suppose one day we may have enough articles on people associated with shinto (scholars, etc) who are not themselves shintoists, thus requiring an "involved" or "associated" cat, but i suspect this is adequate for now. on a par with buddhists, christians, etc.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk) 23:02, 21 July 2009 (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.
Category:The Rasmus music videos
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:Delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 08:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Redundant to
Category:The Rasmus songs, as you can't have a music video without a song; also, no other "music video by artist" categories seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep – and move to
Category:Music videos and DVDs, where many others are to be found. It isn't redundant as one can have a song without a video.
Occuli (
talk) 21:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. That's not what video categories are for. Instead, they are for video collections. See
category:U2 videos, for example.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 05:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are no separate articles for the videos, so it makes no sense to categorize them as videos rather than songs. The category would make sense if there were articles about the music videos themselves.
Jafeluv (
talk) 11:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - in the absence of articles that are specifically about the videos rather than the songs the category is duplicative. Do we even have any articles that are specifically about a music video rather than being an article about the song which includes a section on the video? On a side note, the entire categorization structure for music video and DVD release is a mess and at some point it needs to be addressed.
Otto4711 (
talk) 23:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
We do have some articles specifically about a music video, eg
Thriller (music video). We have others with a reasonable section about the related video eg
Jaded (Aerosmith song) (which could be categorised more neatly and with less clutter via a redirect from
Jaded (music video), or similar, although Otto seems to dislike this method). And I'm sure there are plenty with no mention in the song article of a video, and yet others which have a notable video not mentioned anywhere (eg
House of the Rising Sun, Animals version, has a video mentioned in
music video and which my son found on Utube and was enthusing about yesterday).
Occuli (
talk) 11:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
As I mentioned in the umbrella nomination, I couldn't find any individual-song-music-video articles other than the Thriller one.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying that I don't "like" the method; I'm saying that with the current constitution of the music videos category, dumping a bunch of redirects into it would make a bad situation worse. I also think that the idea should be discussed before implementation and if consensus is to implement it some sort of guidelines should be in place so that every song article that mentions having a video doesn't end up with a redirect.
Otto4711 (
talk) 21:03, 23 July 2009 (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.
Category:Types of running
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.
Comment – there is
Category:Types with a number of subcats similar to this one. Perhaps someone will explain why these are useful.
Occuli (
talk) 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator. And somebody should tackle the other ones in
Category:Types as well.
Debresser (
talk) 08:53, 21 July 2009 (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.
Category:New Zealand umpires
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.
Then you ve got baseball umpires too, for ten or so more countries. Does seem a good one to have ultimately
Mayumashu (
talk) 19:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Sounds reasonable to me, too - though I'd point out to Occuli that the
ICC has over 100 member countries, so "not many nations play cricket" is perhaps debatable.
Grutness...wha? 00:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
How many of them have notable umpires?
Occuli (
talk) 08:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Point taken, though there are a number with redlinks in various international cricket competition articles that suggest that quite a few might have at least one.
Grutness...wha? 01:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep as a reasonable category whose larger structure is at this moment still underdeveloped.
Debresser (
talk) 08:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment it's highly unclear what kind of Umpires this is for, so it needs to be renamed if it is kept.
76.66.192.64 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 03:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC).reply
Rename to
Category:New Zealand cricket umpires to make it obvious that the category is for cricket umpires and not for tennis, field hockey or any other sport. –
PeeJay 08:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename as per above. Seems like a reasonable category, so long as it is made clear that it is for cricket umpires. —
AustralianRupert (
talk) 10:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
What PeeJay/Jay said. --
Dweller (
talk) 12:44, 23 July 2009 (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.
Category:Canadian sport officials
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:rename.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:18, 27 July 2009 (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.
Category:Olympic athletes of Canada
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: for clarity, as 'athlete' tends to mean any sportsperson in North America
Mayumashu (
talk) 11:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'd never be able to find anything if this were the name. For me they are just "Olympic athletes".
Debresser (
talk) 08:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support as usage in Canada and the US means that these categories as currently named are identical to "xxx Olympians", which is not what they are supposed to categorize.
76.66.192.64 (
talk) 03:53, 22 July 2009 (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.
Category:UFC champions
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:rename.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Expand abbreviation to match parent category and most other related categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 07:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support Rename to match title of parent article.
Alansohn (
talk) 01:33, 24 July 2009 (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.
Category:Dragon Magazine covers
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:keep.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep For magazines were we do have a substantial number of such Fair Use images there should be no controversy connected with maintaining these subcategories, indeed many already exist. __
meco (
talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (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.
Category:Fair use BusinessWeek magazine covers
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:keep.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Not useful. Just one entry. There's nothing special about Business Week magazine covers in regard to fair usability.
Damiens.rf 02:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep – an excellent way of subcatting the large and inscrutable
Category:Fair use magazine covers (I have added 2 more covers). Images are hardly ever in more than 2 or 3 categories so OCAT does not arise. Going back to first principles, what are the defining characteristics of an image of a BusinessWeek cover?
Occuli (
talk) 09:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep per my rationale given above at Category:Dragon Magazine covers. __
meco (
talk) 14:51, 26 July 2009 (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.