The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale (Queens of Rome): More
WP:CATSPECIFIC. All were queens consort. Cultural depictions ditto.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale (Female Roman monarchs): None were "monarchs" i.e. queens or empresses regnant. Only grandchild
Category:Byzantine empresses regnant counts (edit: I've removed
Category:Roman empresses as a parent of
Category:Byzantine empresses, and instead made them siblings), but the overall grouping "Female Roman monarchs" does not make sense and is misleading. Edit: Upmerging per Marcocapelle rather than deleting is a better idea.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale (Cultural depictions of Roman monarchs): Redundant layer in between which is incorrect for queens consort of Rome and Roman empresses consort.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale (Roman empresses): More
WP:CATSPECIFIC. All were empresses consort. Cultural depictions ditto.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
You're right, I've changed Deleting to Upmerging. The cultural depictions one will practically be a delete if upmerged, so I think I can leave that unchanged as nominated. Upmerging is also preferable for metadata reasons.
Heh, I haven't really taken your advice of yesterday to write down complex nominations first before posting them here, have I? Oops...
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Then there are the Augustae (
List of Augustae,
Category:Augustae), a broad group of women who were somehow related to male Roman emperors, either as wives/consorts/spouses, mothers, grandmothers, sisters, daughters, or otherwise. Although many of them wielded considerable political influence, including the ability to enthrone their own sons, grandsons, brothers etc. I don't think we can formally describe them as "rulers", "monarchs", "empresses regnant", "co-rulers" or "co-regents" or anything like that.
The
List of Roman and Byzantine empresses is pretty clear that there were no ancient Roman empresses regnant, and only a handful ruled as empresses regnant, governing the empire in their own right without a husband; the latter were all Byzantine, starting with
Irene of Athens in 780 (Byzantine Empress co-regent 780–797; Empress regnant 797–802). I do not think the Augustae should be in the empresses regnant tree, and not in the empresses consort tree either unless they were actually married to the male Roman emperor.
Zenobia is the only 3rd-century woman regent and can't be given her own category, it would be a SMALLCAT.
I only ran into all these Roman queens and kings because I was trying to solve this 3rd-century women rulers stuff. You could really help me if you gave me advice on how to do this. Thanks!
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 08:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 1 is not accurate, option 2 is acceptable but ugly, so that makes option 3 the winner. I agree that Augustae should not be considered monarchs regnant.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: these suggestions do not look like improvements to me. I'll try to be concise in my explanations.
Since all Roman queens and empresses were consorts, it makes no sense to change the titles of the categories to distinguish them from non-existent Roman queens and empresses regnant. Besides, the terminology of "queens consort" versus "queens regnant" is modern and sounds anachronistic applied to Romans. Even if it weren't, most lists of queens or empresses aren't divided based on which were consorts and which were regnant. I'm not saying the difference is meaningless; I'm saying that it's not how they're usually grouped, and if there's only one kind then applying an anachronistic label doesn't help anyone.
"Kings of Rome" sounds slightly better than "Roman kings", but it makes the category titles wordier, and that makes a difference in Wikipedia. There's no difference in meaning, and consistency in phrasing is not of paramount concern. Simpler category titles are generally better; taking a five-word category and making it six words, including two consecutive two-word prepositional phrases using the same preposition ("of kings of Rome"), is not an improvement.
"Female Roman monarchs" is dubious enough—none of them really "reigned", or possessed any authority except that derived from their husbands, so they really weren't "monarchs". But "royals" is, as Wiktionary clearly states, informal, and glaringly modern; you won't normally find Romans described as "royals", or even "royalty", a word we usually associate with medieval/modern kings and queens, not Romans. Let's try not to make categories for figures from Roman history sound anachronistic. All Roman monarchs were either kings or emperors; if we must use "monarchs" simply in order to include Roman queens or empresses in the same categories, at least let's not apply terminology that doesn't sound like it should apply to Romans at all.
P Aculeius (
talk) 14:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
P Aculeius: Thanks for your well-thought-out comment. I agree with a lot of what you say, but have some remarks and explanations.
I agree all ancient Roman empresses were consorts, but just to be clear to our fellow editors and readers that none of them were regnant, adding "consort" makes sense from the point of view of the entire category trees.
I think it's evident that confusion may arise easily. Categories should be
WP:CATSPECIFIC, that is why I think adding 'consort' is a good idea in many cases to avoid confusion.
One may argue that the terminology of "queens consort" versus "queens regnant" is modern and sounds anachronistic applied to Romans, and I don't disagree. But so are the very words queen and king themselves; they are modern English words which weren't used in Rome in the 8th to 6th century BCE either. (Funnily enough, the word wikt:consort is actually Latin in origin, but I digress). So unless we are considering renaming the whole tree to Category:Reges Romae (which I do not preclude; after all, we've got Category:Augustae, too), I suggest we follow modern English-language conventions.
That kings of Rome is slightly wordier than Roman kings is true, but the main article is
King of Rome, so that article's talk page is the place to raise title length issues. (I don't preclude renaming that article either, e.g. for consistency with
Roman Kingdom; but if consistency in phrasing is not of paramount concern for you personally, then ok). Otherwise, we should simply be implementing
WP:C2D policy.
I've got similar concerns about the phrases "royal" and "royalty" (e.g. see my
User:Nederlandse Leeuw/People from Kievan Rus' category tree#Rationale, where I wrote I have come to the conclusion that the terms "royalty" and "royal houses" are pretty useless for categorisation.) So I am quite open to alternatives you may suggest to that terminology. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 17:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If the choice is between leaving these categories where they are, and moving them to the proposed titles—which by definition it is—then I say "leave them where they are". Wikipedia category policy does not require all categories of a kind to be consistent; factors other than consistency may be just as important or more important—such as, but not limited to accuracy, pointless distinction within monolithic categories, or anachronism. If the policy did say that we must have poor category names in order to ensure consistency, then it would be a bad policy; but it does not so state, so there is no reason to choose poor names just for the sake of consistency.
When you chain together prepositional phrases to make a title wordier, you aren't helping anyone. Just because the main article or category is "Kings of Rome" does not mean that every category concerning them needs to use the phrase "kings of Rome" and avoid "Roman kings". Giving precedence to consistency over natural wording or convenience is the definition of pedantic: we must do a silly thing over and over again because we did something similar in some other case for different reasons.
"Royal families" at least is not a trendy or slangy modernism, as "royals" is. Using "monarchs" when all or virtually all of the entries are going to be kings (or "kings and queens") is silly; the same would be true of emperors. The only justification for doing so would be if those terms would be incorrect for a significant number of entries in a particular list.
And I didn't object to the words "king" or "queen" being English. I objected to a modern concept of distinguishing between "queens regnant" and "queens consort" as one that is anachronistic when applied to Romans, who had no need of such a distinction—and the distinction is not particularly useful as a category in antiquity. Historians treating the rulers of a place over the course of centuries write of "kings and queens", not "kings and queens regnant", ignoring queens consort, nor do they treat all the queens consort separately from the queens regnant. This has nothing to do with what language the terminology comes from; it's about what period and context it's traditionally applied to, and when it's useful to apply it at all. Which in my opinion is not in this case. There may be better titles than the ones these categories have now, but the ones proposed are not them.
P Aculeius (
talk) 19:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, I agree with a lot of things you say we don't need to do. But
Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles is a policy we should be following if there are no exceptional circumstances: Where other considerations are equal, titles should be consistent with other titles in the same field and other titles about the same type of topic. Similarly,
WP:C2C says there normally should be Consistency with established category tree names. You may find that pedantic, but this is official policy. (Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.)
But exceptions are certainly possible: This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree.
I think it is quite evident that the trees
Category:Queens consort,
Category:Queens regnant,
Category:Empresses consort,
Category:Empresses regnant etc. are all well-established (created long before I even started editing English Wikipedia), well-defined (e.g. main articles
queen regnant,
queen consort,
prince consort etc.), and overwhelmingly used within those trees. Compare how
Category:Ancient Greek queens consort was already created on 10 May 2006, years before I even made my first edit. It has lots of subcategories and items. I don't see why we couldn't have Category:Queens consort of Rome and Category:Roman empresses consort for Ancient Romans if we didn't find it anachronistic for Ancient Greeks all this time for over 17 years.
It may well be that Romans had no need of such a distinction. But we are not Romans. We are Wikipedians, living in the 21st century trying to write things down in an English online encyclopaedia, for a 21st-century English-reading audience. I think I've already demonstrated that we have a need for this distinction because some people insist all Byzantine emperors and empresses were "Roman", and because there have been quite some
Category:Byzantine empresses regnant such as
Theodora Porphyrogenita, one can argue some "Roman" empresses were regnant. If you don't believe me, just read
Talk:List of Roman emperors#Splitting proposal again. I'm not suggesting this for no good reason. I want the category trees not just to be consistent, but also clear and
WP:CATSPECIFIC. If you tell me so-and-so was the queen of Fooland, I have no idea whether she was the reigning monarch who formally had all political power, or just the wife of the reigning monarch who had no formal political power at all. We Wikipedians should be clear with our readers what we mean by "queen". Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 01:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Queens Consort": as noted above, the terminology used here is anachronistic, and solves no problems. In the same way that we don't add clarifying brackets like "Ringo Starr (drummer)" to article titles unless there's a reasonable chance of confusion, we shouldn't add unnecessary verbiage to category titles unless the same applies. After all, we could just as reasonably rename "Roman queens consort who lived before 1950", which would equally accurately describe all of them; however, given that there's practically no article that would fit in "Roman queens" but not "Roman queens consort", we should go with the former. Byzantine points well taken but it's pretty well established here that "Roman" doesn't cover the Byzantine empire, and I think any question of changing that is out of scope for this discussion.
UndercoverClassicist (
talk) 07:21, 13 August 2023 (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:Serb diaspora
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:only consensus for Serb.
Nominator's rationale: In short, renaming/merging all to Fooian diaspora for consistency. These 4 are the odd ones out in
Category:Ethnic groups by country, where they don't really belong. Renaming/merging/rescoping them to focus around the Fooian diaspora articles/categories is the best solution.
Support Serbian per nom (it is actually a reverse merge). It is telling that in the two categories are both each other's child and parent category. I am not sure about Romani yet, since they are lacking a "home country".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm, one might consider
Romani people to be a main article as well. In fact the two articles may well be merged.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I thought you had taught me that as nom I cannot propose "reverse merging". ;) The reason why I'm proposing/phrasing it as 'upmerging' but keeping the subcategory's name, has to do with Fayenatic's preference for upmerging rather than downmerging for metadata reasons. If there's a better way of saying that, I'd happily adopt it.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 09:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle Incidentally, I added "Berber" and "Cossack" after you voted. I've completed the nomination process now. It was a bit complicated because each of them required a different solution and rationale, but they should be bundled because what they have in common is being out of place in
Category:Ethnic groups by country (ironic, given that "diaspora" people are in a sense also "out of place"). With these kinds of nominations I often make it up as I go along rather than write everything down before I post the nomination here, but sometimes I take about half an hour to set things up and link to all the proper things, so sometimes people already vote, in this case you. Next time I should probably write it down before posting here. ;) Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 09:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
For next time it may be an idea to use your sandbox page first.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The Berber and Cossack categories also include the "home countries" so the nomination as proposed is inaccurate. I am open to alternative solutions though.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Diaspora: The word "diaspora" is used today in reference to people who identify with a specific geographic location, but currently reside elsewhere. So they do not need to have a "home country" in the sense of a sovereign state that exists right now anno 2023, as long as they trace their origins to a shared geographic location.
So I don't think the word "diaspora" is a problem. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 19:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
PS: But maybe I didn't understand what you meant? We should exclude people living inside this geographic location? A preliminary look seems to suggest that the
Cossack Hetmanate was almost completely located outside the
Pontic–Caspian steppe where the Cossacks supposedly originated from. Which one should we consider their place of origin? Or are we going to exclude all of Ukraine and Russia just to be sure?
For Berbers it is going to be even more complicated.
Template:Berber diaspora links "Berber homeland" to
Tamazgha, but that article states Tamazgha is a fictitious entity and toponym in Berber languages denoting the lands traditionally inhabited by Berbers coined in the 1970s by the Berber Academy in Paris.[
3 (...) The term is used by the Berbers because there was not originally a common word that refers to all the geographical territory inhabited by the
Mazices, since the Berber people live in several Berber countries, and they are not united politically, with many scattered around the World by the Berber diaspora. So, the name has been created to define an Berber nation, and unify the people of the Tamazgha with their original culture.citation needed
This text is interesting, but trying to have it both ways. Either Tamazgha is real, or it is not. Either the Berbers have a "traditional homeland", or they never had one and just made one up a few decades ago. The latter seems more likely. On the one hand, that may solve the issue of whether or not to exclude Berbers living in North Africa from the "diaspora". On the other, we are faced with an even bigger problem that if there is no actual real "homeland", does it even make sense to speak of a "diaspora"? It might not...
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 19:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Those are difficult questions, and the only objective way to get around it (as far as I can see) is to keep the "by country" structure as is.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 02:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nomination. —theMainLogan (t•c) 03:45, 10 August 2023 (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:Hebrew Bible nations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Indirect
WP:C2D per main article
List of minor biblical tribes (mostly tribes mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, but a few New Testament ones as well), indirect
WP:C2C per
Category:Phoenicians in the Hebrew Bible etc. The word "nation" is a modern concept and anachronistic for the ancient world. Moreover, it currently functions as a synonym for both "tribes/peoples" and "countries/states", and that's mixing up two different things. The latter (e.g.
Category:Egypt in the Hebrew Bible) should be moved to
Category:Hebrew Bible geography, which is about countries, states, regions and geology stuff, and should be removed as a parent.
"Nations" is certainly not the right term here. Perhaps tribes, perhaps ethnic groups, perhaps something else.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Normally I would agree with splitting but in this case the category is meant to collect the neighbours of the Hebrew people regardless of whether we have articles about states or about tribes/peoples. A split seems a bit artificial.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Because I don't think that this will be the last one of these that we will see. For example, there's various articles in
Category:Locations in Greek mythology. (And looking at the sub-subcats of
Category:Locations in Indo-European mythology, there's a whole variety of naming going on). And then there's this:
Category:Mythological populated places. Or how about this:
Category:Quranic places. At some point, we will probably be addressing more of these. And while I agree that
politytoponyms are a facet of
geography in the broader sense (per
Category:Four traditions of geography), the common understanding of geography tends to lean more towards physical geography. So i'd like to see if we can follow some current conventions, while also splitting the difference on this by creating a standard, in order to aid in cross-category navigation. Have "geography" as a parent for these kinds of things, and have "States and territories" as a sub-cat. Another way to say this, I guess, is that I'm trying to get ahead of the curve on this and try to
future-proof things a bit, if we can. - jc37 23:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I certainly appreciate that effort to make categories future-proof, which I intend as well. But I'm concerned that "states and territories" may become an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT, as we are talking about a large collection of literature which is difficult to interpret, and has a mix of fact and fiction. Many toponyms in the Hebrew Bible have not yet been identified/located, if they ever will (a classic example of an unresolved toponym is whether Moses received the Ten Commandments on
Mount Sinai or
Mount Horeb? Both? Neither?).
Similarly, which toponyms should we identify as "states" and "territories" as opposed to toponyms which aren't? Is the
Land of Nod a "state", a "territory", or something else (e.g. a village, a city, a desert, a mountain range, a forest, a river? I think the honest answer is: We don't know, and we can't know. (All we know is Cain suddenly "had sex with his wife" who came out of nowhere). And I'm worried we'll get endless debates about this, while I think "geography" will do just fine and not be contentious, and thus future-proof.
WP:AINTBROKE. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I thought I had covered every issue in my rationale. Every non-tribe item can be moved elsewhere in the existing tree. There is no need to create or invent new categories or trees. It's a relatively simple Rename, Re-Parent and Purge. Maybe I made the rationale needlessly complicated and thus invited discussions that got us sidetracked? I don't know...
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 01:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
In your rationale you said "it currently functions as a synonym for both tribes/peoples and countries/states", and that is exactly what the new proposal covers.
Category:Hebrews does not fit because it is circular categorization,
Category:Jews does not fit because that category goes far beyond the Hebrew Bible and while we are at it we can just as well purge
Category:Ancient Israel and Judah too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. In English Bible translations "Tribes" is used mainly of the
tribes of Israel; "nations" refers to Israel's neighbours both large and small, sometimes including Israel. E.g.
here is the Jewish Publication Society translation. I see no benefit for navigation in separating large neighbours into different categories from small.–
FayenaticLondon 07:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
A fair amount of articles is about tribes or peoples though. The category name should cover that too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 8 August 2023 (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.
Fooian American
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:C2B: plural per
WP:SETCAT.
WP:C2D per main article Fooian Americans. Opposed speedy request moving to full discussion.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 16:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Nederlandse Leeuw: these are meant to be parents of history of culture subcategories and articles, as a topic category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle Ok. Is that a reason not to rename these categories? Because all categories about ethnic groups are in plural (Fooians), while categories about individual people are singular + "people" (Fooian people). The current Arabs and Arab people CfR shows this.
@
Nederlandse Leeuw: proposing a rename for this series as topic categories is better done in full discussion. I would expect some opposition.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle Okay. How do we move this to full discussion? Can I do that myself as nom, or should some admin get involved?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 15:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't see why the ethnonym needs to be singular in the catname. In all similar cases they are plural. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 18:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
No, they are all siblings of each other. Why?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 15:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 8 August 2023 (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:Germanic people
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.
Oppose. There are no "Early" Germanic people, unless you believe that there are "Modern" Germanic people—an idea which is very much an abandonded thing of the past. Our main article about the ancient peoples is called "Germanic peoples", not "Early Germanic peoples". There is a firm scholarly consensus about this. Articles entitled "Early Germanic ..." are remnants of a push to keep 19th-century ideologies about contemporary "Germanic peoples" alive. We shouldn't fix the present imbalance of article titles in favor of the wrong choice (= "Early Germanic"). I suggest to flip all earlier changes from "Early Germanic" back to "Germanic". –
Austronesier (
talk) 21:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
While in theory that is a good idea, it is important to realize that we had, not so long ago, "Germanic" container categories with modern country subcategories. And we may still have a few. By adding "early" we can avoid that.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If we do not name it "Early Germanic", but just "Germanic", lots of people will be arguing that "Germanic people(s)" still exist today, and go around creating post-12th-century "Germanic" categories and putting modern items in it based on that mistaken assumption. (Compare how much effort I had to make in order to clean up
North Germanic peoples, where previous and subsequent users repeatedly misinterpreted sources with
WP:SYNTH to say they still exist today, quod non). Other editors and readers who are not informed about the topic may not see how inappropriate such categories are for years, decades even, after they are created.
"Early Germanic" is a well-established remedy to avoid giving the impression that "Germanic people(s)" still exist today and can be categorised as such. The same principle has also been applied elsewhere to Celtic, Slavic, etc. categories. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 17:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I beg to differ. Just because some editors cling to outdated 19/20th century macroethnic concepts does not mean that we should produce inaccuracies. "Early Germanic" is well established for early Germanic (let's say for things documented by Tacitus and Caesar), but not for everything Germanic. Among scholars who still consider "Germanic" a useful label beyond its linguistic use, any meaningful identification of tribes and kingdoms as "Germanic" ends with the Late Antiquity. How is Alaric "Early Germanic"? I'd prefer vetting Germanic-related categories for the addition of nonsense over mislabeling. And besides, misapplying the term "Early Germanic" as proposed will in fact encourage people in their erroneous belief that "Germanic people(s)" still exist today (as in "if Suebi and Goths are early Germanic, who is modern Germanic then? Luxembergers and Afrikaners!"). –
Austronesier (
talk) 20:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I have place a notifcation in
Talk:Germanic_peoples#Categories_for_discussion, since the category directly refers to the article in its definition (without conforming to the temporal range covered by the article by stretching it to the 12th(!) century). –
Austronesier (
talk) 20:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
It's a valid point. I'll try to bring together some literature.
This refutes my assumption that the 12th century was a limit for "Early Germanic" people that was established by CFD consensus. We will have to establish a new consensus on where to put the limit. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 15:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Support it's not logically tight but it's better to do it than to allow future naming wars.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 14:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose As Austronesier said, there are no "modern Germanic peoples", so there is no reason to change the name.--
Ermenrich (
talk) 00:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Remark. In the case of Germanic warriors there are much bigger problems and I tend to think that it simply needs to be removed. The category is dominated by later groups such as
Category:Medieval Austrian knights,
Category:Teutonic Knights,
Category:Medieval German knights,
Category:Norman warriors, and most of the people in
Category:Frankish warriors. But it has also long been used to cover almost any "Germanic" man, such as kings, statesmen, or administrators. The Norman and Frankish groups are particularly strange. It also includes
Category:Heroes in Norse myths and legends. It might be argued that it can be patched up, but I don't see any way for this category to ever really become useful. Medieval knights are best handled differently of course, but ancient sources don't tend to define other people as "warriors", so how can the criteria of this category really ever be set in a useful way?--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 05:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support purging too. This is precisely what happens when not having "early" in the category title 😞
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I can see this; if the criteria for this cat were being described in any RS as a "Germanic person" there would be very few members of these categories indeed. Other definitions and criteria lead to a slippery slope. I'd like to discuss this further before firmly agreeing that the category should be deleted.
—DIYeditor (
talk) 08:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: to be clear, I am not decided about whether simply adding "Early" will improve things in every case, although I accept that this can help in some cases. FWIW I also agree with
Ermenrich and
Austronesier about the "point of principle" involved, but I am not sure that principle is always sufficiently clear in practice, in every case. In short, I deliberately avoided "voting" on that.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 06:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Germanic Warriors. That would be the best solution for that particular one. We do not need to try to find some way of saving all these IMHO.
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 18:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't really know which content is "appropriately" in this category? Can you give more than one example?
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 23:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Some subcategories belong here, e.g. Alemannic, Burgundian, Gothic, as well as most individual articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle and
Nederlandse Leeuw: how do we decide when someone is a "warrior"? Do academics or primary sources use this term? Please name a Burdundian or Gothic "warrior". Please note that this is not a word which gives a very encyclopaedic or neutral impression. Would we call Roman, Greek or modern soldiers, politicians, and administrators "warriors"? Clearly not. The word is more suitable for fantasy fiction.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 14:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Lancaster How about...
Maiolus of Cluny and his entourage? (...) The mistake of the alpine Muslims was not so much the capture of Cluny's early head as it was his release upon payment of a ransom. Majolus was exchanged for gold. This would have been fine commerce were it not for the fact that the abbot was a powerful man, with influence among the Burgundian warrior class. Majolus consequently organized a successful attack on the Muslim stronghold at Freinet (...)Anthony Pym, Negotiating the Frontier: Translators and Intercultures in Hispanic History (2014), p. 33.
Weakened by his wounds, the Burgundian King Gundicharius (1) is barely able to lift his sword to fend off a new attack by mounted Hun warriors. (...) Their highly decorated, loose over-tunics are typical of the Western Germanic warrior elite. (...) The dead Burgundian warrior (5) was unable to use his francisca, or throwing axe, before succumbing to the Hun arrows. His short sword, known as a seax or scramasax, lies on the ground beside him.
So, Do academics or primary sources use this term? Yes. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 14:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry but I really can't follow your reasoning. You are citing WP to show what "academics" say? (We obviously don't just quote anything academics say, only their most serious work, and we select what is encyclopaedic.) Furthermore your examples make no sense. None is currently in the category we are talking about, and I hope they never will be. One is not a person, and the other is a cleric. Why would either ever be called an article about a "warrior"? You mention Hun warriors in a work of art, as if to prove my point. The term "warrior" is for artistic works. When it comes to a "warrior class" as far as I know this is another romantic term. More neutral terms would include "military class". Would we saying that Julius Caesar or Edward III were part of a warrior class, caste, or elite? --
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 20:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
No, I am citing academic books, I'm not citing Wikipedia.
No, Majolus wasn't a warrior himself; academic
Anthony Pym described his entourage as the Burgundian warrior class.
Yes, the examples I bring up are not in the category we are discussing. All I set out to do was demonstrate that academics use terms such as "warrior", "Germanic warrior", "Gothic warrior", "Burgundian warrior" etc. and so these are fit terms for encyclopaedic categorisation.
And this is just the first two examples that came up when I searched for "Gothic warrior" in Google Books. They have the term "Gothic warrior"and variations such as "Viking warrior" and "Frankish warrior" in the titles of their books. Why the Romans are called "infantrymen" and the Goths "warriors" is a legitimate question, but the fact that academics do so shows this is not a neutrality issue, but a commonly accepted academic convention.
If you don't like it, you can always nominate
Category:Gothic warriors for renaming, but I think you are unlikely to convince the community for this reason. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 17:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
There are at least different problems with these warrior categories. One is the one you mention: in effect it is used to imply distinct "tribal" peoples who have no armies or governments, and is as you say non neutral, and misleading. A second one is being forgotten by you because of your use of irrelevant examples that have nothing to do with the category problem we really have. The collective term "Gothic warriors" is a lot more meaningful than the term "warrior" when it is being used to categorize an individual. The kinds of people being categorized this way are kings, statesmen, generals, and so on, not foot soldiers. Remember I asked you for some correct examples of real WP articles in these categories.
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 16:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)reply
When applied to individual people, the criterion is presumay whether they fought in war. That is also what the term "warrior" originally means.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:03, 16 August 2023 (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:Moldovan Ministers of the Interior
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
No, category names should not get ahead of article names. If article names are not harmonized (sometimes interior, sometimes internal affairs, sometimes something else) then category names need not be harmonized.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Your initial alternative was not bad at all. We can/should change it that way but probably in conjunction with sibling categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, that is fine too. We will have to do this in two steps anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support renaming to
Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs of Moldova.
WP:C2C is a nice guideline, but it assumes that the current state of a parent category was arrived at through something other than an editor or editors preference as opposed to driven by content. For instance,
Category:Interior ministers of Albania is not consistent with the office in Albania,
Ministry of Internal Affairs (Albania); looking at
Flamur Noka that Ministry is referred to in the text as "Minister of the Interior" but links to
Ministry of Interior Affairs (Albania), a redirect to the current title (Internal Affairs). What I see is potentially an effort to homogenize the treatment of the agency toward "Ministry of the Interior" when that is certainly not the native name in a number of countries. My preference would be to be consistent with the relevant government's terminology. Further, '... (Moldova)' and 'Moldovan ...' are at odds with the format of most (not all) other such categories, only a couple of which use the country name parenthetically (referring to
Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs by country, instances being Liberia and Pakistan), this being an alternate take on
WP:C2C. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:06, 17 August 2023 (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.
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:Renaming according to Option 1 User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 1 We are interested in location ("in country X"), not ownership ("of country X"), because most of these countries didn't even exist at the time these treasure troves were buried, so they had no ownership. The treasure troves were just found in country X.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 20:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I have just tagged all of these and notified the creators. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The House of Black members
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 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.
Keep. I don't think this quite fits
WP:SHAREDNAME, which is for unrelated subjects that incidentally share a name (like people with the surname Jackson for example). In this case, all the subjects are related because they're biological subjects named after a specific person. They aren't all named "Obama" incidentally and unrelatedly, they're connected to one particular person named Obama. Furthermore, the connection to Barack Obama is a defining feature as much of the coverage surrounding these species relates to their names.
Di (they-them) (
talk) 02:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, the articles in the category are completely unrelated to each other (apart from the fact that they share Barack Obama's name).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:19, 8 August 2023 (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.
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.
Yes @
Joeykai, I failed to check the Blackburn Rovers L.F.C. category also exists.
Iggy (
Swan) (
Contribs) 09:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Move all they all look to meet
WP:C2D, consistency with main article.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 07:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
GiantSnowman 18:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Move all per C2D, match parent article name.
GiantSnowman 18:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment there was a missing dot after the C in both the redlink targets, which I have now amended. Hope that's the right way to go about it.
Crowsus (
talk) 14:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Category tags updated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 01:37, 8 August 2023 (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:Species by name
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 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:Featured articles needing translation from Swiss German Wikipedia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as "Swiss German Wikipedia" so there are no featured articles, and there is nothing to translate. Swiss German is not a written language. Not sure what to do with the handful of articles in that category now.
Mathglot (
talk) 00:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that rename would make sense. I wouldn't be too hasty about the the issue, though:
17,293 "from French Wikipedia" <==>
671 "from the French Wikipedia"
16,655 "from German Wikipedia" <==>
898 "from the German Wikipedia"
8,174 "from Spanish Wikipedia" <==>
351 "from the Spanish Wikipedia"
I think what you might be noticing, is the need to be definite when there's more than one item in the class, as is the case with a few language-Wikipedia pairs where at least one of the languages has a modifier, like
Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia (
arz:,
#10) and
Arabic Wikipedia (
ar:, #17); do you find yourself needing the definite article more for the former? I do. That might be the case for "Swiss German Wikipedia", if we had one, too. Other paired examples are minor, like
Haitian Creole Wikipedia (
ht:, #89) vs.
Guianan Creole Wikipedia (
gcr:, #289), where I seem to want to use the with both of them, implying an answer to the unstated question, "Which Creole Wikipedia?"
Mathglot (
talk) 06:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The problem with your search is that it is mostly reflecting the existing names of the categories, which don't use "the". And
Alemannic Wikipedia says "The Alemannic Wikipedia is ..."
* Pppery *it has begun... 13:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The search reflects usage in articles, Draft, Wikipedia, and Help; categories are excluded. But this is a sideshow, admittedly, and I agree with the main thrust of your comment above.
Mathglot (
talk) 07:33, 9 August 2023 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale (Queens of Rome): More
WP:CATSPECIFIC. All were queens consort. Cultural depictions ditto.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale (Female Roman monarchs): None were "monarchs" i.e. queens or empresses regnant. Only grandchild
Category:Byzantine empresses regnant counts (edit: I've removed
Category:Roman empresses as a parent of
Category:Byzantine empresses, and instead made them siblings), but the overall grouping "Female Roman monarchs" does not make sense and is misleading. Edit: Upmerging per Marcocapelle rather than deleting is a better idea.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale (Cultural depictions of Roman monarchs): Redundant layer in between which is incorrect for queens consort of Rome and Roman empresses consort.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale (Roman empresses): More
WP:CATSPECIFIC. All were empresses consort. Cultural depictions ditto.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
You're right, I've changed Deleting to Upmerging. The cultural depictions one will practically be a delete if upmerged, so I think I can leave that unchanged as nominated. Upmerging is also preferable for metadata reasons.
Heh, I haven't really taken your advice of yesterday to write down complex nominations first before posting them here, have I? Oops...
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Then there are the Augustae (
List of Augustae,
Category:Augustae), a broad group of women who were somehow related to male Roman emperors, either as wives/consorts/spouses, mothers, grandmothers, sisters, daughters, or otherwise. Although many of them wielded considerable political influence, including the ability to enthrone their own sons, grandsons, brothers etc. I don't think we can formally describe them as "rulers", "monarchs", "empresses regnant", "co-rulers" or "co-regents" or anything like that.
The
List of Roman and Byzantine empresses is pretty clear that there were no ancient Roman empresses regnant, and only a handful ruled as empresses regnant, governing the empire in their own right without a husband; the latter were all Byzantine, starting with
Irene of Athens in 780 (Byzantine Empress co-regent 780–797; Empress regnant 797–802). I do not think the Augustae should be in the empresses regnant tree, and not in the empresses consort tree either unless they were actually married to the male Roman emperor.
Zenobia is the only 3rd-century woman regent and can't be given her own category, it would be a SMALLCAT.
I only ran into all these Roman queens and kings because I was trying to solve this 3rd-century women rulers stuff. You could really help me if you gave me advice on how to do this. Thanks!
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 08:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 1 is not accurate, option 2 is acceptable but ugly, so that makes option 3 the winner. I agree that Augustae should not be considered monarchs regnant.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment: these suggestions do not look like improvements to me. I'll try to be concise in my explanations.
Since all Roman queens and empresses were consorts, it makes no sense to change the titles of the categories to distinguish them from non-existent Roman queens and empresses regnant. Besides, the terminology of "queens consort" versus "queens regnant" is modern and sounds anachronistic applied to Romans. Even if it weren't, most lists of queens or empresses aren't divided based on which were consorts and which were regnant. I'm not saying the difference is meaningless; I'm saying that it's not how they're usually grouped, and if there's only one kind then applying an anachronistic label doesn't help anyone.
"Kings of Rome" sounds slightly better than "Roman kings", but it makes the category titles wordier, and that makes a difference in Wikipedia. There's no difference in meaning, and consistency in phrasing is not of paramount concern. Simpler category titles are generally better; taking a five-word category and making it six words, including two consecutive two-word prepositional phrases using the same preposition ("of kings of Rome"), is not an improvement.
"Female Roman monarchs" is dubious enough—none of them really "reigned", or possessed any authority except that derived from their husbands, so they really weren't "monarchs". But "royals" is, as Wiktionary clearly states, informal, and glaringly modern; you won't normally find Romans described as "royals", or even "royalty", a word we usually associate with medieval/modern kings and queens, not Romans. Let's try not to make categories for figures from Roman history sound anachronistic. All Roman monarchs were either kings or emperors; if we must use "monarchs" simply in order to include Roman queens or empresses in the same categories, at least let's not apply terminology that doesn't sound like it should apply to Romans at all.
P Aculeius (
talk) 14:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
P Aculeius: Thanks for your well-thought-out comment. I agree with a lot of what you say, but have some remarks and explanations.
I agree all ancient Roman empresses were consorts, but just to be clear to our fellow editors and readers that none of them were regnant, adding "consort" makes sense from the point of view of the entire category trees.
I think it's evident that confusion may arise easily. Categories should be
WP:CATSPECIFIC, that is why I think adding 'consort' is a good idea in many cases to avoid confusion.
One may argue that the terminology of "queens consort" versus "queens regnant" is modern and sounds anachronistic applied to Romans, and I don't disagree. But so are the very words queen and king themselves; they are modern English words which weren't used in Rome in the 8th to 6th century BCE either. (Funnily enough, the word wikt:consort is actually Latin in origin, but I digress). So unless we are considering renaming the whole tree to Category:Reges Romae (which I do not preclude; after all, we've got Category:Augustae, too), I suggest we follow modern English-language conventions.
That kings of Rome is slightly wordier than Roman kings is true, but the main article is
King of Rome, so that article's talk page is the place to raise title length issues. (I don't preclude renaming that article either, e.g. for consistency with
Roman Kingdom; but if consistency in phrasing is not of paramount concern for you personally, then ok). Otherwise, we should simply be implementing
WP:C2D policy.
I've got similar concerns about the phrases "royal" and "royalty" (e.g. see my
User:Nederlandse Leeuw/People from Kievan Rus' category tree#Rationale, where I wrote I have come to the conclusion that the terms "royalty" and "royal houses" are pretty useless for categorisation.) So I am quite open to alternatives you may suggest to that terminology. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 17:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If the choice is between leaving these categories where they are, and moving them to the proposed titles—which by definition it is—then I say "leave them where they are". Wikipedia category policy does not require all categories of a kind to be consistent; factors other than consistency may be just as important or more important—such as, but not limited to accuracy, pointless distinction within monolithic categories, or anachronism. If the policy did say that we must have poor category names in order to ensure consistency, then it would be a bad policy; but it does not so state, so there is no reason to choose poor names just for the sake of consistency.
When you chain together prepositional phrases to make a title wordier, you aren't helping anyone. Just because the main article or category is "Kings of Rome" does not mean that every category concerning them needs to use the phrase "kings of Rome" and avoid "Roman kings". Giving precedence to consistency over natural wording or convenience is the definition of pedantic: we must do a silly thing over and over again because we did something similar in some other case for different reasons.
"Royal families" at least is not a trendy or slangy modernism, as "royals" is. Using "monarchs" when all or virtually all of the entries are going to be kings (or "kings and queens") is silly; the same would be true of emperors. The only justification for doing so would be if those terms would be incorrect for a significant number of entries in a particular list.
And I didn't object to the words "king" or "queen" being English. I objected to a modern concept of distinguishing between "queens regnant" and "queens consort" as one that is anachronistic when applied to Romans, who had no need of such a distinction—and the distinction is not particularly useful as a category in antiquity. Historians treating the rulers of a place over the course of centuries write of "kings and queens", not "kings and queens regnant", ignoring queens consort, nor do they treat all the queens consort separately from the queens regnant. This has nothing to do with what language the terminology comes from; it's about what period and context it's traditionally applied to, and when it's useful to apply it at all. Which in my opinion is not in this case. There may be better titles than the ones these categories have now, but the ones proposed are not them.
P Aculeius (
talk) 19:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, I agree with a lot of things you say we don't need to do. But
Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles is a policy we should be following if there are no exceptional circumstances: Where other considerations are equal, titles should be consistent with other titles in the same field and other titles about the same type of topic. Similarly,
WP:C2C says there normally should be Consistency with established category tree names. You may find that pedantic, but this is official policy. (Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.)
But exceptions are certainly possible: This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree.
I think it is quite evident that the trees
Category:Queens consort,
Category:Queens regnant,
Category:Empresses consort,
Category:Empresses regnant etc. are all well-established (created long before I even started editing English Wikipedia), well-defined (e.g. main articles
queen regnant,
queen consort,
prince consort etc.), and overwhelmingly used within those trees. Compare how
Category:Ancient Greek queens consort was already created on 10 May 2006, years before I even made my first edit. It has lots of subcategories and items. I don't see why we couldn't have Category:Queens consort of Rome and Category:Roman empresses consort for Ancient Romans if we didn't find it anachronistic for Ancient Greeks all this time for over 17 years.
It may well be that Romans had no need of such a distinction. But we are not Romans. We are Wikipedians, living in the 21st century trying to write things down in an English online encyclopaedia, for a 21st-century English-reading audience. I think I've already demonstrated that we have a need for this distinction because some people insist all Byzantine emperors and empresses were "Roman", and because there have been quite some
Category:Byzantine empresses regnant such as
Theodora Porphyrogenita, one can argue some "Roman" empresses were regnant. If you don't believe me, just read
Talk:List of Roman emperors#Splitting proposal again. I'm not suggesting this for no good reason. I want the category trees not just to be consistent, but also clear and
WP:CATSPECIFIC. If you tell me so-and-so was the queen of Fooland, I have no idea whether she was the reigning monarch who formally had all political power, or just the wife of the reigning monarch who had no formal political power at all. We Wikipedians should be clear with our readers what we mean by "queen". Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 01:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Queens Consort": as noted above, the terminology used here is anachronistic, and solves no problems. In the same way that we don't add clarifying brackets like "Ringo Starr (drummer)" to article titles unless there's a reasonable chance of confusion, we shouldn't add unnecessary verbiage to category titles unless the same applies. After all, we could just as reasonably rename "Roman queens consort who lived before 1950", which would equally accurately describe all of them; however, given that there's practically no article that would fit in "Roman queens" but not "Roman queens consort", we should go with the former. Byzantine points well taken but it's pretty well established here that "Roman" doesn't cover the Byzantine empire, and I think any question of changing that is out of scope for this discussion.
UndercoverClassicist (
talk) 07:21, 13 August 2023 (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:Serb diaspora
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:only consensus for Serb.
Nominator's rationale: In short, renaming/merging all to Fooian diaspora for consistency. These 4 are the odd ones out in
Category:Ethnic groups by country, where they don't really belong. Renaming/merging/rescoping them to focus around the Fooian diaspora articles/categories is the best solution.
Support Serbian per nom (it is actually a reverse merge). It is telling that in the two categories are both each other's child and parent category. I am not sure about Romani yet, since they are lacking a "home country".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm, one might consider
Romani people to be a main article as well. In fact the two articles may well be merged.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I thought you had taught me that as nom I cannot propose "reverse merging". ;) The reason why I'm proposing/phrasing it as 'upmerging' but keeping the subcategory's name, has to do with Fayenatic's preference for upmerging rather than downmerging for metadata reasons. If there's a better way of saying that, I'd happily adopt it.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 09:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle Incidentally, I added "Berber" and "Cossack" after you voted. I've completed the nomination process now. It was a bit complicated because each of them required a different solution and rationale, but they should be bundled because what they have in common is being out of place in
Category:Ethnic groups by country (ironic, given that "diaspora" people are in a sense also "out of place"). With these kinds of nominations I often make it up as I go along rather than write everything down before I post the nomination here, but sometimes I take about half an hour to set things up and link to all the proper things, so sometimes people already vote, in this case you. Next time I should probably write it down before posting here. ;) Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 09:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
For next time it may be an idea to use your sandbox page first.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The Berber and Cossack categories also include the "home countries" so the nomination as proposed is inaccurate. I am open to alternative solutions though.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Diaspora: The word "diaspora" is used today in reference to people who identify with a specific geographic location, but currently reside elsewhere. So they do not need to have a "home country" in the sense of a sovereign state that exists right now anno 2023, as long as they trace their origins to a shared geographic location.
So I don't think the word "diaspora" is a problem. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 19:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
PS: But maybe I didn't understand what you meant? We should exclude people living inside this geographic location? A preliminary look seems to suggest that the
Cossack Hetmanate was almost completely located outside the
Pontic–Caspian steppe where the Cossacks supposedly originated from. Which one should we consider their place of origin? Or are we going to exclude all of Ukraine and Russia just to be sure?
For Berbers it is going to be even more complicated.
Template:Berber diaspora links "Berber homeland" to
Tamazgha, but that article states Tamazgha is a fictitious entity and toponym in Berber languages denoting the lands traditionally inhabited by Berbers coined in the 1970s by the Berber Academy in Paris.[
3 (...) The term is used by the Berbers because there was not originally a common word that refers to all the geographical territory inhabited by the
Mazices, since the Berber people live in several Berber countries, and they are not united politically, with many scattered around the World by the Berber diaspora. So, the name has been created to define an Berber nation, and unify the people of the Tamazgha with their original culture.citation needed
This text is interesting, but trying to have it both ways. Either Tamazgha is real, or it is not. Either the Berbers have a "traditional homeland", or they never had one and just made one up a few decades ago. The latter seems more likely. On the one hand, that may solve the issue of whether or not to exclude Berbers living in North Africa from the "diaspora". On the other, we are faced with an even bigger problem that if there is no actual real "homeland", does it even make sense to speak of a "diaspora"? It might not...
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 19:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Those are difficult questions, and the only objective way to get around it (as far as I can see) is to keep the "by country" structure as is.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 02:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nomination. —theMainLogan (t•c) 03:45, 10 August 2023 (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:Hebrew Bible nations
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Indirect
WP:C2D per main article
List of minor biblical tribes (mostly tribes mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, but a few New Testament ones as well), indirect
WP:C2C per
Category:Phoenicians in the Hebrew Bible etc. The word "nation" is a modern concept and anachronistic for the ancient world. Moreover, it currently functions as a synonym for both "tribes/peoples" and "countries/states", and that's mixing up two different things. The latter (e.g.
Category:Egypt in the Hebrew Bible) should be moved to
Category:Hebrew Bible geography, which is about countries, states, regions and geology stuff, and should be removed as a parent.
"Nations" is certainly not the right term here. Perhaps tribes, perhaps ethnic groups, perhaps something else.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Normally I would agree with splitting but in this case the category is meant to collect the neighbours of the Hebrew people regardless of whether we have articles about states or about tribes/peoples. A split seems a bit artificial.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Because I don't think that this will be the last one of these that we will see. For example, there's various articles in
Category:Locations in Greek mythology. (And looking at the sub-subcats of
Category:Locations in Indo-European mythology, there's a whole variety of naming going on). And then there's this:
Category:Mythological populated places. Or how about this:
Category:Quranic places. At some point, we will probably be addressing more of these. And while I agree that
politytoponyms are a facet of
geography in the broader sense (per
Category:Four traditions of geography), the common understanding of geography tends to lean more towards physical geography. So i'd like to see if we can follow some current conventions, while also splitting the difference on this by creating a standard, in order to aid in cross-category navigation. Have "geography" as a parent for these kinds of things, and have "States and territories" as a sub-cat. Another way to say this, I guess, is that I'm trying to get ahead of the curve on this and try to
future-proof things a bit, if we can. - jc37 23:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I certainly appreciate that effort to make categories future-proof, which I intend as well. But I'm concerned that "states and territories" may become an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT, as we are talking about a large collection of literature which is difficult to interpret, and has a mix of fact and fiction. Many toponyms in the Hebrew Bible have not yet been identified/located, if they ever will (a classic example of an unresolved toponym is whether Moses received the Ten Commandments on
Mount Sinai or
Mount Horeb? Both? Neither?).
Similarly, which toponyms should we identify as "states" and "territories" as opposed to toponyms which aren't? Is the
Land of Nod a "state", a "territory", or something else (e.g. a village, a city, a desert, a mountain range, a forest, a river? I think the honest answer is: We don't know, and we can't know. (All we know is Cain suddenly "had sex with his wife" who came out of nowhere). And I'm worried we'll get endless debates about this, while I think "geography" will do just fine and not be contentious, and thus future-proof.
WP:AINTBROKE. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 22:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I thought I had covered every issue in my rationale. Every non-tribe item can be moved elsewhere in the existing tree. There is no need to create or invent new categories or trees. It's a relatively simple Rename, Re-Parent and Purge. Maybe I made the rationale needlessly complicated and thus invited discussions that got us sidetracked? I don't know...
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 01:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
In your rationale you said "it currently functions as a synonym for both tribes/peoples and countries/states", and that is exactly what the new proposal covers.
Category:Hebrews does not fit because it is circular categorization,
Category:Jews does not fit because that category goes far beyond the Hebrew Bible and while we are at it we can just as well purge
Category:Ancient Israel and Judah too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. In English Bible translations "Tribes" is used mainly of the
tribes of Israel; "nations" refers to Israel's neighbours both large and small, sometimes including Israel. E.g.
here is the Jewish Publication Society translation. I see no benefit for navigation in separating large neighbours into different categories from small.–
FayenaticLondon 07:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
A fair amount of articles is about tribes or peoples though. The category name should cover that too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 8 August 2023 (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.
Fooian American
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:C2B: plural per
WP:SETCAT.
WP:C2D per main article Fooian Americans. Opposed speedy request moving to full discussion.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 16:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Nederlandse Leeuw: these are meant to be parents of history of culture subcategories and articles, as a topic category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle Ok. Is that a reason not to rename these categories? Because all categories about ethnic groups are in plural (Fooians), while categories about individual people are singular + "people" (Fooian people). The current Arabs and Arab people CfR shows this.
@
Nederlandse Leeuw: proposing a rename for this series as topic categories is better done in full discussion. I would expect some opposition.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle Okay. How do we move this to full discussion? Can I do that myself as nom, or should some admin get involved?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 15:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't see why the ethnonym needs to be singular in the catname. In all similar cases they are plural. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 18:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
No, they are all siblings of each other. Why?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 15:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 8 August 2023 (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:Germanic people
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.
Oppose. There are no "Early" Germanic people, unless you believe that there are "Modern" Germanic people—an idea which is very much an abandonded thing of the past. Our main article about the ancient peoples is called "Germanic peoples", not "Early Germanic peoples". There is a firm scholarly consensus about this. Articles entitled "Early Germanic ..." are remnants of a push to keep 19th-century ideologies about contemporary "Germanic peoples" alive. We shouldn't fix the present imbalance of article titles in favor of the wrong choice (= "Early Germanic"). I suggest to flip all earlier changes from "Early Germanic" back to "Germanic". –
Austronesier (
talk) 21:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
While in theory that is a good idea, it is important to realize that we had, not so long ago, "Germanic" container categories with modern country subcategories. And we may still have a few. By adding "early" we can avoid that.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If we do not name it "Early Germanic", but just "Germanic", lots of people will be arguing that "Germanic people(s)" still exist today, and go around creating post-12th-century "Germanic" categories and putting modern items in it based on that mistaken assumption. (Compare how much effort I had to make in order to clean up
North Germanic peoples, where previous and subsequent users repeatedly misinterpreted sources with
WP:SYNTH to say they still exist today, quod non). Other editors and readers who are not informed about the topic may not see how inappropriate such categories are for years, decades even, after they are created.
"Early Germanic" is a well-established remedy to avoid giving the impression that "Germanic people(s)" still exist today and can be categorised as such. The same principle has also been applied elsewhere to Celtic, Slavic, etc. categories. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 17:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I beg to differ. Just because some editors cling to outdated 19/20th century macroethnic concepts does not mean that we should produce inaccuracies. "Early Germanic" is well established for early Germanic (let's say for things documented by Tacitus and Caesar), but not for everything Germanic. Among scholars who still consider "Germanic" a useful label beyond its linguistic use, any meaningful identification of tribes and kingdoms as "Germanic" ends with the Late Antiquity. How is Alaric "Early Germanic"? I'd prefer vetting Germanic-related categories for the addition of nonsense over mislabeling. And besides, misapplying the term "Early Germanic" as proposed will in fact encourage people in their erroneous belief that "Germanic people(s)" still exist today (as in "if Suebi and Goths are early Germanic, who is modern Germanic then? Luxembergers and Afrikaners!"). –
Austronesier (
talk) 20:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I have place a notifcation in
Talk:Germanic_peoples#Categories_for_discussion, since the category directly refers to the article in its definition (without conforming to the temporal range covered by the article by stretching it to the 12th(!) century). –
Austronesier (
talk) 20:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
It's a valid point. I'll try to bring together some literature.
This refutes my assumption that the 12th century was a limit for "Early Germanic" people that was established by CFD consensus. We will have to establish a new consensus on where to put the limit. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 15:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Support it's not logically tight but it's better to do it than to allow future naming wars.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 14:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose As Austronesier said, there are no "modern Germanic peoples", so there is no reason to change the name.--
Ermenrich (
talk) 00:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Remark. In the case of Germanic warriors there are much bigger problems and I tend to think that it simply needs to be removed. The category is dominated by later groups such as
Category:Medieval Austrian knights,
Category:Teutonic Knights,
Category:Medieval German knights,
Category:Norman warriors, and most of the people in
Category:Frankish warriors. But it has also long been used to cover almost any "Germanic" man, such as kings, statesmen, or administrators. The Norman and Frankish groups are particularly strange. It also includes
Category:Heroes in Norse myths and legends. It might be argued that it can be patched up, but I don't see any way for this category to ever really become useful. Medieval knights are best handled differently of course, but ancient sources don't tend to define other people as "warriors", so how can the criteria of this category really ever be set in a useful way?--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 05:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support purging too. This is precisely what happens when not having "early" in the category title 😞
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I can see this; if the criteria for this cat were being described in any RS as a "Germanic person" there would be very few members of these categories indeed. Other definitions and criteria lead to a slippery slope. I'd like to discuss this further before firmly agreeing that the category should be deleted.
—DIYeditor (
talk) 08:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: to be clear, I am not decided about whether simply adding "Early" will improve things in every case, although I accept that this can help in some cases. FWIW I also agree with
Ermenrich and
Austronesier about the "point of principle" involved, but I am not sure that principle is always sufficiently clear in practice, in every case. In short, I deliberately avoided "voting" on that.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 06:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Germanic Warriors. That would be the best solution for that particular one. We do not need to try to find some way of saving all these IMHO.
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 18:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't really know which content is "appropriately" in this category? Can you give more than one example?
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 23:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Some subcategories belong here, e.g. Alemannic, Burgundian, Gothic, as well as most individual articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle and
Nederlandse Leeuw: how do we decide when someone is a "warrior"? Do academics or primary sources use this term? Please name a Burdundian or Gothic "warrior". Please note that this is not a word which gives a very encyclopaedic or neutral impression. Would we call Roman, Greek or modern soldiers, politicians, and administrators "warriors"? Clearly not. The word is more suitable for fantasy fiction.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 14:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Lancaster How about...
Maiolus of Cluny and his entourage? (...) The mistake of the alpine Muslims was not so much the capture of Cluny's early head as it was his release upon payment of a ransom. Majolus was exchanged for gold. This would have been fine commerce were it not for the fact that the abbot was a powerful man, with influence among the Burgundian warrior class. Majolus consequently organized a successful attack on the Muslim stronghold at Freinet (...)Anthony Pym, Negotiating the Frontier: Translators and Intercultures in Hispanic History (2014), p. 33.
Weakened by his wounds, the Burgundian King Gundicharius (1) is barely able to lift his sword to fend off a new attack by mounted Hun warriors. (...) Their highly decorated, loose over-tunics are typical of the Western Germanic warrior elite. (...) The dead Burgundian warrior (5) was unable to use his francisca, or throwing axe, before succumbing to the Hun arrows. His short sword, known as a seax or scramasax, lies on the ground beside him.
So, Do academics or primary sources use this term? Yes. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 14:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry but I really can't follow your reasoning. You are citing WP to show what "academics" say? (We obviously don't just quote anything academics say, only their most serious work, and we select what is encyclopaedic.) Furthermore your examples make no sense. None is currently in the category we are talking about, and I hope they never will be. One is not a person, and the other is a cleric. Why would either ever be called an article about a "warrior"? You mention Hun warriors in a work of art, as if to prove my point. The term "warrior" is for artistic works. When it comes to a "warrior class" as far as I know this is another romantic term. More neutral terms would include "military class". Would we saying that Julius Caesar or Edward III were part of a warrior class, caste, or elite? --
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 20:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
No, I am citing academic books, I'm not citing Wikipedia.
No, Majolus wasn't a warrior himself; academic
Anthony Pym described his entourage as the Burgundian warrior class.
Yes, the examples I bring up are not in the category we are discussing. All I set out to do was demonstrate that academics use terms such as "warrior", "Germanic warrior", "Gothic warrior", "Burgundian warrior" etc. and so these are fit terms for encyclopaedic categorisation.
And this is just the first two examples that came up when I searched for "Gothic warrior" in Google Books. They have the term "Gothic warrior"and variations such as "Viking warrior" and "Frankish warrior" in the titles of their books. Why the Romans are called "infantrymen" and the Goths "warriors" is a legitimate question, but the fact that academics do so shows this is not a neutrality issue, but a commonly accepted academic convention.
If you don't like it, you can always nominate
Category:Gothic warriors for renaming, but I think you are unlikely to convince the community for this reason. Cheers,
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 17:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
There are at least different problems with these warrior categories. One is the one you mention: in effect it is used to imply distinct "tribal" peoples who have no armies or governments, and is as you say non neutral, and misleading. A second one is being forgotten by you because of your use of irrelevant examples that have nothing to do with the category problem we really have. The collective term "Gothic warriors" is a lot more meaningful than the term "warrior" when it is being used to categorize an individual. The kinds of people being categorized this way are kings, statesmen, generals, and so on, not foot soldiers. Remember I asked you for some correct examples of real WP articles in these categories.
Andrew Lancaster (
talk) 16:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)reply
When applied to individual people, the criterion is presumay whether they fought in war. That is also what the term "warrior" originally means.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:03, 16 August 2023 (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:Moldovan Ministers of the Interior
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)reply
No, category names should not get ahead of article names. If article names are not harmonized (sometimes interior, sometimes internal affairs, sometimes something else) then category names need not be harmonized.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Your initial alternative was not bad at all. We can/should change it that way but probably in conjunction with sibling categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, that is fine too. We will have to do this in two steps anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support renaming to
Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs of Moldova.
WP:C2C is a nice guideline, but it assumes that the current state of a parent category was arrived at through something other than an editor or editors preference as opposed to driven by content. For instance,
Category:Interior ministers of Albania is not consistent with the office in Albania,
Ministry of Internal Affairs (Albania); looking at
Flamur Noka that Ministry is referred to in the text as "Minister of the Interior" but links to
Ministry of Interior Affairs (Albania), a redirect to the current title (Internal Affairs). What I see is potentially an effort to homogenize the treatment of the agency toward "Ministry of the Interior" when that is certainly not the native name in a number of countries. My preference would be to be consistent with the relevant government's terminology. Further, '... (Moldova)' and 'Moldovan ...' are at odds with the format of most (not all) other such categories, only a couple of which use the country name parenthetically (referring to
Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs by country, instances being Liberia and Pakistan), this being an alternate take on
WP:C2C. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:06, 17 August 2023 (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.
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:Renaming according to Option 1 User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Option 1 We are interested in location ("in country X"), not ownership ("of country X"), because most of these countries didn't even exist at the time these treasure troves were buried, so they had no ownership. The treasure troves were just found in country X.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 20:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I have just tagged all of these and notified the creators. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The House of Black members
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 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.
Keep. I don't think this quite fits
WP:SHAREDNAME, which is for unrelated subjects that incidentally share a name (like people with the surname Jackson for example). In this case, all the subjects are related because they're biological subjects named after a specific person. They aren't all named "Obama" incidentally and unrelatedly, they're connected to one particular person named Obama. Furthermore, the connection to Barack Obama is a defining feature as much of the coverage surrounding these species relates to their names.
Di (they-them) (
talk) 02:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, the articles in the category are completely unrelated to each other (apart from the fact that they share Barack Obama's name).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:19, 8 August 2023 (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.
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.
Yes @
Joeykai, I failed to check the Blackburn Rovers L.F.C. category also exists.
Iggy (
Swan) (
Contribs) 09:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Move all they all look to meet
WP:C2D, consistency with main article.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 07:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
GiantSnowman 18:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Move all per C2D, match parent article name.
GiantSnowman 18:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment there was a missing dot after the C in both the redlink targets, which I have now amended. Hope that's the right way to go about it.
Crowsus (
talk) 14:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Category tags updated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 01:37, 8 August 2023 (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:Species by name
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 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:Featured articles needing translation from Swiss German Wikipedia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as "Swiss German Wikipedia" so there are no featured articles, and there is nothing to translate. Swiss German is not a written language. Not sure what to do with the handful of articles in that category now.
Mathglot (
talk) 00:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that rename would make sense. I wouldn't be too hasty about the the issue, though:
17,293 "from French Wikipedia" <==>
671 "from the French Wikipedia"
16,655 "from German Wikipedia" <==>
898 "from the German Wikipedia"
8,174 "from Spanish Wikipedia" <==>
351 "from the Spanish Wikipedia"
I think what you might be noticing, is the need to be definite when there's more than one item in the class, as is the case with a few language-Wikipedia pairs where at least one of the languages has a modifier, like
Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia (
arz:,
#10) and
Arabic Wikipedia (
ar:, #17); do you find yourself needing the definite article more for the former? I do. That might be the case for "Swiss German Wikipedia", if we had one, too. Other paired examples are minor, like
Haitian Creole Wikipedia (
ht:, #89) vs.
Guianan Creole Wikipedia (
gcr:, #289), where I seem to want to use the with both of them, implying an answer to the unstated question, "Which Creole Wikipedia?"
Mathglot (
talk) 06:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The problem with your search is that it is mostly reflecting the existing names of the categories, which don't use "the". And
Alemannic Wikipedia says "The Alemannic Wikipedia is ..."
* Pppery *it has begun... 13:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The search reflects usage in articles, Draft, Wikipedia, and Help; categories are excluded. But this is a sideshow, admittedly, and I agree with the main thrust of your comment above.
Mathglot (
talk) 07:33, 9 August 2023 (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.