- 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 - amd yes, there is a need to upmerge this single article into Category:History books about wars. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article "Serbia and Albania". No need to upmerge, the one article is already correctly classified in Category:History books about Serbia and Category:History books about Albania. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. MER-C 06:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF. There are only heads of state in this category to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment -- It is difficult to know what to do in cases such as this. Here I refer not only to this category but the related (and larger) Category:Recipients of the Order of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and many other natiaonal awards. The Grand Cross seems only to have been granted to heads of state (or government), no doubt as a diplomatic gesture. These add to category clutter, which is the reason for WP:OCAWARD. However, where an award is made by a state to its own citizens, it is (usually) evidence of their notability, so that we should keep it as a major award. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- That someone has received an award may be evidence of their notability, but their notability still derives from something more tangible (being a royal, a diplomat, a military commander, an actor...) and that's a better categorization scheme. DexDor (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Categories like this cause articles like Franz Joseph I of Austria to be in a huge number of categories. Miklós Horthy (in the parent category) has over 60 such categories (including redlink categories). DexDor (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- With Miklós Horthy, that's totally ridicilous indeed. Thanks for mentioning this example. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- See also this discussion about the OCAWARD guideline. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Awards granted only to heads of state are the extreme example of why we should avoid most award categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: relisted at June 18, as another editor had removed the CFD template from the page. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, its content is already in Category:Romanian history timelines. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: merge.
MER-C
06:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Propose downmerging Category:Montenegrin metropolitans to Category:Metropolitans of Montenegro
- Nominator's rationale: downmerge, there is no need to subcategorize bishops by their nationality if their nationality coincides with the location of their diocese. An earlier discussion resulted in 'no consensus', the issue of that discussion has meanwhile been resolved. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- By far the best way to categorise bishops is according to the lcoation of their see, not their nationality, thoughn this will commonly be the same. In some cases, it may be useful to have a fooian bishops, reflecting nationality of origin, where they are missionary bishops with sees other than in their home country: Irish Catholic bishops abroad and Anglican bishops in Africa and India spring to mind, but we should only do that where there are enough articles to make a worthwhile category; and that will not apply in this case. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support per Peterkingiron rationale Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. MER-C 06:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and hardly any room for expansion because Universalism only grew after Anatolia had been occupied by the Ottomans. No need to upmerge because the one article is already in Category:4th-century Christian Universalists as well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- DElete -- I doubt this could ever be a useful category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
07:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Propose upmerging Category:Women historians to Category:Historians
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge per this earlier started discussion about Male historians which is still open. The discussion in the Male historians nomination is strongly interlinked with this category so it would be most helpful to add your comments about Women historians in the earlier nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Let's be clear; for most professional categories (not sport etc) we should have a main non-diffusing category, like Category:Historians, or one diffused by nationality or sub-specialism. If people want to add a female category (not diffused from the main one), that's fine. But that does not mean an equivalent male category is needed or justified. That's how we avoid this little nerdy corner of Wikipedia causing headlines all over the world. There is academic study and scholarship of many subjects with a womens' perspective, without equivalent study of the male one. That's the world we live in. Johnbod ( talk) 14:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Preferably keep -- In some cases women approach the subject from the perspective of their gender. HOwever this should be close to match the outcome on the male category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per my vote regarding Category:Male historians. However, if the consensus on that is to merge, then I will change my vote here...I don't feel one is right but the other isn't. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 16:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Weak delete -- Back in the real world, I worry a lot about how to attract and encourage women into professions. I know very well why it needs to be done. However, Wikipedia isn't the real world. Our objective here is to document and provide information. We should be careful not to create our own "information" which doesn't actually exist in the real world. Neither should we attempt to solve all of society's problems. It is my position that all of EGRS categorisations should be supported by reliable sources. If a person is identified as "woman historian" in a reliable source then, by all means, create a category and put that person in that category. If you say one is a "woman historian" just by virtue of being a woman and a historian, then we are trying to create information that doesn't actually exist. So, my preference is to delete the present ill-defined "Women historians" category, and let a new one be created if and when it becomes necessary by virtue of reliable sources. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. According to this article in The Australian, this could actually be a thing. Not sure that Wikipedia really needs to have gendered subcategories for every topic, though. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- The votes to keep are based on the rationale of the perspective of the historian. But how do we know if the perspective of a particular woman historian deviates from the perspective of a particular male historian just because of gender? Especially so if it concerns non-gender-specific historical topics. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Perspective is a complete red herring here. These are by gender categories. Johnbod ( talk) 15:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The
Journal of Women's History published a survey called "
Women Writing History: Looking Backward and Forward, which looks relevant. Doing a few more searches on Google, there seem to be a few women historian associations:
Southern Association for Women Historians,
American Historical Association's Committee on Women Historians. And there are already Wikipedia articles on two more:
Association of Black Women Historians and
Berkshire Conference of Women Historians. This does indeed seem to be a thing. But this should be non-diffusing.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
16:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is sort of what I mean by trying to bring real world problems into Wikipedia. Issues like women historians not feeling welcome among the bigger group and wanting support from other women historians etc. are not relevant to Wikipedia categorisation. "Historians of Women's History" is, on the other hand, quite a sensible category. However, the category "Women historians" is being used at present purely as the intersection of women and historians. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Reliable sources have indicated that "women historians" are a concept they find notable, and there are real-world groups that fit into this category. That's why we make categories in the first place. I don't much care about academic politics, and I'm content to remain ignorant on the nature of the dispute. My job is to locate reliable sources, and that's what I've done. An academic paper on women historians would seem to indicate that this category is warranted. If you think this academic paper is irrelevant, I would welcome your input. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Our wise editors have already observed on
WP:NONDEF that users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Unfortunately, that is what you are doing. If there is a paper on women historians (meaning the subject is notable), it doesn't automatically become a defining characteristic. Moreover, the paper you have cited, which is mostly a book review, is making the point that the kind of ghettoization that we are doing here may be inappropriate. It is pointing out that the women writing history brought a variety of influences to their work, not just womanhood. -
Kautilya3 (
talk)
09:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, that's a good point about the paper. I didn't realize that it was mostly a book review, as I had merely skimmed over it enough to validate that it was relevant. Still, that leaves the fact that someone wrote a book about the topic, which then attracted a bit of attention. That's a bit less prestigious than my original claim of an academic paper on the topic, but I think there's enough attention on this topic to at least make a case for it. Yes, "defining characteristics" are what we're after here, but how else can you describe multiple professional associations dedicated to this characteristic? The people involved have themselves implicitly said that it is a defining characteristic, and reliable sources have agreed. I guess that's what I'm trying to say here, though I admit I haven't done a very good job of expressing myself.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
16:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is indeed enough attention given to women professionals of all kinds because they are still a minority in most disciplines. If we say, we should also give similar attention for the same reason, I would say we are trying to bring real world into Wikipedia world. We are not a public policy organisation, or a managerial organisation or anything like that. So, it is not our job to do this. The existence of women's professional organisations merely gives us license to categorize all such organisations, but not necessarily their members into separate categories. If I am a member of the Southeast Regional Natural History association, that doesn't mean I have now gotten into a separate category called "Southeast Regional Natural Historians." If there is a book about women historians which identifies particular individuals as having "women historian" as a defining characteristic, then we have a license to place those people in a women historians category. But the existence of the book doesn't prove that every woman who is a historian has acquired a new defining characteristic. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, that's a good point about the paper. I didn't realize that it was mostly a book review, as I had merely skimmed over it enough to validate that it was relevant. Still, that leaves the fact that someone wrote a book about the topic, which then attracted a bit of attention. That's a bit less prestigious than my original claim of an academic paper on the topic, but I think there's enough attention on this topic to at least make a case for it. Yes, "defining characteristics" are what we're after here, but how else can you describe multiple professional associations dedicated to this characteristic? The people involved have themselves implicitly said that it is a defining characteristic, and reliable sources have agreed. I guess that's what I'm trying to say here, though I admit I haven't done a very good job of expressing myself.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
16:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Our wise editors have already observed on
WP:NONDEF that users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Unfortunately, that is what you are doing. If there is a paper on women historians (meaning the subject is notable), it doesn't automatically become a defining characteristic. Moreover, the paper you have cited, which is mostly a book review, is making the point that the kind of ghettoization that we are doing here may be inappropriate. It is pointing out that the women writing history brought a variety of influences to their work, not just womanhood. -
Kautilya3 (
talk)
09:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep at very least Listify if deleted women's history is a clearly defined topic of study that warrants such a category. I think the straight up deletion of this category would not be useful, and certainly maintenance of this kind of information in a list would be preferable at a minimum. SFB 17:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep We cover women writers in their own categories. Historians should be no exception.
Dimadick (
talk)
20:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is clearly
WP:OSE. -
Kautilya3 (
talk)
09:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- No it is not, since Category:Historians is a sub-category of Category:Writers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is clearly
WP:OSE. -
Kautilya3 (
talk)
09:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per NinjaRobotPirate. As this is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:Historians, the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_13#Category:Male_historians needn't affect this CfD. Historically the vast majority of historians have been male and women historians are a valid topic of special encyclopedic interest, per WP:Cat/gender. gobonobo + c 00:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep The intersection of being a woman and being a historian is considered notable, and there is enough information on such to create an article Women historians that would be much more than just a list. It clearly meets the requirements for the existence of such a category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment It should be born in mind that some would argue that deleting this category would make Wikipedia sexist. There is a strain of argument that deleting such categories shows animus towards the specific group covered by these categories. I think both that, and the argument that somehow the presence of these categories create any real world problems are both false. If it somehow discourages women to become historians to acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of academic historians in 1900 were men, than any attempts to enter the profession of the historian and deal with the thoughts and writings of the past will discourage women from entering it. It will not be Wikipedia that creates this situation, but factors well outside Wikipedia. On the whole I think such claims are just plain false. I would also point out that the organizations mentioned above are for women who are historians, not for historians who focus on the study of women. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Johnpacklambert. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one article containing a saint whose pilgrimage is hardly a defining characteristic. Theoretically I can imagine this category could be further populated instead of deleted, but there are a lot of saints categories already, so let's just delete this one as it doesn't seem of interest to a lot of editors anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose While the category does have limited entries at present, as you indicate there is potential for growth, as this was a significant step in Christendom for centuries. Let's see what your suggestion might stir up. Daniel the Monk ( talk) 11:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Doesn't matter how many there might be, it's not a defining characteristic. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment We currently have Category:Pilgrimages and its subcategories. Which focus on pilgrimage routes and destination but not cover pilgrims themselves. Perhaps we should see if there are other bios where pilgrimages play a major part in life? Dimadick ( talk) 21:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I wouldn't expect too much of it, but if you do find pilgrim saints like that, who could populate this category, please categorize them and inform us here about the result of your search. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support It's been 2 1/2 months this proposal was made and there has been only one other saint who has been added to this small category. While being a pilgrim was a defining aspect of Saint Roch and Benedict Joseph Labre's lives, I don't think that is sufficient justification to keep this category. Liz Read! Talk! 10:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 to
Category:Christian saints from the New Testament.
MER-C
06:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Biblical Roman Catholic saints to Category:Biblical saints
- Nominator's rationale: rename. There is no indication that these saints are exclusively venerated by the Roman Catholic Church. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Alternative rename to Category:Christian saints from the New Testament to match Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament as all seem to be NT. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm happy with this alternative too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Laurel Lodged's suggestion. The RC church has no monopoly on these saints: they are acknowledged by the whole Christian Church, However, purge: Saint Veronica comes from Catholic tradition, not NT. Similarly, Saint Caspar one of the Biblical Magi is not named in NT, nor does it say how many there were: he would be better moved to Category:Biblical Magi. I note that Category:1st-century Christian saints is much more heavily populated, but probably contains a number of people who are in sources other than NT. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good points. After renaming, a number of 1st-century Christian saints can be categorised in this biblical category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Laurel Lodged's proposal. Neutrality talk 03:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Laurel Lodged's proposal. Dimadick ( talk) 21:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. MER-C 06:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. " Equal-to-the-Apostles" is an honorific title accorded to some Christian saints, whose outstanding service in the spreading and assertion of Christianity is considered comparable to that of the original Twelve Apostles. I don't think that an honorific title like this is a defining characteristic. Listification has already taken place in the eponymous article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support While it has much historical evidence as a concept, it is essentially just a title with no significance. None would probably have self described as such. But that's just my OR. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is at best the POV of certain Christian churches. There are about 12 people other than the original 12 apostles described as apostles in NT. The root meaning of apostle is similar to that of "missionary" (both having roots meaning "sent"). This means that "apostle" can proiperly be used for a successful pioneer missionary to a particular people. However, there is no means (other than POV) of determining who qualifies. POV is not an acceptable basis for a category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - as amply explained above. Neutrality talk 03:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not needed. After I created this I found that 'Category:Anonymity pseudonyms' already exists and does the same job. filceolaire ( talk) 09:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC).
- Delete as empty, as well as not being useful. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - empty category with cryptic title. Neutrality talk 03:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as empty, as well as not being useful. -- 76.175.67.121 ( talk) 18:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There is no main article and it seems like the inclusion criteria are almost random. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Humanism, which is (I presume) much the same thing. I have remvoed Jewin Welsh Presbyterian Chapel from the category, becasue it does not seem to belong. It is said to be built in the New Humanist style, but that seems to be an architectural term, soemthing differnet from the subject here. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge - as above. Neutrality talk 03:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: merge.
MER-C
06:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Propose Upmerging Category:Roman roads in the Balkans to Category:Roman roads
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION. The current Category:Roman roads tree is already a confusing mish-mash of subcategories by 1) modern national boundaries, 2) ancient Roman provincial ones and, possibly, 3) continents. This category adds a fourth layer by region, and a region that was defined much later by the Ottomans at that. This added layer would be more likely to hinder navigation than aid it. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Notified Catalographer as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support, the header of Category:Roman roads indicates to subcategorize by Roman province and that looks like the best idea. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Balkans was not the contemporary name. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep -- I accept that the current structrure is not good, but I do not think that provincial boundaries in the Balkans is going to provide us with a satisfactory tree. The Roman Balkans can be defined as the area between the Sanube and the Adriatic, plus Dacia. Until we have a larger population, I would suggest that we keep this. The Romanian category should be renamed Dacia (or merged in here). The Bulgarian item is not a road and should be removed. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support, I say delete Category:Roman waystations in Bulgaria, because we don't need a category for just one article. The roads were Roman roads and if anything should be sub-categorized by their province (i.e. create Category:Roman roads of Dalmatia which would include roads in the Roman province of Dalmatia). But I do understand that most readers on Wikipedia don't actually know about Roman geography and would more easily understand the location of say Romania before they would that of Moesia Superior. Psychotic Spartan 123 18:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Agree that categorisation by regions and continents is unsatisfactory, and that it makes most sense to categorise by Roman provinces. That said, I think it would also be useful to have a parallel tree by modern country, which could mesh conveniently with the archaeological sites by country tree. Furius ( talk) 18:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 - amd yes, there is a need to upmerge this single article into Category:History books about wars. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article "Serbia and Albania". No need to upmerge, the one article is already correctly classified in Category:History books about Serbia and Category:History books about Albania. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. MER-C 06:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF. There are only heads of state in this category to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment -- It is difficult to know what to do in cases such as this. Here I refer not only to this category but the related (and larger) Category:Recipients of the Order of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and many other natiaonal awards. The Grand Cross seems only to have been granted to heads of state (or government), no doubt as a diplomatic gesture. These add to category clutter, which is the reason for WP:OCAWARD. However, where an award is made by a state to its own citizens, it is (usually) evidence of their notability, so that we should keep it as a major award. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- That someone has received an award may be evidence of their notability, but their notability still derives from something more tangible (being a royal, a diplomat, a military commander, an actor...) and that's a better categorization scheme. DexDor (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Categories like this cause articles like Franz Joseph I of Austria to be in a huge number of categories. Miklós Horthy (in the parent category) has over 60 such categories (including redlink categories). DexDor (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- With Miklós Horthy, that's totally ridicilous indeed. Thanks for mentioning this example. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- See also this discussion about the OCAWARD guideline. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Awards granted only to heads of state are the extreme example of why we should avoid most award categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: relisted at June 18, as another editor had removed the CFD template from the page. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, its content is already in Category:Romanian history timelines. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: merge.
MER-C
06:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Propose downmerging Category:Montenegrin metropolitans to Category:Metropolitans of Montenegro
- Nominator's rationale: downmerge, there is no need to subcategorize bishops by their nationality if their nationality coincides with the location of their diocese. An earlier discussion resulted in 'no consensus', the issue of that discussion has meanwhile been resolved. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- By far the best way to categorise bishops is according to the lcoation of their see, not their nationality, thoughn this will commonly be the same. In some cases, it may be useful to have a fooian bishops, reflecting nationality of origin, where they are missionary bishops with sees other than in their home country: Irish Catholic bishops abroad and Anglican bishops in Africa and India spring to mind, but we should only do that where there are enough articles to make a worthwhile category; and that will not apply in this case. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support per Peterkingiron rationale Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. MER-C 06:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and hardly any room for expansion because Universalism only grew after Anatolia had been occupied by the Ottomans. No need to upmerge because the one article is already in Category:4th-century Christian Universalists as well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- DElete -- I doubt this could ever be a useful category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep.
Ricky81682 (
talk)
07:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Propose upmerging Category:Women historians to Category:Historians
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge per this earlier started discussion about Male historians which is still open. The discussion in the Male historians nomination is strongly interlinked with this category so it would be most helpful to add your comments about Women historians in the earlier nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Let's be clear; for most professional categories (not sport etc) we should have a main non-diffusing category, like Category:Historians, or one diffused by nationality or sub-specialism. If people want to add a female category (not diffused from the main one), that's fine. But that does not mean an equivalent male category is needed or justified. That's how we avoid this little nerdy corner of Wikipedia causing headlines all over the world. There is academic study and scholarship of many subjects with a womens' perspective, without equivalent study of the male one. That's the world we live in. Johnbod ( talk) 14:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Preferably keep -- In some cases women approach the subject from the perspective of their gender. HOwever this should be close to match the outcome on the male category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per my vote regarding Category:Male historians. However, if the consensus on that is to merge, then I will change my vote here...I don't feel one is right but the other isn't. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 16:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Weak delete -- Back in the real world, I worry a lot about how to attract and encourage women into professions. I know very well why it needs to be done. However, Wikipedia isn't the real world. Our objective here is to document and provide information. We should be careful not to create our own "information" which doesn't actually exist in the real world. Neither should we attempt to solve all of society's problems. It is my position that all of EGRS categorisations should be supported by reliable sources. If a person is identified as "woman historian" in a reliable source then, by all means, create a category and put that person in that category. If you say one is a "woman historian" just by virtue of being a woman and a historian, then we are trying to create information that doesn't actually exist. So, my preference is to delete the present ill-defined "Women historians" category, and let a new one be created if and when it becomes necessary by virtue of reliable sources. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. According to this article in The Australian, this could actually be a thing. Not sure that Wikipedia really needs to have gendered subcategories for every topic, though. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- The votes to keep are based on the rationale of the perspective of the historian. But how do we know if the perspective of a particular woman historian deviates from the perspective of a particular male historian just because of gender? Especially so if it concerns non-gender-specific historical topics. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Perspective is a complete red herring here. These are by gender categories. Johnbod ( talk) 15:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The
Journal of Women's History published a survey called "
Women Writing History: Looking Backward and Forward, which looks relevant. Doing a few more searches on Google, there seem to be a few women historian associations:
Southern Association for Women Historians,
American Historical Association's Committee on Women Historians. And there are already Wikipedia articles on two more:
Association of Black Women Historians and
Berkshire Conference of Women Historians. This does indeed seem to be a thing. But this should be non-diffusing.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
16:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is sort of what I mean by trying to bring real world problems into Wikipedia. Issues like women historians not feeling welcome among the bigger group and wanting support from other women historians etc. are not relevant to Wikipedia categorisation. "Historians of Women's History" is, on the other hand, quite a sensible category. However, the category "Women historians" is being used at present purely as the intersection of women and historians. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Reliable sources have indicated that "women historians" are a concept they find notable, and there are real-world groups that fit into this category. That's why we make categories in the first place. I don't much care about academic politics, and I'm content to remain ignorant on the nature of the dispute. My job is to locate reliable sources, and that's what I've done. An academic paper on women historians would seem to indicate that this category is warranted. If you think this academic paper is irrelevant, I would welcome your input. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Our wise editors have already observed on
WP:NONDEF that users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Unfortunately, that is what you are doing. If there is a paper on women historians (meaning the subject is notable), it doesn't automatically become a defining characteristic. Moreover, the paper you have cited, which is mostly a book review, is making the point that the kind of ghettoization that we are doing here may be inappropriate. It is pointing out that the women writing history brought a variety of influences to their work, not just womanhood. -
Kautilya3 (
talk)
09:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, that's a good point about the paper. I didn't realize that it was mostly a book review, as I had merely skimmed over it enough to validate that it was relevant. Still, that leaves the fact that someone wrote a book about the topic, which then attracted a bit of attention. That's a bit less prestigious than my original claim of an academic paper on the topic, but I think there's enough attention on this topic to at least make a case for it. Yes, "defining characteristics" are what we're after here, but how else can you describe multiple professional associations dedicated to this characteristic? The people involved have themselves implicitly said that it is a defining characteristic, and reliable sources have agreed. I guess that's what I'm trying to say here, though I admit I haven't done a very good job of expressing myself.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
16:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is indeed enough attention given to women professionals of all kinds because they are still a minority in most disciplines. If we say, we should also give similar attention for the same reason, I would say we are trying to bring real world into Wikipedia world. We are not a public policy organisation, or a managerial organisation or anything like that. So, it is not our job to do this. The existence of women's professional organisations merely gives us license to categorize all such organisations, but not necessarily their members into separate categories. If I am a member of the Southeast Regional Natural History association, that doesn't mean I have now gotten into a separate category called "Southeast Regional Natural Historians." If there is a book about women historians which identifies particular individuals as having "women historian" as a defining characteristic, then we have a license to place those people in a women historians category. But the existence of the book doesn't prove that every woman who is a historian has acquired a new defining characteristic. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, that's a good point about the paper. I didn't realize that it was mostly a book review, as I had merely skimmed over it enough to validate that it was relevant. Still, that leaves the fact that someone wrote a book about the topic, which then attracted a bit of attention. That's a bit less prestigious than my original claim of an academic paper on the topic, but I think there's enough attention on this topic to at least make a case for it. Yes, "defining characteristics" are what we're after here, but how else can you describe multiple professional associations dedicated to this characteristic? The people involved have themselves implicitly said that it is a defining characteristic, and reliable sources have agreed. I guess that's what I'm trying to say here, though I admit I haven't done a very good job of expressing myself.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
16:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Our wise editors have already observed on
WP:NONDEF that users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Unfortunately, that is what you are doing. If there is a paper on women historians (meaning the subject is notable), it doesn't automatically become a defining characteristic. Moreover, the paper you have cited, which is mostly a book review, is making the point that the kind of ghettoization that we are doing here may be inappropriate. It is pointing out that the women writing history brought a variety of influences to their work, not just womanhood. -
Kautilya3 (
talk)
09:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep at very least Listify if deleted women's history is a clearly defined topic of study that warrants such a category. I think the straight up deletion of this category would not be useful, and certainly maintenance of this kind of information in a list would be preferable at a minimum. SFB 17:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep We cover women writers in their own categories. Historians should be no exception.
Dimadick (
talk)
20:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is clearly
WP:OSE. -
Kautilya3 (
talk)
09:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- No it is not, since Category:Historians is a sub-category of Category:Writers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- That is clearly
WP:OSE. -
Kautilya3 (
talk)
09:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per NinjaRobotPirate. As this is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:Historians, the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_13#Category:Male_historians needn't affect this CfD. Historically the vast majority of historians have been male and women historians are a valid topic of special encyclopedic interest, per WP:Cat/gender. gobonobo + c 00:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep The intersection of being a woman and being a historian is considered notable, and there is enough information on such to create an article Women historians that would be much more than just a list. It clearly meets the requirements for the existence of such a category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment It should be born in mind that some would argue that deleting this category would make Wikipedia sexist. There is a strain of argument that deleting such categories shows animus towards the specific group covered by these categories. I think both that, and the argument that somehow the presence of these categories create any real world problems are both false. If it somehow discourages women to become historians to acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of academic historians in 1900 were men, than any attempts to enter the profession of the historian and deal with the thoughts and writings of the past will discourage women from entering it. It will not be Wikipedia that creates this situation, but factors well outside Wikipedia. On the whole I think such claims are just plain false. I would also point out that the organizations mentioned above are for women who are historians, not for historians who focus on the study of women. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Johnpacklambert. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 17:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one article containing a saint whose pilgrimage is hardly a defining characteristic. Theoretically I can imagine this category could be further populated instead of deleted, but there are a lot of saints categories already, so let's just delete this one as it doesn't seem of interest to a lot of editors anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose While the category does have limited entries at present, as you indicate there is potential for growth, as this was a significant step in Christendom for centuries. Let's see what your suggestion might stir up. Daniel the Monk ( talk) 11:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Doesn't matter how many there might be, it's not a defining characteristic. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment We currently have Category:Pilgrimages and its subcategories. Which focus on pilgrimage routes and destination but not cover pilgrims themselves. Perhaps we should see if there are other bios where pilgrimages play a major part in life? Dimadick ( talk) 21:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I wouldn't expect too much of it, but if you do find pilgrim saints like that, who could populate this category, please categorize them and inform us here about the result of your search. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support It's been 2 1/2 months this proposal was made and there has been only one other saint who has been added to this small category. While being a pilgrim was a defining aspect of Saint Roch and Benedict Joseph Labre's lives, I don't think that is sufficient justification to keep this category. Liz Read! Talk! 10:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 to
Category:Christian saints from the New Testament.
MER-C
06:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Biblical Roman Catholic saints to Category:Biblical saints
- Nominator's rationale: rename. There is no indication that these saints are exclusively venerated by the Roman Catholic Church. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Alternative rename to Category:Christian saints from the New Testament to match Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament as all seem to be NT. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm happy with this alternative too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Laurel Lodged's suggestion. The RC church has no monopoly on these saints: they are acknowledged by the whole Christian Church, However, purge: Saint Veronica comes from Catholic tradition, not NT. Similarly, Saint Caspar one of the Biblical Magi is not named in NT, nor does it say how many there were: he would be better moved to Category:Biblical Magi. I note that Category:1st-century Christian saints is much more heavily populated, but probably contains a number of people who are in sources other than NT. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good points. After renaming, a number of 1st-century Christian saints can be categorised in this biblical category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Laurel Lodged's proposal. Neutrality talk 03:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Laurel Lodged's proposal. Dimadick ( talk) 21:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. MER-C 06:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. " Equal-to-the-Apostles" is an honorific title accorded to some Christian saints, whose outstanding service in the spreading and assertion of Christianity is considered comparable to that of the original Twelve Apostles. I don't think that an honorific title like this is a defining characteristic. Listification has already taken place in the eponymous article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support While it has much historical evidence as a concept, it is essentially just a title with no significance. None would probably have self described as such. But that's just my OR. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -- This is at best the POV of certain Christian churches. There are about 12 people other than the original 12 apostles described as apostles in NT. The root meaning of apostle is similar to that of "missionary" (both having roots meaning "sent"). This means that "apostle" can proiperly be used for a successful pioneer missionary to a particular people. However, there is no means (other than POV) of determining who qualifies. POV is not an acceptable basis for a category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - as amply explained above. Neutrality talk 03:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not needed. After I created this I found that 'Category:Anonymity pseudonyms' already exists and does the same job. filceolaire ( talk) 09:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC).
- Delete as empty, as well as not being useful. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - empty category with cryptic title. Neutrality talk 03:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as empty, as well as not being useful. -- 76.175.67.121 ( talk) 18:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: There is no main article and it seems like the inclusion criteria are almost random. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Humanism, which is (I presume) much the same thing. I have remvoed Jewin Welsh Presbyterian Chapel from the category, becasue it does not seem to belong. It is said to be built in the New Humanist style, but that seems to be an architectural term, soemthing differnet from the subject here. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge - as above. Neutrality talk 03:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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: merge.
MER-C
06:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Propose Upmerging Category:Roman roads in the Balkans to Category:Roman roads
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION. The current Category:Roman roads tree is already a confusing mish-mash of subcategories by 1) modern national boundaries, 2) ancient Roman provincial ones and, possibly, 3) continents. This category adds a fourth layer by region, and a region that was defined much later by the Ottomans at that. This added layer would be more likely to hinder navigation than aid it. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Notified Catalographer as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support, the header of Category:Roman roads indicates to subcategorize by Roman province and that looks like the best idea. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support Balkans was not the contemporary name. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep -- I accept that the current structrure is not good, but I do not think that provincial boundaries in the Balkans is going to provide us with a satisfactory tree. The Roman Balkans can be defined as the area between the Sanube and the Adriatic, plus Dacia. Until we have a larger population, I would suggest that we keep this. The Romanian category should be renamed Dacia (or merged in here). The Bulgarian item is not a road and should be removed. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support, I say delete Category:Roman waystations in Bulgaria, because we don't need a category for just one article. The roads were Roman roads and if anything should be sub-categorized by their province (i.e. create Category:Roman roads of Dalmatia which would include roads in the Roman province of Dalmatia). But I do understand that most readers on Wikipedia don't actually know about Roman geography and would more easily understand the location of say Romania before they would that of Moesia Superior. Psychotic Spartan 123 18:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Agree that categorisation by regions and continents is unsatisfactory, and that it makes most sense to categorise by Roman provinces. That said, I think it would also be useful to have a parallel tree by modern country, which could mesh conveniently with the archaeological sites by country tree. Furius ( talk) 18:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.