Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16

Category:Erotic action films

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. The only parent category is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Erotic films by genre and the page is already categorised as erotic film by nationality & decade, so there is no need to upmerge. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. I don't think that there are really too many films that could fit in this category; however if someone proves me wrong and significantly populates this category, I will withdraw my nomination. JDDJS ( talk) 22:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Erotic action is not a common artistic form, unlike the rest in Category:Erotic films by genre. SFB 13:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge I created the category because there were other categories of erotic films by genre but I think the above users are right, there probably aren't enough films for this category. I'll be more careful when creating similar categories. Sorry for the trouble...-- Cattus talk 15:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; the whole tree is ripe for deletion, actually: (1) suffers from the same problem all films about type categories have, how much about the subject must the film be, and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much; (2) "erotic film" is not a genre that seems notable enough to have an article. erotic film redirects to " sex in film" which means that what we're categorizing is any article on a film that has sex in it?? Many films having sex scenes (such as rape, child abuse, or animal procreative sex) are not "erotic" to most people's definition (subjectivity, again?). And many people (again, subjectively) may find a film erotic even though no sex is on film. Since it's purely subjective in a non-notable genre and a daughter cat of a further problem cat, delete is the only way to go. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ Sillyfolkboy:, please objectively state the definition of what constitutes an "erotic thriller" vs. what doesn't, and then provide reliable sources that each article so categorized meets that definition. Failing someone's (or consensus') ability to do that, and for each of these categories, they're all deleteable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • If she is the sole authority, follow her - but again, state the definition and show reliable sources for inclusion for the films so categorized. A lack of such sources demonstrate that such categorization is subjective and ought be removed. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:16, 22 December 2014 (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:Romantic mystery films

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. The only parent is Category:Romance films by genre, and the 3 pages are already in other romance sub-categories; moreover, the two that mention "mystery" are also categorised as mystery films; so there is no need to upmerge. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only three pages in category. I don't think that there are really too many films that could fit in this category; however if someone proves me wrong and significantly populates this category, I will withdraw my nomination. JDDJS ( talk) 22:46, 16 December 2014 (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 of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent

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 on deleting or merging. Although there were several opinions for "oppose"/"keep", I am not closing this as a "keep" outcome because there may have been selective canvassing. The opposers claimed that this identity is defining in America, and although they did not present decisive evidence on this point it appears that a case could be made. Few people commented on upmerging the others, and this close is no bar to an early re-nomination of those smaller categories for merger. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF, Levantine is not a defining characteristic of these people and per WP:NARROWCAT, it stretches too far to categorize people by religious descent. While of course I'm not against categorizing these people by their own church membership. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for referring to this previous discussion. In this previous discussion the rationale not to delete was based on ethnicity rather than on religion. Strangely enough, in this past discussion, there weren't any questions about reliable sources confirming the existence of a Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian ethnic group e.g. in the US or in the UK. That's a question that should have been asked especially since there's neither an article nor a parent category in Wikipedia that is called Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian ethnicity or anything like that. On top of that, there's hardly anything in the articles of the people that are in this category that hints towards them being part of an ethnic group. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The reason I'm elaborating this a bit is the fact that the CfD tag has been removed from the category by one of the discussants of the previous discussion so there is some opposition to be expected. I've restored the CfD tag meanwhile. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Don't worry, I think it's fine to have another discussion. Two years is more than enough of a gap between discussions on the same topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Thank you for “elaborating this a bit” … No offense, but it’s clear neither you nor GO’F have the slightest notion of say classical anthropology, Byzantine heritage or the subtle ethno-cultural shades of Levantine Christian minorities and their various diasporic experiences … FYI the category is not (only) about “religion” in the (narrow) “theological” sense e.g. if you read the books of say Abraham Mitrie Rihbany, a conservative Connecticut-based Presbyterian PROTESTANT writer, or Helen Thomas, the famously “leftwing” Liberal doyenne of the White House Press Corps -a staunch ATHEIST by her own account-, they both insisted on their “Greek-Orthodox Antiochian” heritage = Levantine Greek Orthodox Christian CULTURE and how it shaped their political views… etc. N°2 Nor is the category in question simply “ethnic” is the narrow sense e.g. California Rep. Darrell Issa is part German-American, and so was Swiss-American industrialist Nicolas Hayek… yet they both view(ed) themselves essentially as “Antiochian/Greek Levantine Christians” i.e. this perceived ethno-cultural trait was essential in their OWN view. FYI (N°3), the pervasiveness of that ethno-cultural category has to do with the “long historic sedimentation” of the Byzantine and then Ottoman Turkish “Millet” system whereby some particular ethno-cultural minorities accumulated distinct “national” and legal/political and religious qualities that were passed on from one generation to the next (internally) and reinforced by Ottoman statutory laws (across the empire) and local traditions (in Antioch, Jerusalem and related provinces)… Hope that helps you understand that rather subtle/nuanced notion… B.Andersohn ( talk) 22:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
In general, there are better ways to make your argument than right off the bat stating that those who disagree with you don't "have the slightest notion" about the topic. I think the closer of the previous discussion tried to get that across when he stated that ad hominem arguments are disregarded. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your reply. I had already recognized that this is about ethnicity, not about religion, so we don't need to discuss this really. According to Ethnic group, an ethnic group is a socially-defined group of people. That requires more than a few (you mention four) individuals identifying themselves with their ancestry, it requires reliable sources about group interconnections. Secondly, since these are descent categories, it requires reliable sources about the existence (perhaps past existence) of people in the region of origin under the same name. And finally I just don't understand, while you insist so much on having a category in Wikipedia, why there isn't an article about this topic in Wikipedia, similar to e.g. Irish American. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Hi Marco. In a nutshell, FYI there are already FIVE other “ethnic” or “religious” (I don’t like the terms as we’re talking about a nuanced ethno-cultural group here) categorizations in Wikipedia + these are (highly) overlapping categories : the more general but v. old-fashioned “Melkite” (“…said to have been a mixed one made up of individuals who were originally Greek, Roman, Syriac, and Jewish…” = more “ethnic” definition + lost most of its significance circa 1730 CE… but still in use) and also “Greek Orthodox of Antioch” (more religious, but with distinct ethno-cultural shades), “Greek Orthodox of Jerusalem” (purely religious/geographic), “Melkite Greek Catholic Church of Antioch and Jerusalem” (an offshoot of the GOA = religious, but with distinct ethno-cultural shades ), “Rûm” (can be construed as “ethnic” or “ethno-cultural”, but rather vague as it also encompasses Western/Central Anatolian and Constantinoplean “Karaman” European Greeks with no connection whatsoever to Antioch/Cilicia/Syria or Jerusalem) and also “Antiochian Greeks” (either too narrowly restrictive = “ethnic Greeks of Cilicia and Aleppo” (that v. old definition tends to disappear) or too vague/too broad = simply synonymous of “Greek Orthodox of Antioch” but diluting the religious/cultural aspects of GOA and MGCCA with a mostly ethnic classification … ==> “People of Greek Orthodox-Levantine Descent” is more modern, clearer, sharper - yet broader and more nuanced. Keep (duplicate !vote struck) B.Andersohn ( talk) 12:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your reply. I can definitely follow why this name make more sense than other names. The primary question, however, is whether this name is commonly used in e.g. academic literature or in public media to describe this ethnic group - and especially to describe expatriate ethnic groups, since we are discussing descent categories here. If the name is not commonly used, it would be original research, see WP:OR. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle: Hi Marco, Thanks for your reply (bis) 1) “I had already recognized that this is about ethnicity, not about religion”. NO: This is about a distinct ethno-cultural/ethno-religious ‘hybrid’ category with v. subtle shades and fine nuances- after all, in English, the word “Byzantine” also means “arcane”, “complicated” and “difficult to understand” . . . B.Andersohn ( talk) 17:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle: @ Cplakidas: @ Sillyfolkboy: 2) “whether this name is commonly used in e.g. academic literature or in public media to describe this ethnic group - and especially to describe expatriate ethnic groups” The answer is YES, this categorization is indeed used in academia and in public to describe members of the groups in the MENA area and their “diasporic” descendants in the Americas and in Australia. So it’s definitely not “original research”. . . . BUT “of Lebanese Greek-Orthodox origin” [by far the most commonly used expression in the US and Canada, even for the descendants of Syrian, Palestinian and Southern Turkish/Cilician Greek-Orthodox and Greek-Catholic immigrants!] , or “of Greek-Orthodox Syrian descent”, or “raised in Detroit, Michigan, in an Eastern-Mediterranean Greek-Orthodox family” or “the grandson of (Southern) Turkish-Ottoman Antiochian Greek immigrants to Ellis Island” or “of Middle-Eastern ‘Roman’ origin” or “Greco-Arab Christian” or “of (Southern) Turkish-Ottoman or Syrian ‘Oriental’ Orthodox origin” [the latter being widely used in Brazil, Argentina, Cuba and Mexico] or “Arab-Orthodox Christian/Orthodox Greek Nazarene” [used in mainstream Israeli media and academia] or “Lebanese Roum(i)” or “Syrian Rûm” or “Antiochene Greek”. . . etc. are probably more commonly used/widespread. “People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent” includes all of the above + it’s far more rigorous from a modern cultural-anthropological standpoint. & I agree with Constantine and SFB re: the up-merging option: there’s no need to sub-categorize any further. B.Andersohn ( talk) 17:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
It seems like we have partial consensus, namely only about the upmerging of the child categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
But for the rest, the more you tell about it, the more complicated it becomes. For me, that implies that there should really first be an article about the subject before a category can be accepted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I disagree unreservedly with your stance: 1) “this group exists and is different from [say] Levantine Maronites, Roman Catholics, Shiites,.. etc., whether we have a parent article for it or not” (Constantine). 2) So far, 80% of contributors/editors representing 5 different countries/cultural backgrounds, each from a distinct academic field have, have argued in favor of keeping the category one way or another (up-merge), one of them expressing some methodological qualifications (SFB). So far, only one single editor (GO’F who has tried repeatedly to stifle and “disqualify” all the others, except you) seems to support the underlying (frankly, rather meager) rationale for re-opening the CfD debate... “Complexity”, “intricacy”, “minuteness”, “exoticism” and other trivial characterizations (“the more you tell about it, the more complicated it becomes”!) shouldn’t be used in lieu of rational academic thinking to justify what appears increasingly like a preordained, arbitrary deletion strategy B.Andersohn ( talk) 11:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
In all comments so far I haven't seen any links to support any assertions and frankly I think we passed that stage by now. WP categories follow WP articles, there isn't an article so there can't be a category either, it's as simple as that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
“WP categories follow WP articles, there isn't an article so there can't be a category either” ?? That’s simply not true: just another arbitrary “rule” you’ve invented. Many WP categories actually exist without being necessarily/always derived from one single/particular “corresponding” article ==> You’re wrong. Once again. As for the rest, it’s difficult to argue rationally with someone who knows v. little about Byzantine/Ottoman minorities and US/LatAm migratory history, believes that shared ethnicity and cultural-anthropological characteristics are somehow “incompatible” (??) & thinks that these things “are too complicated” (sic) to be considered . . . It’s as simple as that. B.Andersohn ( talk) 13:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Transparency is one of the nice features of Wikipedia so everyone can see you're quoting me entirely incorrectly in your "As for the rest" sentence. But apart from that I think everything has been said what needs to be said so I stop engaging in this discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
For the record, I’ve always quoted you [mostly] verbatim to use one of those ‘fancy’ Latin or Greek words you seem to despise – & [v. rarely], when not quoting you verbatim, I’ve simply summarized in a few words long sentences, always objectively & never out of context. I understand you’ve eluded my last point exposing the fallacy of your main “argument”: “Many WP categories actually exist without being necessarily/always derived from one single/particular “corresponding” article ==> You’re wrong”. As for “I think everything has been said what needs to be said so I stop engaging in this discussion”, well I couldn’t agree more: at long last we have some real “consensus” here. I guess you can go on thinking blissfully that Blaise Pascal was a Cajun software programmer and that Aristotle was Belgian! [I’m not using quotation marks in that last sentence attributable to Dr. Otto West]. B.Andersohn ( talk) 15:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Historically the Orthodox Christian up to 1923 were a separate legal court (almost a separate Nation with own laws and tribunals) into the Ottoman Empire (see Millet), therefore this cathegory is appropriate, well defined and based solely on religios believes. The term Levantive is proper to define people from former Ottoman Empire area. (note: I'm nor Orthodox nor Levantine). A ntv ( talk) 22:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ A ntv: Any chance you were solicited to comment here by this email? If so, it would be helpful in the name of transparency for you to let everyone know the wording of the email. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I was simply invited by email to look at this discussion, which I did with pleasure. A ntv ( talk) 18:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ A ntv: Yes, but it's mainly the specific wording of the invite which may be relevant with respect to WP:CANVASS. You don't have to reveal it, of course, but not doing so also informs somewhat. I'm not really expecting you to reveal the email—I'm mostly just trying to point out that when notifications are done by email, it generally doesn't "look good". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Dear GO'F, e-stalking isn’t very constructive... Why not let others express their views freely, without bullying them? And why ask other Wikipedians to open their mail “in public” and self-flagellate before you? These encroachments on intellectual liberty are simply appalling B.Andersohn ( talk) 10:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ B.Andersohn: I'm not e-stalking, I'm a Wikipedia administrator trying to help users (mainly you) understand how they skirting some of the Wikipedia guidelines. Essentially, you are have gamed the system—you've invited a bunch of editors to participate who you know agree with your view, but you haven't invited editors from the last discussion who disagreed with you or notified users via any generic, neutral notification. Also, some of your notifications have been emailed, and are thus private, when public ones would have been more transparent and consistent with WP guidelines. These issues are all discussed in WP:CANVASS, and when I pointed this out to you on your talk page, you glibly dismissed it as bullying. My inquiries have nothing to do with restricting users from expressing their views on the topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Good Olfactory: I honestly believe my OPENLY calling upon a small representative sample of seasoned editors/contributors from 4 different countries/diverse cultural backgrounds (1 US, 1 UK and 2 Mainland Europeans) is not akin to “canvassing” in any shape or form. For the record, only one of them had expressed a (mildly) “opinionated” view in the previous CfD discussion two years ago… But, then again, so did you! And yet you didn’t “exclude” or recuse yourself! Also, the wordings of my publically available requests are v. different from the rather biased characterization you've given: e.g. “Some Wikipedians have reopened an old CfD debate, aiming at removing the “People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent” category. Can you please help us with your learned arguments & let us know if you’re in favor of keeping it? I, personally, think it shouldn’t be removed. My personal perspective is Positivist & thus mostly ethno-cultural.” The said invitation is v. factual, perfectly legitimate, entirely neutral and doesn’t infringe upon any WP regulation . . . B.Andersohn ( talk) 00:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I've responded on your talk page about these issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose for the historic, anthropological and sociological grounds mentioned earlier (yesterday). Ethno-cultural categories are ‘hybrid’ and thus subtle and nuanced, by definition. All the more when it comes to relatively small and ancient ones… That particular category emerged in Antioch and Jerusalem and the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean (“The Levant”) roughly 1,900 years ago. That’s a fact. Now onto GO’F’s menacing innuendos and his avowed penchant for e-stalking : I don’t see how calling upon the learned contributions of Wikipedian experts who actually took part in the original CfD discussion two years ago can be construed as “canvassing” (??). FTR: GO’F himself was part of the original CfD discussion two years ago and his views were clearly in the minority back then: he then joined the current discussion yesterday… Fair enough, but why not let others express their views freely, without suppression? B.Andersohn ( talk) 10:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not suppressing anyone's views. What I'm trying to do is administrative and set out above—basically, to help you understand that you are skirting some Wikipedia guidelines and that when you do so it reflects poorly upon you and your expressed opinions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent. This is a small minority ethnic category that does not warrant subdivision by nationality in any case. I'm somewhat mixed on keeping the main category, having read the previous discussion, but the lack of easily located material supporting it worries me. We seem to be embarking on quite narrow categorisation before we have any real article on the topic. SFB 14:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I'll add to my previous comment that this topic appears to be highly complex and nuanced. On that basis, it is not an ideal target for the category system. I think the parent would be better as a list, where we have real prose to explain the circumstances of a person's Levantine-Greek Orthodox ancestry (as many so grouped have entirely different ethnic backgrounds and even geographical heritage). SFB 11:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply


  • Oppose and keep: This an ethno-religious group consists of Antiochian Christians or Levantine-Greek Orthodox ethnicity with roots in the Eastern Mediterranean and many of this ethnoreligious descendants live in the diaspora and they have thier own ethnic identity, historically they were a sub-nation (Millet) in the Ottoman Empire. This category is not only based on religion, but also on national and cultural identity.-- Jobas ( talk) 15:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Notification to user was non-neutral. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • “NOTIFICATION”: “Notification to user was non-neutral” is totally unwarranted, non-factual and unmannerly : only one of the contributors thus singled-out by GO’F had a “preordained” preference/relatively predictable point of view (having taken part publically, on the record, to the previous CfD). All the others were generally neutral, from v. diverse jurisdictions/cultural backgrounds (4 different countries/ 4 different academic fields). Also, GO’F himself had taken part actively in the CfD discussion two years ago & had taken a clearly one-sided stance back then. Which is perfectly fine, BUT he never recused or “singled-out” himself for doing so (I don’t think he should) and yet infers all the others are somehow “non-neutral” (that’s an unacceptable sweeping insinuation). B.Andersohn ( talk) 16:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. For disclosure, I was contacted at my talk page and asked to come here. As others have pointed out, ethno-religious identity in the Middle East is quite more complex than nationality and religion, and this group exists and is different from Levantine Maronites, Catholics, Shiites, etc., whether we have a parent article for it or not. I would not oppose an upmerge of the various subcats though. Constantine ✍ 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Notification to user was non-neutral. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • “NOTIFICATION”: “Notification to user was non-neutral” is totally unwarranted, non-factual and unmannerly : only one of the contributors thus singled-out by GO’F had a “preordained” preference/relatively predictable point of view (having taken part publically, on the record, to the previous CfD). All the others were generally neutral, from v. diverse jurisdictions/cultural backgrounds (4 different countries/ 4 different academic fields). Also, GO’F himself had taken part actively in the CfD discussion two years ago & had taken a clearly one-sided stance back then. Which is perfectly fine, BUT he never recused or “singled-out” himself for doing so (I don’t think he should) and yet infers all the others are somehow “non-neutral” (that’s an unacceptable sweeping insinuation). B.Andersohn ( talk) 16:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose and therefore keep. I have been asked to comment; disclaimer: I'm not in any way an expert on this specific group, I'm Greek and an atheist. Having said that: B.Andersohn's arguments (new and old) and rationale or similar views seem to be the ones applicable, relevant (at least much much more so), when on the other hand the rationale/argument of the OP-nominator seems to be both very limited and out of touch with many issues at hand. Limiting oneself for example to the Ottoman period, area and relevant stuff (though this is hardly a necessity: one could point to both similar and/or relevant stuff present through time all over the world and stuff specific to the issue at hand outside the Ottoman Empite, period and historical context), the nominator doesn't seem to have stated any counterargument to the importance of e.g. the millet system (note to OP: please translate 'millet' :) ) and hence the infuence of the Rum i.e. the Roman i.e. the Greek i.e. ... :) Church upon the eastern mediterranean people(s), their ethno-religious-cultural-... identity(-ies) and the formation thereof under -and given this, after- Ottoman Rule. The OP-nominator case is imo pretty weak; imo dear OP, if you want people who aren't totally unaware of the relevant fields of inquiry or such complexities to consider this proposed action you have to try much harder. Yes religious descent for example may seem weird to you or to some people unaccustomed to such concepts and categories but it's not really something novel or unique; you might want to think about e.g. the janissaries or the conversos; or do you want to start wiki-WWIII?!? :) Then consider for example, to this day, the Serbs vis-à-vis the Croats or Little vis-à-vis Greater Russia after the Union of Brest...  ;-) Thanatos| talk| contributions 19:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Notification to user was non-neutral. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • “NOTIFICATION”: “Notification to user was non-neutral” is totally unwarranted, non-factual and unmannerly : only one of the contributors thus singled-out by GO’F had a “preordained” preference/relatively predictable point of view (having taken part publically, on the record, to the previous CfD). All the others were generally neutral, from v. diverse jurisdictions/cultural backgrounds (4 different countries/ 4 different academic fields). Also, GO’F himself had taken part actively in the CfD discussion two years ago & had taken a clearly one-sided stance back then. Which is perfectly fine, BUT he never recused or “singled-out” himself for doing so (I don’t think he should) and yet infers all the others are somehow “non-neutral” (that’s an unacceptable sweeping insinuation). B.Andersohn ( talk) 16:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • General comment It seems like opponents to this proposal disagree with each other about whether this is meant to be an ethnic or a religious categorization of people. I'm not against either one by definition - as long as there are reliable sources that tell what it is about and as long as this is consistently a defining characteristic for people in this category. The latter is not the case, the former is unanswered so far. Also for those people who favor this as a religious category, I know that categories by religious descent are very rare or non-existing in Wikipedia, so please make sure to provide enough evidence to justify this category, don't just make assertions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • General comment N°2 This is about a distinct ethno-cultural/ethno-religious ‘hybrid’ category with subtle shades and nuances- after all, in English, the word “Byzantine” also means “arcane”, “complicated” and “difficult to understand” . . . As mentioned earlier, there are already FIVE other “ethnic” or “religious” (I don’t like the terms as we’re talking about a nuanced ethno-cultural group here) categorizations in Wikipedia + these are (highly) overlapping categories :
the more general but v. old-fashioned “Melkite” “…said to have been a mixed one made up of individuals who were originally Greek, Roman, Syriac, and Jewish…” = more “ethnic” definition + lost most of its significance circa 1730 CE… but still in use, generally (but not always) in a narrower "Uniat" sense
“Greek Orthodox of Antioch” : more religious, but with distinct ethno-cultural shades notably in the United States and Canada where some use a slightly modified version = "Antiochian Orthodox"
“Greek Orthodox of Jerusalem” : IN THEORY, mostly religious/geographic..., yet (Jewish) Israeli and (Muslim) Jordanian academics and journalists also say “Arab-Orthodox Christians" or "Orthodox Greek Nazarenes” (Notzirim, al-Nasara)
“Melkite Greek Catholic Church of Antioch and Jerusalem (and Alexandria)” : an offshoot of the GOA = religious, but with distinct ethno-cultural shades
“Rûm” : can be construed as “ethnic” or “ethno-cultural”, but rather vague as it also encompasses Western/Central Anatolian “Karaman”, Pontian and Constantinoplean "European Greeks" with no connection whatsoever to Antioch/Cilicia/Syria or Jerusalem
“Antiochian Greeks” : either too narrowly restrictive = “Greek-speaking ethnic Greeks of Cilicia/Alexandretta, Latakiah and Aleppo” (that v. old definition practically disappear circa 1936) or (in my personal opinion) somehow redundant = mostly synonymous of “Greek Orthodox of Antioch” but implicitly diluting the religious/cultural aspects of GOA and MGCCA with a more ethnic-oriented classification …
==> “People of Greek Orthodox-Levantine Descent” is definitely more modern, clearer and more nuanced + encompasses all of the above B.Andersohn ( talk) 10:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I have disagreed with it! With all due respect for Marco and GO’F (and, subsidiarily, as a homage to John Cleese’s Otto West), I believe that unfounded WP:NONDEF intimation, coming from two allied contributors who seriously doubted that Blaise Pascal was definingly a theologian (initially thought this was some kind of joke…), is rather comical on many planes. Reminded me of the famous FCW line “Aristotle was Belgian, the Washington address is where the first US president lived, and the London Underground is a radical British organization”! {Note to Marco, exceptionally, I'm not quoting you verbatim here/this time}  ;) Merry Christmas to you all anyway! ... B.Andersohn ( talk) 17:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't really know what you are suggesting by stating that the nominator and I are "allied" in some way. We disagree frequently on issues and have no formal or informal alliance of any kind. It's not like he canvassed me to participate in this discussion because he knew I would agree with him, which is more that can be said for some in this discussion. ... And although it's almost completely off point, I think you missed the point of my comments about Pascal, but that's becoming rather routine around here with your interpretation of my comments, so it doesn't surprise me. It can be difficult to "get" the difference between personal belief and an administrative promotion of knowledge of and implementation of Wikipedia standards. It's a mistake I have seen before, for sure. You still didn't directly address the issue of WP:NONDEF with respect to these categories, though, which was the fundamental point of my comment above and that of the nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The question really is, for each of them separately, if there are reliable sources about the existence of 'ethnic' groups in every of these countries. Reliable sources is the main criterion in Wikipedia. I haven't seen a reference to any source (reliable or not) in this particular discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Do all categories have refs verifying in such a way the existence of relevant groups (either organised ones or of more or less loosely related elements) etc.? Cause I haven't seen many if any of them having such refs... If on the other hand it's specific articles (in this case of people, of persons), categorised thus, that need refs substantiating the membership or "membership" in the relevant group(s) then how is it then a problem of the categories -and not of the specific articles- and why should the latter be deleted? This is a meta thing, it's a...categorisation and it's also common sense. Or accepting as a working hypothesis your rationale, how about adding cn tags (somewhere; don't ask me where, the onus would be on you to point to the place...)? Thanatos| talk| contributions 11:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • On purely statistical (& commonsensical!) ground I’m not opposed to up-merging national subcats, without prejudice against the L-GOC notion, a v solid, legitimate category in its own right (I agree with Thanatos). B.Andersohn ( talk) 00:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
1) I’d say, roughly ≈70% of relevant/noteworthy L-GOC bios (will) relate to US citizen, ≈ 10% Lebanese, ≈4% Syrian, ≈4% Brazilian, 5% Israeli and Jordanian (mostly from Galilee/Northern Israel near the border with Lebanon, and, to a lesser extent, from Northwestern Jordan near the border with Syria), 3% European Union (UK, French and Swiss… mainly of Egyptian-born Greco-Syro-Lebanese descent- I know it’s complicated…) and 4% “rest of the world” (mostly Turkey/Cililia [where it all started…], Australia, Canada, Mexico and Chile). Of course, these are just estimates. + There is a “natural” bias here as a Michigan-born computer engineer is more likely to become WP material than the son of a poor Galilean farmer in some village near Tiberias or Yardenit & as American free enterprise is more conductive of social self-realization than a MENA jurisdiction where Christians are treated at best as second-class citizen, but I’m digressing!).
2) When everything is said and done, hopefully, people (I’m thinking of the OP-nominator) will realize that L-GOC is simply a more modern (more “American” some may say), much clearer way of saying “Melkite-Byzantine” (which lost part of its meaning back in the 1730s because of the rise of “Uniat-ism” and was further eroded throughout the 20th C. because of the mass migration of Levantine Greek-Orthodox and Levantine Greek-Catholic “Nazarenes” to the US and Latin America) or “Antiochian and Jerusalemite Rûm” = an obscure “Medieval” term that could be replaced by “Antiochian Greek” in its modern/reemerging acceptation = Jobas speaks eloquently for that perspective growing amongst some scholars in Iskenderun, Latakiah, Aleppo, Beirut and some corners of the L-GOC diasporas (but that “new” terminology had a clearly different/much narrower meaning from the 16th C. AD until the 1930s, & it can thus be interpreted as weakening somehow the religious-cultural dimension by stressing the “ethnic-geographic” element and/or as favoring Cilicia and Northwestern Syria to the detriment of the rest of the Levant) B.Andersohn ( talk) 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- In the Ottoman Empire, each religion was a separate millet, almost a separate tribe, with the relgious leaders responsible for the behaviour of their members. Many were endogamous, so that they are virtually separate nations. Today "Greek Orthodox" is almost synonymous with Greek. In the past, that was certainly not the case, and probably still is not, as there are a lot of Orthodox Christians in other parts of the Midlde East. The question is what we call this quasi-religious ethnicity. If someone can suggest a more suitable name, I would support that. I might suggest Orthodox Christians from the Levant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The latter contradicts with the assertion of B. Andersohn way above that expatriate converts to Protestantism or atheism still belong to the ethnicity. So the question is much broader than just about the name; the more important question is, can we objectively classify people in these categories at all? Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply
In retrospect, maybe I should've asked for it to be moved to Draft:Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christianity. 213.7.227.83 ( talk) 12:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Regardless of the merits (or lack there of) of my article, I hope the editors above who feel strongly about keeping the categories dedicate some of that energy to the article space. Once a main article is created, we'll know what belongs in the categories. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all "descent" categories. The ethnicity/nationality/religion of a persons great-grandparents (some articles are in at least 7 "descent" categories) is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. If a page is in a "descent" category then the info should already be in the article text (if it is sufficently important and referenced). If some editors wish to capture the info in a more structured form (e.g. that a RS says that notable person's maternal grandfather was of a particular ethnicity) then try WikiData. DexDor ( talk) 07:14, 31 December 2014 (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:Albanian Orthodox Christians

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up on this discussion. The rename is intended to overcome the existing confusion between by-national-church categorization and by-nationality categorization. The nominated categories are clearly meant as by-national-church categorization (so these categories may include descendants of emigrants if they stick to the church of their ancestors) while - for example - Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Albania is part of the by-nationality categorization (so these categories could include descendants of immigrants from other Eastern Orthodox countries). Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:47, 16 December 2014 (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:Defunct prisons in Berkshire

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: double upmerge to Category:Defunct prisons in England and appropriate Category:Prisons in FOO. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. All of the nominated "Defunct prisons in FOOshire" categories here have only one, occasionally two articles in them. Many of these counties are rural (two very small indeed) and unlikely to have a high prison turnover. In the absence of a sudden massive drop in criminal activity, it's unlikely there will be sufficient articles to make these county categories viable, per WP:SMALLCAT. Of the articles contained in the county categories, the ones I've checked seem to be in an alternative prison or building category, but it makes sense to upmerge them to the county "Buildings and structures in FOOshire" category if not done already. For the more highly populated and urban counties (e.g. Greater Manchester) an opportunity may arise in the future to recreate a county sub-category, but they are generally completely unnecessary at the moment. Sionk ( talk) 18:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Not sure what you're inferring? Sionk ( talk) 15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I think he was inferring the same as me (immediately below) – to which you have now replied positively. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Double upmerge, also to the other parent "Prisons in Foo". If the nominator intends that the small categories for Prisons in (county) should be deleted, then they should be added to the nomination. It seems disingenuous to empty them by a one-sided merger nomination. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, I agree, it would be sensible to also merge the "Defunct prisons in FOO" to "Prisons in FOO". Most if not all of the categories should then have at least two articles contained in them if that action was carried out. Sionk ( talk) 15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to defunct prisons in England. These categories are far too narrow to give any navigational benefit - they only serve to make it difficult to see related content at a single location. SFB 14:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • leaning oppose The root issue here isn't the counties, but London. If it does not make sense to split the defuncts out by county, then it does not make sense to split London out either. If it makes sense to split London out, then it does not make sense to upmerge the county defuncts into the currently active prisons. Geographical navigation for the active prisons would imply geographical navigation overall, even though it leads to a number of small categories. Mangoe ( talk) 21:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: it makes sense to split out the ones that are large enough to be useful for navigation (London, Oxon, N Yorks). That is not the case where there is only one member, as the navigation from those pages would be better if they were merged to all parents. Cornwall, Devon and Dorset might be worth keeping as they have two members each. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • My point is that I don't see this as improving navigation: if it's unimportant to split out the defunct prisons, then it's also unimportant to split them out in London; all it does is reduce the size of the main category. But I suspect that the division between active and closed prisons actually obtains in London, because people really want a category of those that are active. That same logic obtains in all the counties as well, which is why I think the upmerge into the county categories is ill-advised. I would be less opposed to an upmerge of the county defunct categories into just the overall defunct category, because that would maintain the parallelism between all the (active) county categories and the London category. Mangoe ( talk) 15:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
      • The merger rationale is "it's unlikely there will be sufficient articles to make these county categories viable, per WP:SMALLCAT". Giving each article on Wikipedia its own category doesn't aid navigation, just creates clutter and over-organisation. The London category is a large category, because of the number of prisons/population I imagine. If you want to nominate Category:Defunct prisons in London then be my guest. Sionk ( talk) 16:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge -- Hisotrically each county had its prison. Many of these do not meet modern standards and were thus closed, but the total number in any county is not likely to provide a useful navigation aid. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:12, 23 December 2014 (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:Television series set in Italy

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: speedy merge C2C. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Both categories share the same purpose. NeoBatfreak ( talk) 09:21, 16 December 2014 (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:Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library-related articles

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: speedy keep as being preliminarily nominated (see PKM's comment). No prejudice against renominating in several months if the categories remain empty. Ed  [talk]  [majestic titan] 20:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Added per discussion:
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We generally avoid related categories. I wonder if this may be a mistaken attempt to create a project. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
This appears to be related to Wikipedia:GLAM/Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library. It all looks extremely overdone at this point — see also ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Wikipedia-Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library collaboration, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library-related articles by importance and its profusion of empty subcategories, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library-related articles by quality and its profusion of empty subcategories — for a project whose only content at this point is Wikipedia:GLAM/Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library itself, and I'm not too clear on why this needs its own dedicated WikiProject, or its own dedicated WikiProject categories, rather than simply working within an existing project. Delete (subcategories as well) unless somebody can provide a compelling reason why these are actually needed. Bearcat ( talk) 01:15, 16 December 2014 (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:LGBT scientists

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: upmerge — xaosflux Talk 02:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per longstanding consensus of both WP:LGBT and CFD, LGBT categories should be divided into separate L, G, B and T subcategories only where this is warranted on size grounds, and are to be kept at the common "LGBT" level in all other cases. But with only 55 articles distributed among all four of these categories combined, the necessary size simply isn't there to warrant subcatting in this instance. Bearcat ( talk) 00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support as a sensible measure to counteract this obsession with scientists' sexual preferences. We don't want a questionable category yet further sub-categorised! Sionk ( talk) 20:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I acknowledge that this level of categorization is not sustainable, and I still hope for the day in 1-2 years when categories will be migrated to Wikidata. Until then... these categories are important for activists working in LGBT issues, and a point of advocacy in this domain of expertise is to promote recognition of LGBT role models in STEM fields. The gay and transgender categories here are populated with as many entries as other gay and transgender occupational categories. The lesbian and bisexual categories are not well populated; I suppose they could be deleted, but something seems wrong about deleting some parts of the "LGBT" and not other parts when the distinction between these is already made. Considering that there is some evidence of public demand for role models of specific subsets of the LGBT community, it is the broader demand and not the Wikipedia community which is suggesting these separate categories.
All this aside - it would not be so bad if these categories were merged. I support keeping them, but this probably is not too big of a deal either way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2014 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_16&oldid=1089087425"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16

Category:Erotic action films

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. The only parent category is ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Erotic films by genre and the page is already categorised as erotic film by nationality & decade, so there is no need to upmerge. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. I don't think that there are really too many films that could fit in this category; however if someone proves me wrong and significantly populates this category, I will withdraw my nomination. JDDJS ( talk) 22:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Erotic action is not a common artistic form, unlike the rest in Category:Erotic films by genre. SFB 13:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge I created the category because there were other categories of erotic films by genre but I think the above users are right, there probably aren't enough films for this category. I'll be more careful when creating similar categories. Sorry for the trouble...-- Cattus talk 15:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; the whole tree is ripe for deletion, actually: (1) suffers from the same problem all films about type categories have, how much about the subject must the film be, and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much; (2) "erotic film" is not a genre that seems notable enough to have an article. erotic film redirects to " sex in film" which means that what we're categorizing is any article on a film that has sex in it?? Many films having sex scenes (such as rape, child abuse, or animal procreative sex) are not "erotic" to most people's definition (subjectivity, again?). And many people (again, subjectively) may find a film erotic even though no sex is on film. Since it's purely subjective in a non-notable genre and a daughter cat of a further problem cat, delete is the only way to go. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ Sillyfolkboy:, please objectively state the definition of what constitutes an "erotic thriller" vs. what doesn't, and then provide reliable sources that each article so categorized meets that definition. Failing someone's (or consensus') ability to do that, and for each of these categories, they're all deleteable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • If she is the sole authority, follow her - but again, state the definition and show reliable sources for inclusion for the films so categorized. A lack of such sources demonstrate that such categorization is subjective and ought be removed. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:16, 22 December 2014 (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:Romantic mystery films

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. The only parent is Category:Romance films by genre, and the 3 pages are already in other romance sub-categories; moreover, the two that mention "mystery" are also categorised as mystery films; so there is no need to upmerge. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only three pages in category. I don't think that there are really too many films that could fit in this category; however if someone proves me wrong and significantly populates this category, I will withdraw my nomination. JDDJS ( talk) 22:46, 16 December 2014 (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 of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent

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 on deleting or merging. Although there were several opinions for "oppose"/"keep", I am not closing this as a "keep" outcome because there may have been selective canvassing. The opposers claimed that this identity is defining in America, and although they did not present decisive evidence on this point it appears that a case could be made. Few people commented on upmerging the others, and this close is no bar to an early re-nomination of those smaller categories for merger. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF, Levantine is not a defining characteristic of these people and per WP:NARROWCAT, it stretches too far to categorize people by religious descent. While of course I'm not against categorizing these people by their own church membership. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for referring to this previous discussion. In this previous discussion the rationale not to delete was based on ethnicity rather than on religion. Strangely enough, in this past discussion, there weren't any questions about reliable sources confirming the existence of a Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian ethnic group e.g. in the US or in the UK. That's a question that should have been asked especially since there's neither an article nor a parent category in Wikipedia that is called Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian ethnicity or anything like that. On top of that, there's hardly anything in the articles of the people that are in this category that hints towards them being part of an ethnic group. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The reason I'm elaborating this a bit is the fact that the CfD tag has been removed from the category by one of the discussants of the previous discussion so there is some opposition to be expected. I've restored the CfD tag meanwhile. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Don't worry, I think it's fine to have another discussion. Two years is more than enough of a gap between discussions on the same topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Thank you for “elaborating this a bit” … No offense, but it’s clear neither you nor GO’F have the slightest notion of say classical anthropology, Byzantine heritage or the subtle ethno-cultural shades of Levantine Christian minorities and their various diasporic experiences … FYI the category is not (only) about “religion” in the (narrow) “theological” sense e.g. if you read the books of say Abraham Mitrie Rihbany, a conservative Connecticut-based Presbyterian PROTESTANT writer, or Helen Thomas, the famously “leftwing” Liberal doyenne of the White House Press Corps -a staunch ATHEIST by her own account-, they both insisted on their “Greek-Orthodox Antiochian” heritage = Levantine Greek Orthodox Christian CULTURE and how it shaped their political views… etc. N°2 Nor is the category in question simply “ethnic” is the narrow sense e.g. California Rep. Darrell Issa is part German-American, and so was Swiss-American industrialist Nicolas Hayek… yet they both view(ed) themselves essentially as “Antiochian/Greek Levantine Christians” i.e. this perceived ethno-cultural trait was essential in their OWN view. FYI (N°3), the pervasiveness of that ethno-cultural category has to do with the “long historic sedimentation” of the Byzantine and then Ottoman Turkish “Millet” system whereby some particular ethno-cultural minorities accumulated distinct “national” and legal/political and religious qualities that were passed on from one generation to the next (internally) and reinforced by Ottoman statutory laws (across the empire) and local traditions (in Antioch, Jerusalem and related provinces)… Hope that helps you understand that rather subtle/nuanced notion… B.Andersohn ( talk) 22:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
In general, there are better ways to make your argument than right off the bat stating that those who disagree with you don't "have the slightest notion" about the topic. I think the closer of the previous discussion tried to get that across when he stated that ad hominem arguments are disregarded. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your reply. I had already recognized that this is about ethnicity, not about religion, so we don't need to discuss this really. According to Ethnic group, an ethnic group is a socially-defined group of people. That requires more than a few (you mention four) individuals identifying themselves with their ancestry, it requires reliable sources about group interconnections. Secondly, since these are descent categories, it requires reliable sources about the existence (perhaps past existence) of people in the region of origin under the same name. And finally I just don't understand, while you insist so much on having a category in Wikipedia, why there isn't an article about this topic in Wikipedia, similar to e.g. Irish American. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Hi Marco. In a nutshell, FYI there are already FIVE other “ethnic” or “religious” (I don’t like the terms as we’re talking about a nuanced ethno-cultural group here) categorizations in Wikipedia + these are (highly) overlapping categories : the more general but v. old-fashioned “Melkite” (“…said to have been a mixed one made up of individuals who were originally Greek, Roman, Syriac, and Jewish…” = more “ethnic” definition + lost most of its significance circa 1730 CE… but still in use) and also “Greek Orthodox of Antioch” (more religious, but with distinct ethno-cultural shades), “Greek Orthodox of Jerusalem” (purely religious/geographic), “Melkite Greek Catholic Church of Antioch and Jerusalem” (an offshoot of the GOA = religious, but with distinct ethno-cultural shades ), “Rûm” (can be construed as “ethnic” or “ethno-cultural”, but rather vague as it also encompasses Western/Central Anatolian and Constantinoplean “Karaman” European Greeks with no connection whatsoever to Antioch/Cilicia/Syria or Jerusalem) and also “Antiochian Greeks” (either too narrowly restrictive = “ethnic Greeks of Cilicia and Aleppo” (that v. old definition tends to disappear) or too vague/too broad = simply synonymous of “Greek Orthodox of Antioch” but diluting the religious/cultural aspects of GOA and MGCCA with a mostly ethnic classification … ==> “People of Greek Orthodox-Levantine Descent” is more modern, clearer, sharper - yet broader and more nuanced. Keep (duplicate !vote struck) B.Andersohn ( talk) 12:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your reply. I can definitely follow why this name make more sense than other names. The primary question, however, is whether this name is commonly used in e.g. academic literature or in public media to describe this ethnic group - and especially to describe expatriate ethnic groups, since we are discussing descent categories here. If the name is not commonly used, it would be original research, see WP:OR. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle: Hi Marco, Thanks for your reply (bis) 1) “I had already recognized that this is about ethnicity, not about religion”. NO: This is about a distinct ethno-cultural/ethno-religious ‘hybrid’ category with v. subtle shades and fine nuances- after all, in English, the word “Byzantine” also means “arcane”, “complicated” and “difficult to understand” . . . B.Andersohn ( talk) 17:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle: @ Cplakidas: @ Sillyfolkboy: 2) “whether this name is commonly used in e.g. academic literature or in public media to describe this ethnic group - and especially to describe expatriate ethnic groups” The answer is YES, this categorization is indeed used in academia and in public to describe members of the groups in the MENA area and their “diasporic” descendants in the Americas and in Australia. So it’s definitely not “original research”. . . . BUT “of Lebanese Greek-Orthodox origin” [by far the most commonly used expression in the US and Canada, even for the descendants of Syrian, Palestinian and Southern Turkish/Cilician Greek-Orthodox and Greek-Catholic immigrants!] , or “of Greek-Orthodox Syrian descent”, or “raised in Detroit, Michigan, in an Eastern-Mediterranean Greek-Orthodox family” or “the grandson of (Southern) Turkish-Ottoman Antiochian Greek immigrants to Ellis Island” or “of Middle-Eastern ‘Roman’ origin” or “Greco-Arab Christian” or “of (Southern) Turkish-Ottoman or Syrian ‘Oriental’ Orthodox origin” [the latter being widely used in Brazil, Argentina, Cuba and Mexico] or “Arab-Orthodox Christian/Orthodox Greek Nazarene” [used in mainstream Israeli media and academia] or “Lebanese Roum(i)” or “Syrian Rûm” or “Antiochene Greek”. . . etc. are probably more commonly used/widespread. “People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent” includes all of the above + it’s far more rigorous from a modern cultural-anthropological standpoint. & I agree with Constantine and SFB re: the up-merging option: there’s no need to sub-categorize any further. B.Andersohn ( talk) 17:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
It seems like we have partial consensus, namely only about the upmerging of the child categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
But for the rest, the more you tell about it, the more complicated it becomes. For me, that implies that there should really first be an article about the subject before a category can be accepted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I disagree unreservedly with your stance: 1) “this group exists and is different from [say] Levantine Maronites, Roman Catholics, Shiites,.. etc., whether we have a parent article for it or not” (Constantine). 2) So far, 80% of contributors/editors representing 5 different countries/cultural backgrounds, each from a distinct academic field have, have argued in favor of keeping the category one way or another (up-merge), one of them expressing some methodological qualifications (SFB). So far, only one single editor (GO’F who has tried repeatedly to stifle and “disqualify” all the others, except you) seems to support the underlying (frankly, rather meager) rationale for re-opening the CfD debate... “Complexity”, “intricacy”, “minuteness”, “exoticism” and other trivial characterizations (“the more you tell about it, the more complicated it becomes”!) shouldn’t be used in lieu of rational academic thinking to justify what appears increasingly like a preordained, arbitrary deletion strategy B.Andersohn ( talk) 11:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
In all comments so far I haven't seen any links to support any assertions and frankly I think we passed that stage by now. WP categories follow WP articles, there isn't an article so there can't be a category either, it's as simple as that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
“WP categories follow WP articles, there isn't an article so there can't be a category either” ?? That’s simply not true: just another arbitrary “rule” you’ve invented. Many WP categories actually exist without being necessarily/always derived from one single/particular “corresponding” article ==> You’re wrong. Once again. As for the rest, it’s difficult to argue rationally with someone who knows v. little about Byzantine/Ottoman minorities and US/LatAm migratory history, believes that shared ethnicity and cultural-anthropological characteristics are somehow “incompatible” (??) & thinks that these things “are too complicated” (sic) to be considered . . . It’s as simple as that. B.Andersohn ( talk) 13:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Transparency is one of the nice features of Wikipedia so everyone can see you're quoting me entirely incorrectly in your "As for the rest" sentence. But apart from that I think everything has been said what needs to be said so I stop engaging in this discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
For the record, I’ve always quoted you [mostly] verbatim to use one of those ‘fancy’ Latin or Greek words you seem to despise – & [v. rarely], when not quoting you verbatim, I’ve simply summarized in a few words long sentences, always objectively & never out of context. I understand you’ve eluded my last point exposing the fallacy of your main “argument”: “Many WP categories actually exist without being necessarily/always derived from one single/particular “corresponding” article ==> You’re wrong”. As for “I think everything has been said what needs to be said so I stop engaging in this discussion”, well I couldn’t agree more: at long last we have some real “consensus” here. I guess you can go on thinking blissfully that Blaise Pascal was a Cajun software programmer and that Aristotle was Belgian! [I’m not using quotation marks in that last sentence attributable to Dr. Otto West]. B.Andersohn ( talk) 15:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Historically the Orthodox Christian up to 1923 were a separate legal court (almost a separate Nation with own laws and tribunals) into the Ottoman Empire (see Millet), therefore this cathegory is appropriate, well defined and based solely on religios believes. The term Levantive is proper to define people from former Ottoman Empire area. (note: I'm nor Orthodox nor Levantine). A ntv ( talk) 22:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ A ntv: Any chance you were solicited to comment here by this email? If so, it would be helpful in the name of transparency for you to let everyone know the wording of the email. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I was simply invited by email to look at this discussion, which I did with pleasure. A ntv ( talk) 18:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ A ntv: Yes, but it's mainly the specific wording of the invite which may be relevant with respect to WP:CANVASS. You don't have to reveal it, of course, but not doing so also informs somewhat. I'm not really expecting you to reveal the email—I'm mostly just trying to point out that when notifications are done by email, it generally doesn't "look good". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Dear GO'F, e-stalking isn’t very constructive... Why not let others express their views freely, without bullying them? And why ask other Wikipedians to open their mail “in public” and self-flagellate before you? These encroachments on intellectual liberty are simply appalling B.Andersohn ( talk) 10:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ B.Andersohn: I'm not e-stalking, I'm a Wikipedia administrator trying to help users (mainly you) understand how they skirting some of the Wikipedia guidelines. Essentially, you are have gamed the system—you've invited a bunch of editors to participate who you know agree with your view, but you haven't invited editors from the last discussion who disagreed with you or notified users via any generic, neutral notification. Also, some of your notifications have been emailed, and are thus private, when public ones would have been more transparent and consistent with WP guidelines. These issues are all discussed in WP:CANVASS, and when I pointed this out to you on your talk page, you glibly dismissed it as bullying. My inquiries have nothing to do with restricting users from expressing their views on the topic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Good Olfactory: I honestly believe my OPENLY calling upon a small representative sample of seasoned editors/contributors from 4 different countries/diverse cultural backgrounds (1 US, 1 UK and 2 Mainland Europeans) is not akin to “canvassing” in any shape or form. For the record, only one of them had expressed a (mildly) “opinionated” view in the previous CfD discussion two years ago… But, then again, so did you! And yet you didn’t “exclude” or recuse yourself! Also, the wordings of my publically available requests are v. different from the rather biased characterization you've given: e.g. “Some Wikipedians have reopened an old CfD debate, aiming at removing the “People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent” category. Can you please help us with your learned arguments & let us know if you’re in favor of keeping it? I, personally, think it shouldn’t be removed. My personal perspective is Positivist & thus mostly ethno-cultural.” The said invitation is v. factual, perfectly legitimate, entirely neutral and doesn’t infringe upon any WP regulation . . . B.Andersohn ( talk) 00:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I've responded on your talk page about these issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose for the historic, anthropological and sociological grounds mentioned earlier (yesterday). Ethno-cultural categories are ‘hybrid’ and thus subtle and nuanced, by definition. All the more when it comes to relatively small and ancient ones… That particular category emerged in Antioch and Jerusalem and the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean (“The Levant”) roughly 1,900 years ago. That’s a fact. Now onto GO’F’s menacing innuendos and his avowed penchant for e-stalking : I don’t see how calling upon the learned contributions of Wikipedian experts who actually took part in the original CfD discussion two years ago can be construed as “canvassing” (??). FTR: GO’F himself was part of the original CfD discussion two years ago and his views were clearly in the minority back then: he then joined the current discussion yesterday… Fair enough, but why not let others express their views freely, without suppression? B.Andersohn ( talk) 10:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not suppressing anyone's views. What I'm trying to do is administrative and set out above—basically, to help you understand that you are skirting some Wikipedia guidelines and that when you do so it reflects poorly upon you and your expressed opinions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent. This is a small minority ethnic category that does not warrant subdivision by nationality in any case. I'm somewhat mixed on keeping the main category, having read the previous discussion, but the lack of easily located material supporting it worries me. We seem to be embarking on quite narrow categorisation before we have any real article on the topic. SFB 14:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I'll add to my previous comment that this topic appears to be highly complex and nuanced. On that basis, it is not an ideal target for the category system. I think the parent would be better as a list, where we have real prose to explain the circumstances of a person's Levantine-Greek Orthodox ancestry (as many so grouped have entirely different ethnic backgrounds and even geographical heritage). SFB 11:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply


  • Oppose and keep: This an ethno-religious group consists of Antiochian Christians or Levantine-Greek Orthodox ethnicity with roots in the Eastern Mediterranean and many of this ethnoreligious descendants live in the diaspora and they have thier own ethnic identity, historically they were a sub-nation (Millet) in the Ottoman Empire. This category is not only based on religion, but also on national and cultural identity.-- Jobas ( talk) 15:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Notification to user was non-neutral. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • “NOTIFICATION”: “Notification to user was non-neutral” is totally unwarranted, non-factual and unmannerly : only one of the contributors thus singled-out by GO’F had a “preordained” preference/relatively predictable point of view (having taken part publically, on the record, to the previous CfD). All the others were generally neutral, from v. diverse jurisdictions/cultural backgrounds (4 different countries/ 4 different academic fields). Also, GO’F himself had taken part actively in the CfD discussion two years ago & had taken a clearly one-sided stance back then. Which is perfectly fine, BUT he never recused or “singled-out” himself for doing so (I don’t think he should) and yet infers all the others are somehow “non-neutral” (that’s an unacceptable sweeping insinuation). B.Andersohn ( talk) 16:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. For disclosure, I was contacted at my talk page and asked to come here. As others have pointed out, ethno-religious identity in the Middle East is quite more complex than nationality and religion, and this group exists and is different from Levantine Maronites, Catholics, Shiites, etc., whether we have a parent article for it or not. I would not oppose an upmerge of the various subcats though. Constantine ✍ 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Notification to user was non-neutral. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • “NOTIFICATION”: “Notification to user was non-neutral” is totally unwarranted, non-factual and unmannerly : only one of the contributors thus singled-out by GO’F had a “preordained” preference/relatively predictable point of view (having taken part publically, on the record, to the previous CfD). All the others were generally neutral, from v. diverse jurisdictions/cultural backgrounds (4 different countries/ 4 different academic fields). Also, GO’F himself had taken part actively in the CfD discussion two years ago & had taken a clearly one-sided stance back then. Which is perfectly fine, BUT he never recused or “singled-out” himself for doing so (I don’t think he should) and yet infers all the others are somehow “non-neutral” (that’s an unacceptable sweeping insinuation). B.Andersohn ( talk) 16:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose and therefore keep. I have been asked to comment; disclaimer: I'm not in any way an expert on this specific group, I'm Greek and an atheist. Having said that: B.Andersohn's arguments (new and old) and rationale or similar views seem to be the ones applicable, relevant (at least much much more so), when on the other hand the rationale/argument of the OP-nominator seems to be both very limited and out of touch with many issues at hand. Limiting oneself for example to the Ottoman period, area and relevant stuff (though this is hardly a necessity: one could point to both similar and/or relevant stuff present through time all over the world and stuff specific to the issue at hand outside the Ottoman Empite, period and historical context), the nominator doesn't seem to have stated any counterargument to the importance of e.g. the millet system (note to OP: please translate 'millet' :) ) and hence the infuence of the Rum i.e. the Roman i.e. the Greek i.e. ... :) Church upon the eastern mediterranean people(s), their ethno-religious-cultural-... identity(-ies) and the formation thereof under -and given this, after- Ottoman Rule. The OP-nominator case is imo pretty weak; imo dear OP, if you want people who aren't totally unaware of the relevant fields of inquiry or such complexities to consider this proposed action you have to try much harder. Yes religious descent for example may seem weird to you or to some people unaccustomed to such concepts and categories but it's not really something novel or unique; you might want to think about e.g. the janissaries or the conversos; or do you want to start wiki-WWIII?!? :) Then consider for example, to this day, the Serbs vis-à-vis the Croats or Little vis-à-vis Greater Russia after the Union of Brest...  ;-) Thanatos| talk| contributions 19:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Notification to user was non-neutral. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • “NOTIFICATION”: “Notification to user was non-neutral” is totally unwarranted, non-factual and unmannerly : only one of the contributors thus singled-out by GO’F had a “preordained” preference/relatively predictable point of view (having taken part publically, on the record, to the previous CfD). All the others were generally neutral, from v. diverse jurisdictions/cultural backgrounds (4 different countries/ 4 different academic fields). Also, GO’F himself had taken part actively in the CfD discussion two years ago & had taken a clearly one-sided stance back then. Which is perfectly fine, BUT he never recused or “singled-out” himself for doing so (I don’t think he should) and yet infers all the others are somehow “non-neutral” (that’s an unacceptable sweeping insinuation). B.Andersohn ( talk) 16:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • General comment It seems like opponents to this proposal disagree with each other about whether this is meant to be an ethnic or a religious categorization of people. I'm not against either one by definition - as long as there are reliable sources that tell what it is about and as long as this is consistently a defining characteristic for people in this category. The latter is not the case, the former is unanswered so far. Also for those people who favor this as a religious category, I know that categories by religious descent are very rare or non-existing in Wikipedia, so please make sure to provide enough evidence to justify this category, don't just make assertions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • General comment N°2 This is about a distinct ethno-cultural/ethno-religious ‘hybrid’ category with subtle shades and nuances- after all, in English, the word “Byzantine” also means “arcane”, “complicated” and “difficult to understand” . . . As mentioned earlier, there are already FIVE other “ethnic” or “religious” (I don’t like the terms as we’re talking about a nuanced ethno-cultural group here) categorizations in Wikipedia + these are (highly) overlapping categories :
the more general but v. old-fashioned “Melkite” “…said to have been a mixed one made up of individuals who were originally Greek, Roman, Syriac, and Jewish…” = more “ethnic” definition + lost most of its significance circa 1730 CE… but still in use, generally (but not always) in a narrower "Uniat" sense
“Greek Orthodox of Antioch” : more religious, but with distinct ethno-cultural shades notably in the United States and Canada where some use a slightly modified version = "Antiochian Orthodox"
“Greek Orthodox of Jerusalem” : IN THEORY, mostly religious/geographic..., yet (Jewish) Israeli and (Muslim) Jordanian academics and journalists also say “Arab-Orthodox Christians" or "Orthodox Greek Nazarenes” (Notzirim, al-Nasara)
“Melkite Greek Catholic Church of Antioch and Jerusalem (and Alexandria)” : an offshoot of the GOA = religious, but with distinct ethno-cultural shades
“Rûm” : can be construed as “ethnic” or “ethno-cultural”, but rather vague as it also encompasses Western/Central Anatolian “Karaman”, Pontian and Constantinoplean "European Greeks" with no connection whatsoever to Antioch/Cilicia/Syria or Jerusalem
“Antiochian Greeks” : either too narrowly restrictive = “Greek-speaking ethnic Greeks of Cilicia/Alexandretta, Latakiah and Aleppo” (that v. old definition practically disappear circa 1936) or (in my personal opinion) somehow redundant = mostly synonymous of “Greek Orthodox of Antioch” but implicitly diluting the religious/cultural aspects of GOA and MGCCA with a more ethnic-oriented classification …
==> “People of Greek Orthodox-Levantine Descent” is definitely more modern, clearer and more nuanced + encompasses all of the above B.Andersohn ( talk) 10:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I have disagreed with it! With all due respect for Marco and GO’F (and, subsidiarily, as a homage to John Cleese’s Otto West), I believe that unfounded WP:NONDEF intimation, coming from two allied contributors who seriously doubted that Blaise Pascal was definingly a theologian (initially thought this was some kind of joke…), is rather comical on many planes. Reminded me of the famous FCW line “Aristotle was Belgian, the Washington address is where the first US president lived, and the London Underground is a radical British organization”! {Note to Marco, exceptionally, I'm not quoting you verbatim here/this time}  ;) Merry Christmas to you all anyway! ... B.Andersohn ( talk) 17:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't really know what you are suggesting by stating that the nominator and I are "allied" in some way. We disagree frequently on issues and have no formal or informal alliance of any kind. It's not like he canvassed me to participate in this discussion because he knew I would agree with him, which is more that can be said for some in this discussion. ... And although it's almost completely off point, I think you missed the point of my comments about Pascal, but that's becoming rather routine around here with your interpretation of my comments, so it doesn't surprise me. It can be difficult to "get" the difference between personal belief and an administrative promotion of knowledge of and implementation of Wikipedia standards. It's a mistake I have seen before, for sure. You still didn't directly address the issue of WP:NONDEF with respect to these categories, though, which was the fundamental point of my comment above and that of the nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The question really is, for each of them separately, if there are reliable sources about the existence of 'ethnic' groups in every of these countries. Reliable sources is the main criterion in Wikipedia. I haven't seen a reference to any source (reliable or not) in this particular discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Do all categories have refs verifying in such a way the existence of relevant groups (either organised ones or of more or less loosely related elements) etc.? Cause I haven't seen many if any of them having such refs... If on the other hand it's specific articles (in this case of people, of persons), categorised thus, that need refs substantiating the membership or "membership" in the relevant group(s) then how is it then a problem of the categories -and not of the specific articles- and why should the latter be deleted? This is a meta thing, it's a...categorisation and it's also common sense. Or accepting as a working hypothesis your rationale, how about adding cn tags (somewhere; don't ask me where, the onus would be on you to point to the place...)? Thanatos| talk| contributions 11:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • On purely statistical (& commonsensical!) ground I’m not opposed to up-merging national subcats, without prejudice against the L-GOC notion, a v solid, legitimate category in its own right (I agree with Thanatos). B.Andersohn ( talk) 00:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
1) I’d say, roughly ≈70% of relevant/noteworthy L-GOC bios (will) relate to US citizen, ≈ 10% Lebanese, ≈4% Syrian, ≈4% Brazilian, 5% Israeli and Jordanian (mostly from Galilee/Northern Israel near the border with Lebanon, and, to a lesser extent, from Northwestern Jordan near the border with Syria), 3% European Union (UK, French and Swiss… mainly of Egyptian-born Greco-Syro-Lebanese descent- I know it’s complicated…) and 4% “rest of the world” (mostly Turkey/Cililia [where it all started…], Australia, Canada, Mexico and Chile). Of course, these are just estimates. + There is a “natural” bias here as a Michigan-born computer engineer is more likely to become WP material than the son of a poor Galilean farmer in some village near Tiberias or Yardenit & as American free enterprise is more conductive of social self-realization than a MENA jurisdiction where Christians are treated at best as second-class citizen, but I’m digressing!).
2) When everything is said and done, hopefully, people (I’m thinking of the OP-nominator) will realize that L-GOC is simply a more modern (more “American” some may say), much clearer way of saying “Melkite-Byzantine” (which lost part of its meaning back in the 1730s because of the rise of “Uniat-ism” and was further eroded throughout the 20th C. because of the mass migration of Levantine Greek-Orthodox and Levantine Greek-Catholic “Nazarenes” to the US and Latin America) or “Antiochian and Jerusalemite Rûm” = an obscure “Medieval” term that could be replaced by “Antiochian Greek” in its modern/reemerging acceptation = Jobas speaks eloquently for that perspective growing amongst some scholars in Iskenderun, Latakiah, Aleppo, Beirut and some corners of the L-GOC diasporas (but that “new” terminology had a clearly different/much narrower meaning from the 16th C. AD until the 1930s, & it can thus be interpreted as weakening somehow the religious-cultural dimension by stressing the “ethnic-geographic” element and/or as favoring Cilicia and Northwestern Syria to the detriment of the rest of the Levant) B.Andersohn ( talk) 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- In the Ottoman Empire, each religion was a separate millet, almost a separate tribe, with the relgious leaders responsible for the behaviour of their members. Many were endogamous, so that they are virtually separate nations. Today "Greek Orthodox" is almost synonymous with Greek. In the past, that was certainly not the case, and probably still is not, as there are a lot of Orthodox Christians in other parts of the Midlde East. The question is what we call this quasi-religious ethnicity. If someone can suggest a more suitable name, I would support that. I might suggest Orthodox Christians from the Levant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The latter contradicts with the assertion of B. Andersohn way above that expatriate converts to Protestantism or atheism still belong to the ethnicity. So the question is much broader than just about the name; the more important question is, can we objectively classify people in these categories at all? Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply
In retrospect, maybe I should've asked for it to be moved to Draft:Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christianity. 213.7.227.83 ( talk) 12:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Regardless of the merits (or lack there of) of my article, I hope the editors above who feel strongly about keeping the categories dedicate some of that energy to the article space. Once a main article is created, we'll know what belongs in the categories. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all "descent" categories. The ethnicity/nationality/religion of a persons great-grandparents (some articles are in at least 7 "descent" categories) is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. If a page is in a "descent" category then the info should already be in the article text (if it is sufficently important and referenced). If some editors wish to capture the info in a more structured form (e.g. that a RS says that notable person's maternal grandfather was of a particular ethnicity) then try WikiData. DexDor ( talk) 07:14, 31 December 2014 (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:Albanian Orthodox Christians

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up on this discussion. The rename is intended to overcome the existing confusion between by-national-church categorization and by-nationality categorization. The nominated categories are clearly meant as by-national-church categorization (so these categories may include descendants of emigrants if they stick to the church of their ancestors) while - for example - Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Albania is part of the by-nationality categorization (so these categories could include descendants of immigrants from other Eastern Orthodox countries). Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:47, 16 December 2014 (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:Defunct prisons in Berkshire

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: double upmerge to Category:Defunct prisons in England and appropriate Category:Prisons in FOO. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. All of the nominated "Defunct prisons in FOOshire" categories here have only one, occasionally two articles in them. Many of these counties are rural (two very small indeed) and unlikely to have a high prison turnover. In the absence of a sudden massive drop in criminal activity, it's unlikely there will be sufficient articles to make these county categories viable, per WP:SMALLCAT. Of the articles contained in the county categories, the ones I've checked seem to be in an alternative prison or building category, but it makes sense to upmerge them to the county "Buildings and structures in FOOshire" category if not done already. For the more highly populated and urban counties (e.g. Greater Manchester) an opportunity may arise in the future to recreate a county sub-category, but they are generally completely unnecessary at the moment. Sionk ( talk) 18:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Not sure what you're inferring? Sionk ( talk) 15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
I think he was inferring the same as me (immediately below) – to which you have now replied positively. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Double upmerge, also to the other parent "Prisons in Foo". If the nominator intends that the small categories for Prisons in (county) should be deleted, then they should be added to the nomination. It seems disingenuous to empty them by a one-sided merger nomination. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, I agree, it would be sensible to also merge the "Defunct prisons in FOO" to "Prisons in FOO". Most if not all of the categories should then have at least two articles contained in them if that action was carried out. Sionk ( talk) 15:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to defunct prisons in England. These categories are far too narrow to give any navigational benefit - they only serve to make it difficult to see related content at a single location. SFB 14:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • leaning oppose The root issue here isn't the counties, but London. If it does not make sense to split the defuncts out by county, then it does not make sense to split London out either. If it makes sense to split London out, then it does not make sense to upmerge the county defuncts into the currently active prisons. Geographical navigation for the active prisons would imply geographical navigation overall, even though it leads to a number of small categories. Mangoe ( talk) 21:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: it makes sense to split out the ones that are large enough to be useful for navigation (London, Oxon, N Yorks). That is not the case where there is only one member, as the navigation from those pages would be better if they were merged to all parents. Cornwall, Devon and Dorset might be worth keeping as they have two members each. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
    • My point is that I don't see this as improving navigation: if it's unimportant to split out the defunct prisons, then it's also unimportant to split them out in London; all it does is reduce the size of the main category. But I suspect that the division between active and closed prisons actually obtains in London, because people really want a category of those that are active. That same logic obtains in all the counties as well, which is why I think the upmerge into the county categories is ill-advised. I would be less opposed to an upmerge of the county defunct categories into just the overall defunct category, because that would maintain the parallelism between all the (active) county categories and the London category. Mangoe ( talk) 15:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
      • The merger rationale is "it's unlikely there will be sufficient articles to make these county categories viable, per WP:SMALLCAT". Giving each article on Wikipedia its own category doesn't aid navigation, just creates clutter and over-organisation. The London category is a large category, because of the number of prisons/population I imagine. If you want to nominate Category:Defunct prisons in London then be my guest. Sionk ( talk) 16:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge -- Hisotrically each county had its prison. Many of these do not meet modern standards and were thus closed, but the total number in any county is not likely to provide a useful navigation aid. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:12, 23 December 2014 (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:Television series set in Italy

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: speedy merge C2C. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Both categories share the same purpose. NeoBatfreak ( talk) 09:21, 16 December 2014 (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:Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library-related articles

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: speedy keep as being preliminarily nominated (see PKM's comment). No prejudice against renominating in several months if the categories remain empty. Ed  [talk]  [majestic titan] 20:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Added per discussion:
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We generally avoid related categories. I wonder if this may be a mistaken attempt to create a project. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
This appears to be related to Wikipedia:GLAM/Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library. It all looks extremely overdone at this point — see also ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Wikipedia-Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library collaboration, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library-related articles by importance and its profusion of empty subcategories, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library-related articles by quality and its profusion of empty subcategories — for a project whose only content at this point is Wikipedia:GLAM/Newcomb Archives and Vorhoff Library itself, and I'm not too clear on why this needs its own dedicated WikiProject, or its own dedicated WikiProject categories, rather than simply working within an existing project. Delete (subcategories as well) unless somebody can provide a compelling reason why these are actually needed. Bearcat ( talk) 01:15, 16 December 2014 (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:LGBT scientists

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: upmerge — xaosflux Talk 02:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per longstanding consensus of both WP:LGBT and CFD, LGBT categories should be divided into separate L, G, B and T subcategories only where this is warranted on size grounds, and are to be kept at the common "LGBT" level in all other cases. But with only 55 articles distributed among all four of these categories combined, the necessary size simply isn't there to warrant subcatting in this instance. Bearcat ( talk) 00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support as a sensible measure to counteract this obsession with scientists' sexual preferences. We don't want a questionable category yet further sub-categorised! Sionk ( talk) 20:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I acknowledge that this level of categorization is not sustainable, and I still hope for the day in 1-2 years when categories will be migrated to Wikidata. Until then... these categories are important for activists working in LGBT issues, and a point of advocacy in this domain of expertise is to promote recognition of LGBT role models in STEM fields. The gay and transgender categories here are populated with as many entries as other gay and transgender occupational categories. The lesbian and bisexual categories are not well populated; I suppose they could be deleted, but something seems wrong about deleting some parts of the "LGBT" and not other parts when the distinction between these is already made. Considering that there is some evidence of public demand for role models of specific subsets of the LGBT community, it is the broader demand and not the Wikipedia community which is suggesting these separate categories.
All this aside - it would not be so bad if these categories were merged. I support keeping them, but this probably is not too big of a deal either way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2014 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_16&oldid=1089087425"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE