If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.
If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.
Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:
*[[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
If the current name
should be redirected rather than deleted, use:
* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use:
* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
Remember to tag the category page with:{{
subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 09:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 194 open requests (refresh).
Administrators and
page movers: Do not use the "Move" tab to move categories listed here!Categories
are processed following the 48-hour waiting period and are moved by a bot.
Current requests
Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).
It is very unusual to include Egypt in Maghreb, and the article does not discuss Egyptian Jews in detail.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose all word order changes for the political office, or changes from "Ministers for [dept]" to "Ministers of [dept]", unless demonstrated to be local usage. Especially opposing "Ministers of Finance" to "Finance ministers" – I recently renamed these according to local usage; where there is no article for the position in the country, I followed the majority usage in the biography articles. They do not have to follow the wording "Finance ministers" from the parent
Category:Finance ministers by country. Note: I am not opposing decapitalisation, nor moving to "of [Country]", which can go ahead speedily. –
FayenaticLondon 20:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: Wasn't aware, sorry for the extra work these noms have made. Thought I was helping out but you're two steps ahead of me!
Hey man im josh (
talk) 20:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Just noting that I removed all of the nominations I created that were opposed by Fayenatic London. I did make more that were within their scope of what was okay.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 19:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In some countries the list article is "Finance Minister (Country)", in others "Minister of Finance (Country)" or "Minister for Finance (Country)", or "Minister for Economy" etc. The category name should match the post name as described in the country, but in lower case according to
MOS:JOBTITLE. –
FayenaticLondon 12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We don't need to move to full in order to do that; I could withdraw this nom and create the first one myself out of the second.
NLeeuw (
talk) 22:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy. Female versus women is not clear cut, especially not under C2C.
Mason (
talk) 00:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose There is no consensus on "women" versus "female" as an adjective, and existing cats should generally not be renamed.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
NLeeuw, for future reference, do you have a source for what you said?
TSventon (
talk) 22:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is not very natural language. It is inconsistent with the same level categories "Classical Latin-language writers", "Latin-language writers of late antiquity", "Medieval Latin-language writers", "Old Latin-language writers", and "Renaissance Latin-language writers".
This is because "Neo-Latin" etc are actually styles, that are associated with a period.
Jim Killock(talk) 05:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But these are not "by period"; they are "by style". This especially true for Neo-Latin. The periods and styles often coincide, but not precisely. Better would be to follow the styles defined in the articles, so:
I've explained elsewhere that the periods and styles are not precise. For instance, a writer in the Renaissance may have employed Medieval Latin, or Renaissance Latin; and some may define their Renaissance Latin as Neo-Latin. These are stylistic boundaries which roughly match period, but it is the style, not the period, that determines their classifications.
Jim Killock(talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JimKillock I know.
Category:14th-century Neo-Latin writers were a thing; it's good that you created that category. But I don't see how it would create a problem if we renamed it Category:14th-century writers in Neo-Latin. If anything, it is even clearer that "14th-century" refers to "writers" and not to "Neo-Latin", so that we shouldn't assume that the kind of Latin they wrote was Medieval Latin. This is all the more reason in favour of renaming, so that our readers understand the difference between style and period.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The issue is that the whole category structure is used to amalgamate and conflate these two ideas. I don't have an easy solution to it, that doesn't involve some work. It's reasonable to say that a C12th Medieval Latin writer used Medieval Latin, or a C20th writer uses Neo-Latin. Boundary centuries seem debateable. However, the structure makes an absolute assumption, that century and style are the same, except where I started to break it up. This has come up in two recent discussions, the other being when someone wanted to remove my boundary category. But it's clear that the intention was that
Category:Classical Latin-language writers should contain Classical Latin writers, ie be a style category, not a time category. Likewise, Late Latin and Neo-Latin. There can be doubt about
medieval Latin because of it seems to refer to a period rather than a style; however as it is a set of style categories we should assume it is about style, likewise for
Renaissance Latin. The fact that the categories group information from centuries is a laziness, nothing more. In short it is a mess but it is only made worse by changing the names to appear to refer to time periods, some of which don't really exist (Classical Latin isn't a time, nor is Latin Latin, nor is Neo-Latin).
Taking one example to show why the suggested formulation can sound wrong.
Category:Writers in Old Latin; Old Latin is recognised as a phase of Latin, rather than a "style" of Latin, so a bit different, but it functions the same. It is like Old English, not quite the same as Modern English. So, "writers in Old Latin" doesn't work because You [verb] in [language]; you don't [person] in [language]. It is either People writing in Old Latin or Old Latin writers. So
Category:Old Latin writers sounds better, another option would be
Category:Writers using Old Latin.
So there seems to be some inconsistency of approach in the current suggestion, as well as a somewhat clumsy use of "in" that isn't needed.
It has taken me some time to pinpoint the issue with "in"; but I think it is because language can be either a noun or an adjective. When it is a style, describing how someone writes, "Classical Latin" etc, is an adjective. If "Classical Latin" is an adjective, then "in" shouldn't be used. If "Classical Latin" is a noun, as with "Classical Latin" the topic then "in" is possible, eg "Grammar in Classical Latin", or "They write in Classical Latin". As an adjective, it works as "Classical Latin writers". --
Jim Killock(talk) 00:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I suppose this will have to be moved to full then...
NLeeuw (
talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Going full is fine with me. I hope we end up with a naming convention that is consistently applied. LP's speedy proposals are an improvement, and a fine intermediate step, but if we could skip that step and rename them all to Encyclopedias in Fooian in one go, well, all the better. :)
NLeeuw (
talk) 07:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentNederlandse Leeuw, I don't think the categories for Scholars of Greek are suitable for speedy renaming as the categories contain a mixture of scholars of Greek language and literature. Also Latin is the other classical language and there is no
Category:Linguists of Latin.
TSventon (
talk) 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
TSventon I discussed thus with @
Fayenatic london in another thread (about
Category:Grammarians of Persian), he thought it was a good idea. It's virtually impossible to study the literature of a language without also studying the language itself. (I've been studying
Old East Slavic as an amateur lately, because I want to write about
Rus' chronicles on Wikipedia). Also,
Category:Latinists exists; it currently serves the same function as a Category:Linguists of Latin would.
NLeeuw (
talk) 02:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nederlandse Leeuw, I have looked at the content of the categories and am suggesting that these categories are not suitable for speedy renaming. I am happy for the CfD admins to accept or reject my argument. Studying the literature of a language generally involves studying the language itself, but some academics focus more on literature and others on liguistic topics and this is reflected in our categories.
Category:Latinists exists and has a Greek counterpart,
Category:Hellenists.
TSventon (
talk) 14:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay. I'm not convinced this makes them unsuitable for speedy renaming, but we'll see. Otherwise I'm happy to move to full, although I think it's unnecessary.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this kind of discussion is better held at a full CfD than here.
Ymblanter (
talk) 19:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
PLEASE NOTE: I have moved all of the following Categories here pending adequate confirmation of their eligibility under C2C. I made a serious effort to look for that, but was unable to find such confirmation. There is a massive jumbled welter of Categories in this realm, with no prevailing pattern that I can discern.
Anomalous+0 (
talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:North African Jews is a redirect to
Maghrebi Jews. Egyptian Jews are already in the tree of Middle Eastern Jews.
Aldij (
talk) 09:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete/redirect, the content in these categories is broader than North Asia which is not very helpful, e.g. about Russia as a whole, or the Soviet Union as a whole. Even the Japanese Empire is among its former countries. The only content that really belongs is about Siberia, which already has its own categories, except for
Category:Exploration of Siberia.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Telenovelas are basically the same as soap operas. The only difference between the two is length of series.
Telenovelafan215 (
talk) 04:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete (or merge), there isn't any particular telenovela in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. there's only one person in this category which is unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 03:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge or rename? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 22:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:rename and purge, in 1849 the Sikhs ceased to have power in Punjab, the
Sikh Empire was merged into British India. The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g.
Jagjit Singh Aurora, they should be purged as a matter of trivial intersection.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Question What do you think this category is supposed to contain right now? And what do you think the category should contain?
Based on the proposal my response is predictable: I think the category is supposed to contain Sikh warriors while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sidenote: there wasn't really any such thing as military personnel of the
Sikh Confederacy since the military was primarily organized per member state. They just joined forces upon need.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. I'm afraid that is an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Political and military control over an area never perfectly coincides with the area where a certain ethnic, linguistic, religious etc. group lives or lived. That is the fiction of the modern nation-state, that you can have population and state borders coincide. E.g. there never was a time when all inhabitants of the "Netherlands" were "Dutch" by ethnicity, language, nationality or whatever, nor did they ever all adhere to exactly the same religion. Crosscats of people by nationality, by religion, by ethnicity and by language are always inappropriate for that reason.
It is more than likely that the area that the Sikhs controlled did not exactly match with the spread of their religion. But that does not matter for the articles which are clearly about Sikh warriors defending their territories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A: Propose renamingCategory:Sikh military to
Category:Military of the Sikh Empire, and Purging this tree of everything unrelated to the
Sikh Empire (which may mean either removing all three subcategories, or also renaming and purging those subcategories as a follow-up to this nomination); or
B: Propose deletingCategory:Sikh military as an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT (and also Delete the subcategories (at least the Wars and Military units ones) as a follow-up to this nomination)
Nominator's rationale: Renaming (A) may be a good idea because of parents
Category:Sikh Empire and
Category:Military by former country, and siblings in
Category:Military by former country. However, as @
Marcocapelle pointed out at Speedy, this requires more discussion because there is lots of content in the category that pre-dates the
Sikh Empire. Moreover,
Dharamyudh (Sikhism) (an article I wrote some years ago) is a religious concept, and does not belong solely to the Sikh Empire as a state. Alternately, we could also decide that this is just an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be deleted (B). Also, I think that the two recently created children
Category:Military units and formations of the Sikhs and
Category:Wars involving the Sikhs may be
WP:ARBITRARYCATs, which will also have to be renamed (A) or deleted (B).
Category:Sikh warriors may be a valid category (if it passes
WP:EGRS), but not all those within the military of the Sikh Empire were necessarily adherents of
Sikhism, so unless renamed & rescoped, that subcategory should be removed from this tree. Please indicate your preference, as both seem workable solutions to the current issues.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is a difficult one, because the Sikhs dominated (parts of)
Punjab, but did not have a consistent political structure in that region during the two centuries that this category tree is about. They did have military though, to defend their territories. The period covers the
Early Mughal–Sikh wars until the
Afghan–Sikh wars and it is only during the latter wars that there was first a
Sikh Confederacy and later a
Sikh Empire. Deletion or purging would certainly be counter-productive because it would arbitrarily break the military history of the region. At most diffuse by different periods. An alternative in a completely different direction is renaming to
Category:Sikh military (1621–1849).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I really don't think we should be categorising military history by religious denomination. That's kinda like creating
Category:Anabaptist military and then throwing
Münster rebellion and
Anabaptist riot in there, as if those were carried out by the Armed Forces of the same "state". They weren't.
The comparison with Anabaptists is unfair because the two articles you mentioned are situated at two different places and the Anabaptists held power in only one of them. Hypothetically, if they would have maintained longer in Münster, and if there they would have been called "the Anabaptists" by historians as belligerant in wars, then by all means
Category:Anabaptist military would have been a valid category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it is fair, because as you mentioned, the
Sikh Empire is a different state than the
Sikh Confederacy, and formations such as the
Akal Sena are even older, but did not yet have their own state; they were in rebellion against the
Mughal Empire. (I suppose that's what you are referring to by your suggestion to start counting form 1621?).
At any rate, we should avoid categorising military personnel by religion per
WP:EGRS. A military or armed group is either always connected to a state, or usually intends to form its own state or quasi-state, and sometimes already operates a proto-state or quasi-state (even gangs and mafia can have territories of influence where they extract 'protection money', i.e. tribute). (It is for this reason that we have maintained Military personnel of Fooland rather than Military personnel from Fooland conventions; their service to Fooland defines them, not their birth or residence in Fooland).
The
Akal Sena was such a group, whose military aspects were defined by their loyalty to
Guru Hargobind, and their pursuit to establish an independent Sikh state (the
First Sikh State arose in 1709). The personal religious beliefs of the individual soldiers in the Akal Sena are
WP:NONDEFINING for the group as a military force in service of a guru and a proto-state in the Punjab region.
NLeeuw (
talk) 10:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It may have started as a rebellion, but so did the
Dutch Republic which is in retrospect said to have started in the 1570s while it was only recognized by Spain in 1648. There is usually a grey area between rebellion and independence. For the Sikhs independence presumably started in 1606 with the
Akal Takht and the first battle against the Mughal Empire taking place in 1621, the
Battle of Rohilla.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Tweaking category names to be more representative of their intended usage. As they stand currently, I believe that the categories could be misunderstood as not aligning with Brazil's
official regions. I hope to remedy that with this change.
BaduFerreira (
talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The term "
people's peers" is chiefly informal, while the new title is unambiguous as to its scope and resembles other similar category names, e.g. "Peers appointed by [monarch]". — RAVENPVFF·talk· 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 20:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The term 'Arab Jews' is politically contested, often by Zionists or by Jews with roots in the Arab world who prefer to be identified as Mizrahi Jews. This category may inappropriately label persons.
Aldij (
talk) 16:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. The small amount of articles in this category illustrates the point.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Given how much overlap between the two categories there is I don't think these concepts are distinct enough to warrant both.
* Pppery *it has begun... 15:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Continental Army soldiers from North Carolina
Nominator's rationale: Delete; this seems to be the only category by state (colony?) for Army soldiers.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 15:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison I'm not sure if Estopedist would appreciate it that you changed their nomination. It makes sense, but I think it's better to ask the nominator to include other categories to their nomination than to do it yourself without their prior consent.
If Estopedist agrees, however, I also favour upmerging the additional categories for now without prejudice.
NLeeuw (
talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Estopedist1 @
Smasongarrison @
Nederlandse Leeuw thanks very much for the work here, I was looking at these last night but then had to go to sleep! I've done a little more tidying:
Category:Czechoslovak numismatists is empty (with one moved to Czech
Category:New Zealand numsimatists is empty (the one classed as numismatist is really a coin designer, so moved to that category)
Category:Belarusian numismatists - I can't seem to locate the proposal for it?
There are some more things I had in mind that I will try to get to, today
Lajmmoore (
talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now, without objection to recreate any of these categories when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: by nominator. Excellent job, mates! Thanks for modifying my original nomination!--
Estopedist1 (
talk) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Glad to know you didn't mind. Personally I usually don't appreciate it when other people change my nomination without asking, but not everyone is the same way.
NLeeuw (
talk) 00:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: - Categories: Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian and Pakistani numismatist are no longer single person categories.
Lajmmoore (
talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
They have only two or three articles so they can still be merged.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think for the discipline it's useful for catgeories that reflect more than one article to be separate, and I believe the nominations were made prior to the addition of more people to the categories
Lajmmoore (
talk) 09:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
These categories also show users which articles still need to be created in the English Wikipedia based on the categories in other language Wikipedias. For example, I was surprised by how many articles we are still missing for Estonian numistamists in enwp. Obliterating the categories won't help people with that.
On a side note, I was also surprised by how few of the people in the same category in other language wps had properly filled out items in Wikidata that could be used to query numistamists from these places, even when they are in the properly titled categories in other wps. To me, this looks like a very good reason to get people together to expand and create articles on these people in enwp, filling out the categories, instead of deleting the categories. -
Yupik (
talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge - Albanian, Algerian, Azerbaijani, Czechoslovak, Jordanian, Latvian, New Zealand Serbian, Slovak, Sri Lankan, but ...
@
Nederlandse Leeuw - apologies for the late reply. My opinion is that all the numismatist by nationalisty categories should remain, but I also recognise that compromise is important, so I would would suggested that the Belarusian, Estonian and Lithuanian categories are kept (since they have more than one person in each), and the others deleted if need be
Lajmmoore (
talk) 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment If you merge the Jordanian, Slovak, Czechoslovak, Belarusian, Algerian, and Albanian numismatists, you also need to put them into categories for their nationalities, like
Category:Jordanian people or a subcategory. It would be wrong to take these people out of their nationality categories entirely.
123.51.107.94 (
talk) 23:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: While "HD" is a proper noun, "HDS" is not. -
UtherSRG(talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, not a defining characterstic. If kept, rename per nom.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Queen of ♡ |
speak 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Marcocapelle: "Species described in year" and "IUCN vulnerable species" categories are not defining characteristics, either, but those are widely used. How are those acceptable but this isn't? For the record, I oppose deletion. -
UtherSRG(talk) 10:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
UtherSRG: the tree of
Category:Species by IUCN Red List category is also very questionable, as species may easily be moved from one list to another in the course of time. At least IUCN is a global organization, while the category we are discussing is only regional.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep: It looks like the nominator has no understanding of the importance of
Sahitya Akademi Awards in India. While List article may exist, it is important to have this category for the recipients. The award is presented every year to writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit published in any of the 22 languages separately. Nobel prize list articles also exists, as well as categories for recipients of each categories of Nobel prizes.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Its standing isn't like that of the Nobel Prize.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 16:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to
Category:Rurikids. "Volodimerovichi" is rarely used in comparison to "Rurikids", also does not follow the title of the main article.
Mellk (
talk) 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This category is fine as it is. It is part of larger tree of princely clans and branches of Kievan Rus'. During several renamings and recategorisations last year, it was agreed to be cautious with categorising anyone as a "Rurikid", as the historicity of
Rurik (as well as
Sineus and Truvor) is disputed as a possibly a founding myth (similar to
Remus and Romulus etc.), and there is no concept of a "Rurikid dynasty" in historical sources until the 16th century. However, Volodimer' (Vladimir, Volodymyr, Uladzemir) is a well-known historical figure, and his family / descendants are commonly known as "Volodimerovichi" in English-language reliable sources. Just like, for example,
Category:Sviatoslavichi family and
Category:Olgovichi family. It is preferable if there is a main article with the same name for these families, but so far, there are only redirects to the founder of each princely branch, e.g.
Olgovichi redirects to
Oleg I of Chernigov,
Sviatoslavichi to
Sviatoslav II of Kiev, and
Volodimerovichi to
Vladimir the Great. It's also much better for navigation not to lump all these people into one big category, but by commonly recognised princely branches.
NLeeuw (
talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As there is no article
Volodimerovichi yet, it would be helpful to add a source in the header of the category page indicating that this is a common name among historians indeed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sounds like a good idea.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There are no such branches at this stage, this comes later and we already have cats for those as they are widely accepted Rurikid branches. The term "Volodimerovichi" is used by a couple of historians instead of "Rurikids". Whether Rurik existed or not is irrelevant because the term "Rurikid" is widely used by later historians (similarly to the term "Kievan Rus" even though the state was not called as such then), hence this is POV to use an uncommon term that has not been widely accepted (yet).
Mellk (
talk) 05:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hmmm now I'm beginning to doubt. Christian Raffensperger seems to use it for all members of princely clans of Kievan Rus' in general, as a replacement "Riurikovichi", rather than just Volodimer' and his descendants. One wonders about the predecessors of Volodimer' (Yaropolk, Sviatoslav, Igor, Oleg and the alleged Riurik), who could hardly retro-actively be called "Volodimerovichi". I'll think about it some more, I'll get back to this issue.
NLeeuw (
talk) 07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have checked the literature more thoroughly, and I think it might have been a mistake to name this category in this way. Since the early 2010s, scholars including Raffensperger, Ostrowski, Halperin and others have been using "Volodimerovichi" as an alternative to "R(i)urikovichi" or "R(i)urikids" altogether, and not as a specific branch within the larger clan structure of Kievan Rus', like the later -ovichi families. Theoretically, "Volodimerovichi" could still be used that way (and sometimes it is), but this is not widespread in historiography yet.
I do think it's useful to keep it as a separate category, but it's better to change the name according to our conventions. As both nom and I have suggested, it is useful to follow the main article title wherever possible. However, the current main article title is
Family life and children of Vladimir I. The last part probably should be Vladimir the Great instead of Vladimir I, given the
Vladimir the Great biography title. (I myself prefer Volodimer I of Kiev, which is common amongst modern scholars, but not (yet) the
WP:COMMONNAME in all English-language literature). The first part is also unusual; there is no other enwiki article title with Family life and children of X. The common formula is Family of X. So per
WP:TITLECON, it should be Family of Vladimir the Great.
In that case I would prefer merge as nominated. We could hypothetically create a "family of" for every grand prince but it would just overlap with
Category:Rurikids.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
MarcocapelleFamily life and children of Vladimir I is the only "Family of" main article of a (grand) prince of Kiev. So I'm not worried about having to create a "family of" category for every grand prince as long as there is no "family of" main article for every grand prince. Moreover, it arguably merits a category on account of his many wives and children, and subsequent princely branches directly and exclusively descended from him. That is quite uncommon in Kievan Rus' history.
NLeeuw (
talk) 10:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So far everyone seems to be supporting the RM. We'll see what happens.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The fact that the article exists, with this name, does not mean a category should also exist. I still think it is rather arbitrary to split off one particular "family" from
Category:Rurikids. Ultimately Rurikids is the family.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Like the other comments, I support this merger. These categories were erroneously created and this needs to be corrected.
Historyday01 (
talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, but manually merge because articles may already be in a subcategory of a merge target.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, with exception of "Intersex transgender men" and "Intersex transgender women," as those can be useful categories and don't have the same issue as the other proposed categories for deletion.
ForsythiaJo (
talk) 21:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge the last three (LGBT intersex categories), keep the rest per ForsythiaJo. All intersex people are categorized as LGBT, but are all intersex men gay men or transgender men? The rationale doesn't apply to these categories. --
MikutoHtalk! 23:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Question for the keeps, I don't think the 3x intersection is supportable in terms of category size or under EGRS. Can somebody point to some literature that supports these intersections?
Mason (
talk) 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There are many more intersex transgender people around the world, and their struggle for notability is hindered by oppression faced by them. —
CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I'm not disputing that these people exist or that they experience hardships, but what I haven't been able to find is academic literature that would support this as a defining intersection, which is typically the benchmark for EGRS intersections.
Mason (
talk) 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 10:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not erasure of people who are asexual and LGBTQIA. It is literally in the acronym already.
Mason (
talk) 12:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison Yes, it is erasure. And "LGBT" is the standard acronym used for articles and categories for Wikipedia. Not all asexual people are gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. Gay asexual men exist. Lesbian asexual women exist. Biromantic asexuals exist. Transgender asexuals exist. Just as there are asexuals who identify as straight and/or hetero. There needs to be a way to describe and acknowledge the reality of asexuals who are LGB and/or T. A marginalized group within a marginalized group. As a compromise, I'd be fine with merging the LGBT categories but keeping the L, G, B, and T subcategories. Those are undoubtedly valid.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Bohemian Baltimore: I totally agree. I hope we can gather more support and achieve consensus from a neutral point of view to oppose deletion of this of category. I left a message on your talk page for the same. —
CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 16:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose "All intersex people are LGBT" is a blatant assumption made without listening to all intersex people, and made on basis of only the acronyms LGBTI+, LGBTQI+, LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIAP+, LGBTQIAP+, LGBTQ2SIA+, LGBTQ2SIAP+, etc.
"I’m Bonnie Hart, I’m a woman, and I’m kind of straight-ish. Being intersex has nothing to do with gender identities or presentations, or sexual orientation. Intersex people identify as female, male, both, and all sorts of identities between the binary. It’s a lived experience"
The LGBQIAP+ acronym includes only those intersex people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (non-binary, genderfluid, agender, polygender, pangender, and so on) and/or polyamorous, asexual, graysexual, ace-spec, aromantic, grayromantic, aro-spec, and so on. Intersex people who are straight, monoamorous, cisgender, binary, and/or allosexual and so on, and rest of the non-LGBTQ+ intersex people have constantly stated again and again that they are not lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer, and hence they are not LGBTQ+.
Just like there are many overlaps between and among all groups of people everywhere, there are many overlaps between groups of LGBTQ+ people and non-LGBTQ+ people, whether they are intersex or endosex, cisgender or transgender, binary or non-binary or agender. All ethically good people's sexualities, biological sex, and genders must be respected. —
CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 09:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
CrafterNova: what you arguing is that Intersex categories should not automatically have LGBT parents. Whether one agrees with that or not, for the merge discussion it is not really relevant. The merge proposal is about avoiding trivial intersections. E.g. there does not have to be a micro category for people who are intersex and gay man simultaneously, instead articles may well be put in an intersex category and in a gay men category independently of each other.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: There do have to be subcategories and microcategories. There are many examples where secondary, tertiary, and quaternary categories are required, such as:
The people, whose articles are in such subcategories and microcategories, have criteria that makes them eligible to be placed in such categories.
These are not "trivial intersections", rather intersections of various forms of oppression and discrimination, various professions, eras and time periods, nationalities, genders, biological sex, sexualities, etc.
Representation of people at these intersections is important, especially people who face long-term discrimination based on genders, biological sex, sexualities, nationalities, race, ethnicities, and so on. —
CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 07:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This sounds like we categorize just because we can, not because it serves any purpose.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
CrafterNova: no that is not the purpose. The goal of categories is to allow easy navigation between related articles for readers, and by creating many layers in categories we merely make navigation more difficult.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle:by creating many layers in categories we merely make navigation more difficult.
According to your understanding of easy navigation of categories, wouldn't quaternary categories be more difficult to navigate than teritary categories such as
Category:Intersex transgender people in this case?
Readers can navigate through secondary, tertiary and quarternary categories just as easily as all categories. Ease of navigation does not depend on subcategorization and microcategorization. Rather, ease of navigation depends on accessibility features, and whether category naming criteria, intersection criteria, and rest of relevant criteria are met or not. —
CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 07:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Readers do not have to navigate in the tree at all if they find a sufficient amount of content in the category that they find at the bottom of the article that they are reading, it then suffices to select every article in that category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep transgender intersex people category (at least this one isn't a triple intersection, as much as
Category:Intersex non-binary people isn't too). I'm neutral on merging the others. --
MikutoHtalk! 22:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per CrafterNova and Bohemian Baltimore.
59.152.195.28 (
talk) 07:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:merge/redirect, it looks like the scope of the two categories coincides.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge given that main article is
List of Indian massacres in North America. I don't think that title is very helpful though, as the scope is both of and by "Indians". But that should be discussed at its talk page, not here.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment there have been massacres in India... so the category name is ambiguous. This category name should be salted, so that India cannot use this category name either. --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 05:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree that "Indian" is ambiguous, so I'd rather stick to merge as nominated rather than reverse merge. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Marcocapelle (
talk •
contribs) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge on the grounds "Indigenous" should be capitalized in accordance with
WP:INDIGENOUS and
MOS:RACECAPS. --
ARoseWolf 11:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
For sure "Native American tribes" is clearer than "tribes in the United States". However "unrecognized" is clearer than "self-identify" because tribes that are recognized also self-identify as such but that is obviously not in scope here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle They aren't tribes though. They are organizations. To incorrectly call them "tribes" implies that they are indeed tribes but are merely waiting to be recognized. That's a POV.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Opposed -
Dear Wikipedia Editors,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendment that seeks to rename the category “Unrecognized tribes in the United States” to “Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes.” This change not only misrepresents our tribe but also undermines the historical and cultural recognition we have long held.
The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe of Wampanoag Nation has a well-documented history in Plymouth, Bourne, Massachusetts dating back thousands of years. We still have care and custody of our sacred places, burial grounds and our 1838 Meetinghouse, one of 3 built for the Tribe after the arrival of the colonizers. Our continuous presence and stewardship of these lands are recognized by historical records,deeds and treaties and so on. Additionally, our status is acknowledged by the two MA federal tribes, the Commission on Indian Affairs, Plymouth, Bourne and the Commonwealth which affirms our legitimacy beyond mere self-identification.
The proposed renaming of the category on Wikipedia is not only inaccurate of many but also insulting. It disregards the deep cultural and ancestral ties we have to our land—ties that are integral to our identity and existence. Labeling us as an organization that self-identifies as a Native American tribe fails to recognize these ties and the acknowledgment we have received from authoritative entities.
Mislabeling our tribe and any other legitimate Tribes in this manner can lead to the spread of hate, misinformation and further marginalization. It is crucial that platforms like Wikipedia, which serve as a global source of information, ensure the accuracy and integrity of the content they host.
Tribes without legislative recognition often face significant administrative hurdles to gain federal recognition, and being labeled as "self-identified" can add to these challenges by casting doubt on our legitimacy.
We face persistent disparagement on platforms like Wiki All the while we are still walking the path to recognition.
The lack of recognition does not protect tribes from discrimination or persecution, and the term "self-identified" can perpetuate these issues by invalidating their identity.
The term "self-identified" can be problematic for tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, especially in states like Massachusetts that lack a legislative recognition process, for several reasons: diminished sovereignty, historical erasure, legal implications, administrative challenges, discrimination and persecution.
It's important for platforms like Wikipedia to use terminology that accurately reflects the status and history of tribes, especially those with longstanding recognition by other tribes and federal entities, rather than terms that can lead to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of their identity and rights. The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe's situation exemplifies the need for careful consideration of how tribes are categorized and described in public and legal contexts.
We urge you to consider the implications of this change and to seek a category name that respects and reflects the recognized status of tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe. We are open to dialogue and collaboration to find a solution that honors the truth of our history and existence.
Goldendragonfly77 (
talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I think that this rename has major negative connotations that are unwarrented.
Category:Unrecognized tribes does the same thing without the connotation.
Mason (
talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What negative connotations? "Unrecognized tribes" doesn't work because these organizations are not actually tribes.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Mason and Marcocapelle. While I understand the idea behind the "self-id" part, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement on all unrecognized groups. Self-ID also carries highly negative connotations, as Mason stated, and I don't think that warrants being a blanket statement. "Unrecognized" is also by far the most common term in literature, afaik, however I don't have any data to back that up.
PersusjCP (
talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How is self-id a negative? It is simply describing that we don't have a citation to support their claims. I disagree with the statement that recognized tribes self-identify. The process to gain recognition is rigorous and recognized tribes, at least those federally recognized, have to document their continuous direct connection with the original tribes that were here prior to and during colonial contact. With no direct proof connecting them they are therefore self-identifying. They may very well share a heritage and be descendants but they cannot verify by showing a direct connection. That is only a negative because people on Wikipedia and even some of those who self-identify are trying to push that perspective to distort reality. At no point are we saying they are "pretendians". That would require reliable sources stating it through investigation. Self-identify does not equal "pretendian". --
ARoseWolf 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Saying someone "identifies" as something vs "being" something very much does have a negative connotation. It implies it is only in their head. There is even a famous transphobic joke (I identify as an attack helicopter/whatever) about how one's self-ID is meaningless.
PersusjCP (
talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We cannot declare every one of these groups to be tribes; that's
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH. Is there a term you see as more neutral than "identifies"? I don't mind if "self" is removed. Re: transphobia, a Native American tribe is a collective political identity, while a person's gender and sex is an individual identity; the two concepts are completely different from each other.
Yuchitown (
talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitownreply
It's wordy, but I would think along the lines of "claims descent/to be the successor from historical tribe/the aboriginal ___ people" or something like that. Maybe "
Organizations that claim descent from Native American tribes." Since "descent"or being the "successor" is generally the more politically accurate idea to what modern day tribes are to historical entities.
PersusjCP (
talk) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So sorry, but I believe that would be original research since not all the groups claim descent from Native American tribes, like the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods from Eugene, Oregon, who see themselves as a completely new entity (that is somehow still Native American). Just as a reminder, the corresponding article is
List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, so this proposal isn't charting new territory but trying to bring the category inline with the article.
Yuchitown (
talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah that's a good point, I forgot about them... Okay, I support the current/future wording of "Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes," unless someone else can think of a more neutral, all-applicable wording. Maybe alternatively: get rid of the "self" in "self-identify," but I don't know if that makes it more neutral. Or like, "Orgainzations not recognized as Native American tribes," although that's kind of broad. Unfortunately I think because it is such a contentious topic that it is hard to be truly "neutral" in this.
PersusjCP (
talk) 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I can see how "self-identifying" could be regarded as problematic, as if they could be somehow "delusional" (although I must say this is the first time I've heard it having any negative connotation).
But so can "unrecognised", right? Doesn't this imply that that these people are in fact tribes, but the U.S. government is just being 'stubborn, uncooperative and discriminatory' in 'refusing' to recognise them as such? The word "unrecognised" arguably carries a subtle
WP:POV in it in favour of recognition, and arguably an implied criticism against the government that has so far not extended it to the applicants.
NLeeuw (
talk) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. All we can substantiate is that these organizations have collectively have identified as being Native American tribes. We cannot go further and do not have that authority; an outside authority having nothing to do with Wikipedia would have to make that distinction. Saying they identify does not mean none of the groups have Native American ancestry or that none of the groups are respected as successors of historical political tribes. But to collectively say all these groups are "tribes" is
WP:OR and beyond our capacity or what we can support through published sources.
Yuchitown (
talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitownreply
That does not solve the problem that recognized tribes also identify as being Native American tribes. The question is what distinguishes the two groups and the answer is that one group is recognized and the other group not. Not recognized is the key descriptor here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes but this does not address the objection. The objection is not about recognized, it is about unrecognized.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What about "Organizations not recognized as Native American tribes" as I said in another thread here? The only problem is pretty much this applies to anything except federally-and-state recognized tribes, but maybe it is clear enough with context.
PersusjCP (
talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That would include almost every organization on the planet. I’m not being facetious. “Identifying as Native American tribes” is a necessary component.
Yuchitown (
talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - I've watched this discussion for a few days and tried to understand or see all the perspectives. I disagree with the negative connotation many are trying to place on self-identification and I think that term should defined somewhere on Wikipedia much like other terms have. The fact that it can be negative or potentially be negative shouldn't be considered because anything can be negative depending on who is defining it. What we should be looking at is the literal meaning of self-identification. These entities are the ultimate source of their identification. I know, some will say, The most notable ones did get recognized by reliable sources or government resolutions. But ultimately the source of their legitimacy when you dig into it is the subject entity itself. If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition. So we are left with an entity that identifies itself as Native American. This may be true and it may not be true, it's still self-identification at its foundation. I support the change in title on that basis. Calling them "unrecognized tribes" places a legitimacy on these groups that cannot be verified. It is wholly non-neutral for Wikipedia to be the one conferring legitimacy. Many don't even call themselves tribes. --
ARoseWolf 12:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per what Mason and Marcocapelle said, which is that self-ID can have a highly negative connotation and "unrecognized" is the common term in literature. I've already encountered the issue of self-ID violating
BLP in an article. If the category was changed as proposed, it's likely we'd have many more BLP issues in individual articles about people. This may seem like a minor word change, but there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native "self identifies," because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles covered by BLP because articles about Native people typically link to their tribe's article. --
SouthernNights (
talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no consensus in any discussion you can point to that says "self-identification" is considered a BLP violation. If I remove anything that I believe "can" be considered negative from every BLP on Wikipedia how long do you think it would take before I was community banned? Yet that's what you did based on your own personal opinion, not consensus. That is the worst obvious and most ridiculous example of POV pushing I have ever seen and quite frankly what I consider very much a misuse of the admin tools. It calls into question your neutrality, not on a personal level because we are all biased to some degree, but your willingness to use the tools you were granted to support your bias despite other good faith editors objecting. --
ARoseWolf 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In the case of the
article I'm referring to, the recent edits that her tribe supposedly self-identifies absolutely qualified as such which is why I removed them. And I'm hardly the only one who sees it this way -- several editors raised concerns in this very category discussion about such descriptions being seen as negative. For more perspectives on this topic, check out this
2021 research paper published in the American Sociological Association journal (pdf download). Finally, your
personal attacks here cross a definite line and violate Wikipedia policy. I strongly advise you do not continue with such attacks.
SouthernNights (
talk) 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Her self-identification as Lipan Apache is not unsourced. We know that her non-profit organization has neither state nor federal recognition. That is a fact, not an opinion. Their identity as a Native group comes purely from their own self-identification, not from government recognition. You referring to "her tribe" is itself a POV and also factually untrue, because it isn't actually a tribe. It's a non-profit organization. There's nothing supposed about it. That's what it is.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If my statements were attacks then so were yours when you attacked good faith editors by declaring us POV pushers. What does that make you pushing your personal point of view? --
ARoseWolf 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:
1. The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, intentionally so. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters (credit Persus). Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.
2. It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that occupying power can take back the identity only it, nobody and nothing else, can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.
3. The question is much bigger than this discussion setting can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed article(s), it would never cut muster in that environment-- that's why there's none (I checked). Just the argument that, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized. And should it be done, a micro-minority POV has been imposed on a long-settled question of who decides who's Native American. From that point on, Native American identity means US citizenship and a CDIB. Born and raised in Paris and just found out you had a % grandparent with a CDIB, you're in. Born and raised in a historical Indigenous community in, say, Guatemala or Canada and migrated to an enclave of your community in Miami or LA where everybody still speaks your native language, you're out. Of course, it's a settled question that Indian Country is no bigger than the United States and Native American identity is entirely a Unitedstatean question. Not.
4. It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tsideh (
talk •
contribs) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
There are more, but I'll stop here for now. Tsideh.:Tsideh
Tsideh (
talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) —
Tsideh (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Could you share where on Wikipedia this conversation took place? “It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity”: I’ve never seen such a conversation on Wikipedia.
Yuchitown (
talk) 14:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support I don't see any BLP violation or anything objectively negative about the term self-identify. I do see a big NPOV problem with the current category name as it uses the word "tribes" suggesting in Wikivoice that these are actual tribes in the context of indigenous American tribes.
Doug Wellertalk 11:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would say that is my biggest concern even more than the self-identity argument that seems to have developed. Some of these are organizations that have filed for 501C3 status with the same government they decry as holding them back from recognition. While some are heritage groups trying to bring awareness to Native American topics. Others may have legitimate claims. Still others are pretendian organizations seeking financial gain on the backs of Native Americans. The one thing that is common between them all is they cannot provide evidence which link them to the sovereign nations they claim to be part of with any continuity. Had they been able to do so they would have gained the political recognition from the US government to be able to speak for the respective nation they associate with. Without a doubt Wikipedia should not legitimize them in Wiki-voice as Native American/American Indian tribes, recognized or unrecognized, self-identified or otherwise and even if reliable sources that are not owned by legitimately recognized nations identify them as such. --
ARoseWolf 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose. The proposed renaming would result in very awkward-sounding categories that thousands of readers and article subjects could find to be inaccurate, biased, or even offensive.
"Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes" is not wording that is typically used in academic literature.
Federal recognition is a controversial topic that should be discussed in the article text itself. It should not be forced into category names.
Category names should be based on serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, and should not be based on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair.
I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals and entire clans as "self-identified" would be extremely offensive. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label
Yazidis or
Alevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia.
There are also many
unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.
Another good reason to oppose this renaming is the
WP:CONCISE guideline. We shouldn't make category names overly long and complicated.
The same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America.
WP:NDNID was written by members of the
Indigenous peoples of North America Wikiproject. It was thoughtfully constructed and thoroughly discussed to aid non-Native editors on Wikipedia gain an understanding of what being Native American is. Native American identity is not a matter of race or ethnicity. There is not a unified "Native American" ethnic identity. So the ethnic groups mentioned would not be an accurate comparison. This should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. --
ARoseWolf 13:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: To label all of the entities in the category tribes is definitely original research. The article was renamed to accurately and honestly include groups such as the
Kaweah Indian Nation,
Ani-Stohini/Unami, and
Vinyard Indian Settlement as well as the
Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation,
Brothertown Indians, and
Verona Band of Alameda County (i.e. those with no demonstrated connection to historic Native American communities to those with well-documented connections). I've cited Miller's book, but it was also written in 2006; many of these groups have formed since then. This lengthy discussion will probably result in "No Consensus"; however, all of the editors who actively contribute to and improve Native American topics on Wikipedia have voted to "Support" the renaming.
Yuchitown (
talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I haven't seen any opposition to using "Native American" instead of "in the United States" so we seem to have a minimal consensus.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would absolutely be opposed to changing the category to "Category:Unrecognized Native American tribes" which is what seems to be implied here. --
ARoseWolf 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, this will leave three subcategories and two articles in the 18th century so it does not require very granular diffusion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Can we at least merge these categories into centuries in Judaism categories? It seems like some articles were removed from categories not manually but just mistakes in a template. LizRead!Talk! 19:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If these articles can be found they should certainly be added to the century category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:merge, currently only one article in the category, which is not helpful for navigation.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, in the absence of humorous comments about shipwrecks and navigation. –
FayenaticLondon 11:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge. Hazard to navigation.
Herostratus (
talk) 12:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: No reason has been given why this unnecessarily
WP:NARROWCAT has been created. It only contains two taxons which is not enough to justify an entire separate category.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ultimately doing that is just shuffling around deck chairs and makes no real difference. But I think the more longstanding categories (since 2006) should take precedence over your new 2024 category, not things be merged just because you want your category to be prominent. You have just stated an opinion but not provided a reason to back why taxon is better than the vertebrate/invertebrate split.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm: My suggestion is to leave "Fictional animals by taxon" with 8 subcategories instead of 2, if your only argument is that it's too small right now.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Both the nominated and the alt proposal could be an improvement, but I prefer the alternative, in order to keep taxa together as a recognizable attrribute. I have tagged the two subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Wikipedia:Overcategorization. This is not a defining characteristic for any of these individuals, it's trivial, and narrow. Its also temporary. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 01:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Let’s consider what
Wikipedia:Overcategorization defines as non-trivial characteristics: “For biographical articles, it is usual to categorize by such aspects as their career, origins, and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have would be considered trivia.” It is indisputably a major accomplishment and notable career event to have been the very last member of a political party to win a statewide election. These people were alone and remain alone as members of their parties with statewide power, reflecting ideological transitions and resource disparities. That is why this trait is noted in the introduction of almost every biography under the category. It does not remotely compare with arbitrary preferences or traits, and you have failed to elaborate about why it should. You have essentially conceded that there is no formal rule whatsoever against categories which are so-called “temporary.” Of course elections and generational turnover mean that pages will eventually be swapped out. In many cases in this category, this will likely take years to decades - underscoring how the category is illustrative of partisan leans and relevant to understanding both the unique "maverick" identities of some politicians as well as the electoral geography of the United States. Wikipedia is updated to reflect current events. This category, along with many other categories and biographies, is no different. Finally, it is hardly narrow to cover 23 politicians from 23 22 different states and multiple decades.
1Matt20 (
talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This epon category has the poet and the one of their colleagues. That's not helpful for navigation, considering that they already link to each other.
Mason (
talk) 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:NARROWCAT. The category is a limited scope to only four people. There will not be further additions to this.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 19:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Five articles are more than enough for a category.
Dimadick (
talk) 19:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean to delete, it does not seem a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:merge for now, currently the category has only one article, that is not helpful for navigation.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, anachronistic content,
Beringia is a concept from prehistoric geography, but the category only contains current-day geography.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Marcocapelle's definition contradicts the maim article
Beringia, which defines it as a current
region.
Dimadick (
talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It does not. It was one coherent region because the Bering Street was dry land. That is no longer the case. Beringia is not usually on any current-day map.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust
Nominator's rationale: Disclaimer: I would like to say that this is a sensitive topic that should not be treated lightly. I am going to make some observations that seek to address what I see as inappropriate categorisation practices, but I thereby do not seek to deny or diminish or trivialise the severity of
The Holocaust. That said: I think this is an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be listified, and every entry supported by
WP:RS.
Detailed explanation
Firstly: We cannot say that a city or town, which had at some point a "Jewish community" (something which should also be properly defined first in terms of numbers and characteristics) living in it, should in its entirety be included in this category. The precedent
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia comes to mind: a minority community within a populated place or administrative region cannot be
WP:DEFINING for the identity of that place or region as a whole. This is a wider issue within the
Category:Historic Jewish communities in Europe tree, but also in similar category trees of "communities" that categorise entire places or regions based on a minority of ethnic group X living within its borders.
Secondly, what exactly "destroyed" means is also not clear, as there have also been many
Holocaust survivors. Is a "community" only destroyed when 100% of its members did not survive the Holocaust, or is 90% enough? I'm sorry if that seems like a strange or inappropriate question, but it is one we need to ask to avoid having arbitrary percentages, and thus
WP:ARBITRARYCATs. It is the same reason why we can't have Category:Fooian-speaking countries just because, say, more than 50% of inhabitants in country X speaks Fooian, because '50%' is arbitrary. (So I had those categories all renamed last year as well).
What "destroyed" means exactly may also vary. A few years ago, there was a long dispute on Dutch Wikipedia about "List of castles destroyed by the French during the Franco-Dutch War" (it had many different titles, all of which were quite arbitrary and untenable; link:
nl:Wikipedia:Te beoordelen pagina's/Toegevoegd 20201103#Lijst van kastelen in Nederland, die door de Fransen rond 1672 of 1794 verwoest zijn). There, it turned out that some castles were rather "damaged" than "destroyed", or "demolished" outside of combat, and that a lot of
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH was involved in developing the list. Like this category, that list mostly sought to highlight and quantify the extent of the destruction wrought by a group of perpetrators, but failed to properly define what it was exactly about. "Community" is an even vaguer concept than "castle", and how one can "destroy a community" is really a question I would rather like to leave up to sociologists than us category Wikipedians.
If we listify this category, we could at least provide reliable sources in which scholars explain what they mean; categories cannot do that for us.
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the category contains articles about current-day European cities and towns rather than articles about pre-1945 Jewish communities. No objection against listification per se, but I think this task is far too big for someone to start with on a short term. The category content may be listed at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject before deletion, for someone, or maybe for multiple editors together, to start listifying in their own pace.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That seems like a good idea. Perhaps the creator @
Eladkarmel is willing to do so?
NLeeuw (
talk) 20:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per precedent. These are
WP:ARBITRARYCATs which do not aid navigation.
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is a confused nomination citing another confused discussion as precedent. There is certainly a reasonable intersection between the natural sciences, such as the biology, botany, zoölogy, paleontology, geology, etc. of a place, and the place that they represent. The nominator here and in the previous discussion linked above notes that the term "natural history" is somewhat synonymous with "natural sciences", which would be a valid reason to move these categories or change the titles to "natural history of foo", but not to delete them unless they simply duplicated "natural sciences of foo" or "environment of foo", or a similarly-named set of categories.
But in many instances there are no such categories; I came here from WikiProject West Virginia, and there does not seem to be a similar category combining the included articles or subcategories. The overlap mentioned by the nominator does not exist in this instance, and probably does not in many others. It makes no sense to use the supposed overlap with categories that do not exist as a justification for deleting others that do. The second comment above, supporting deletion, is for a completely different reason: the supposition that there is no valid intersection between the natural sciences of an area, region, or country.
The nominator seems to suppose that there is value in collecting these articles and subcategories, but that these are redundant and mistitled; the other person does not think there is any point in collecting them in the first place. This is the same pair of contradictory reasons provided by the same two editors in the above-linked discussion being cited as precedent. I also submit that said discussion involved only these two and one other editor, and so does not set a very strong precedent for deciding the fate of hundreds of existing categories.
P Aculeius (
talk) 11:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Natural history of West Virginia consists like its siblings of biota, flora, fauna, forests which are or belong in environment. There are also geology and paleontology subcategories which are very unrelated.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
They are related in the sense that "environment" is related to both geology and paleontology, and readers might be served by finding a category or container category for these items together, grouped by state, region, or country. Just as a category for "natural sciences" groups these topics (or parent categories containing them), someone studying a particular place wold benefit from being able to find a grouping of biology, geology, paleontology, etc. relating to that place.
It also makes sense to group the natural sciences away from cultural topics, such as history, politics, education, etc., rather than just having one overarching category for the place containing all of the subcategories or topics relating to it. For example, it makes sense to have "Fauna of West Virginia", "Geology of West Virginia", "Cheat Canyon", and "Mingo Oak" grouped together with each other, but not with "List of governors of West Virginia", "Taxation in West Virginia" and "Tennessee Gas Pipeline".
As far as the title is concerned, alternative formulations—"environment of", for example—can be a bit vague; is a list of species part of "environment", or the geography of the Appalachians? Is paleontology a topic within "environment"? It seems to me that "natural history" is the broadest formulation, as "natural sciences" might be understood to have a more limited scope; a salamander or a canyon might not sound like it fits in the latter category—although I suppose someone unfamiliar with the term "natural history" might regard it similarly. Either way, deleting the category seems unhelpful to readers.
P Aculeius (
talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per P Aculeius, whose arguments have completely convinced me that these categories are both useful and not redundant. Whether "natural history" or "natural science" is the better title I'm unsure of, but whichever is deletion is not the answer.
Thryduulf (
talk) 20:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There isn't any grouping in science that treats biology (flora and fauna), geology and paleontology as a coherent group. Neither "natural history" nor "natural sciences" are commonly used for such combinations.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:ARBITRARYCAT. 5 out of 16 are located in Spain, 1 in Israel, which are not usually considered part of the "Arab world" (itself a contested and arbitrary term). It also seems that "Turkish bath", "Islamic bath" and "Arab(ic) bath" are all lumped together. I think the non-Spain articles are best upmerged for now. For the others, subcategories can be created once they have at least 5 articles. Morocco, Syria, Egypt etc.
NLeeuw (
talk) 15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hmmm but not all of those were "Turkish/Ottoman" baths. I do agree that some of them could be transferred to
Category:Ottoman baths instead, especially the 9 with "Hammam" in their article titles.
NLeeuw (
talk) 16:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, a strange mix of military ranks by country and non-military Arab-language titles or offices.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, European regions do not have natural geographic boundaries and in history the European countries have interacted with each other heavily irrespective of any region definitions. I am not sure if the same applies to Asia.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The parents seem to be inappropriate but they do fit the content. All Sikhs in this category are Punjabis, all Jats in this category are Sikhs. The content of this category shouldn't be moved out of the Punjabi or Jat tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That they do fit the content is irrelevant; we've got other trees for that.
Chand Kaur is already in
Category:Punjabi women, for example. Btw
Duleep Singh was a Christian for several decades, so we can't assume all of them to have been Sikhs ever. If we really wanna categorise all that in 1 category, then we should rename them
Category:Punjabi Sikh Jat emperors or something.
NLeeuw (
talk) 16:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The nomination is to merge Sikh monarchs, so the fact whether or not they were Sikhs becomes moot.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:INDIGENOUS and
MOS:RACECAPS Indigenous should be capitalized when referring to or describing people and their citizenship.
ARoseWolf 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, only the eponymous article and
Clifford Mayes belong here, and these two are already directly interlinked.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 16:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. I don't think this category is clearly defined, and even if it were, I don't think that having only a single person in the category is helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 00:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Dual merge per nom, but one of the targets may be deleted (see discussion above this one) and then it will become single merge.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, as contains only one entry.
GCarty (
talk) 07:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Part of a large and established category tree. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not a tree in which every possible combination has its own category. For example there are no less than 33 articles directly in
Category:Swedish emigrants and only 30 subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Queen of ♡ |
speak 18:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Categories out of phase with their siblings in
Category:Fashion by country. These were both speedy-moved from the target names to their current names two weeks ago on C2D grounds because the head articles are at "fashion in country" -- but that should never have happened without wider discussion, because C2D and C2C are in conflict with each other here: with the isolated exception of Georgia, which has an established consensus to diverge from normal standards because of the Georgia-as-in-Tbilisi vs. Georgia-as-in-Atlanta problem, every other sibling category is at "Demonym fashion" rather than "Fashion in Country". But it's an important principle of category trees that they need to be as consistent as possible so that the location of a category is predictable, so these need to be named in the same format as their siblings. There may be a valid argument that they should all be moved to "Fashion in Country" across the board, so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody is willing to tackle a comprehensive batch nomination, but there's no legitimate case to be made that these two countries alone should be pushed out of sync with their siblings.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment As the nominator of the speedy renames above, I should say it was indeed my intention to move all categories to Category:Fashion in Fooland. This was a follow-up to a long-standing reorganisation effort of parent
Category:Culture by country and siblings such as
Category:Music by country by myself and others. The goal was to move away from ambiguous adjectives, and mention the country's name, as almost all main articles of those categories already did. So I set out to rearrange the
Category:Fashion by country tree, starting with the United States and India, which already had main articles that could be speedied. However, I found that several sibling cats such as
Category:German fashion had main articles with corresponding titles of Fooian fashion, like
German fashion. I was considering whether to BOLDly rename those per
WP:TITLECON, but I wasn't sure whether that would be enough, and then I sort of gave up, went on to do other stuff and forgot about it (sorry). I agree that the catnames should be consistent, but then the main article titles should be made consistent first in order to avoid an endless conflict between C2C and C2D. My preference would still be to rename all the main articles to Fashion in Fooland, after which the categories can follow.
NLeeuw (
talk) 18:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comparison Most child categories of
Category:Fashion by country do not have a main article, if they contain any articles at all (besides a few subcategories). Although most have Fooian fashion catnames right now, in Commons, all
c:Category:Fashion by country subcategories are named Category:Fashion of Fooland. The main articles which are about fashion in/of/from a particular country are about evenly matched in frequency between Fooian fashion (mostly concentrated in European articles) and Fashion in Fooland (from countries around the world, especially Asia). I've allowed for some variation in names, e.g.
Japanese street fashion and
Genderless fashion in Japan; a great example of inconsistency within the same country category.
This is illustrates the problem I ran into: I couldn't really invoke
WP:TITLECON, because there was no clear majority naming convention. We would have to discuss it in either a very large discussion, or on a tedious case-by-case basis, neither of which seemed very appealing to me.
NLeeuw (
talk) 19:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename for now per discussion above, without objection to a broader nomination in opposite direction.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a whole lot of entirely unrelated terms which have already been dispersed among other subcategories of
Category:Sikhism. The only exceptions are
Glossary of Sikhism,
Patit and
Sahajdhari which should be moved to
Category:Sikhism. Many "terminology" categories have been deleted before.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: 2x upmerge for now. There's not enough content to support diffusing Palestinian philosophers by century (2 people). Using petscan, I only found false positives
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=28100706Mason (
talk) 23:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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: Remove redirect/undo merge. This category was turned into a redirect by my own error. It was a part of a Cfd I started but this particular category was not meant to be part of it. It should be a part of a larger tree of MLB owners (personnel have their own seperate tree regardless of what the name of the team was/is).
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 21:59, 24 April 2024 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Confusion arises between Arab-Jewish ethnicity and the geographical grouping of member countries in the Arab League. Not all Moroccan Jews belong to the Arab-Jewish group, among other examples.
Aldij (
talk) 18:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The article
Arab Jews begins, "Arab Jews is a term for Jews living in or originating from the Arab world. The term is politically contested, often by Zionists or by Jews with roots in the Arab world who prefer to be identified as Mizrahi Jews." Presumably "the Arab-Jewish group" of which the nominator
Aldij speaks is one party to that political dispute. Well, if the categorisation is both contentious and a partial duplication of a less contentious hierarchy, then delete under
WP:OVERLAPCAT. –
FayenaticLondon 21:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:United States National Recording Registry albums
Merge per nom. Saying something is standard, so we should keep it, is not a compelling reason. Having only one category is not helpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Fix the rather ungrammatical title of this category and rename it to be consistent the main article,
Hitler cabinet (
t ·
c) buidhe 04:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to diffuse this category by occupation, when there is only one occupation in it
Mason (
talk) 03:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Meanwhile the nomination is moot.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, @
Marcocapelle I filled it with some other categories so there's no longer just one occupation in it. Thanks, --
Habst (
talk) 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: borderline C2C based on the parent category of People of Hungarian descent and sibling Sportspeople of Hungarian descent
Mason (
talk) 02:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete with its subcategory, the article in the subcategory is already in
Category:Serbian people of Hungarian descent while the subcategory therein is already in
Category:Hungarians in Vojvodina. The article (about a Hungarian parent of a Serb) and the subcategory (about the ethnic Hungarian people in Vojvodina) are entirely unrelated. I will tag the subcategory too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fine with me. I'll tag the category.
Mason (
talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lol, you beat me to it 😹😹
Mason (
talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining 4x intersection of ethnicity, political orientation, nationality, and cause of death. This definitely doesn't meet the criteria under
WP:EGRSMason (
talk) 00:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The organization was dissolved and the members moved to the All-Age classification of Drum Corps International. I wish to rename it to Former Drum Corps Associates corps for maintaining the grouping for its historicity.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or rename? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 13:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This will be the last relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 21:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, trivial intersection as is obvious from the very small amount of overarching topic articles. Funnily enough,
Hunky (ethnic slur) is derived from Hungarian, who are not Slavic at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Archaeological organizations based in the Republic of Ireland
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: Wires got crossed while doing large-scale category organiz(s)ation; move needed to comply with naming conventions for this country's categories –TCMemoire 19:30, 23 April 2024 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This seems to be about fictional or mythical tigers in Meitei culture, which would not exist if not for the Meitei culture, so this seems to be
WP:DEFINING.
NLeeuw (
talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments I guess the proposed move is an improvement, although the fact that people belong to two different
federally recognized tribes does not prevent them belonging to a single (non federally recognized)
tribe. It is best to forestall readers drawing the inference, even if it is an invalid inference, hence deleting "peopletribe"
† from the name is an improvement. OTOH article
Mohave is currently a dab, so the shorter name may be ambiguous. I ask whether
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has (or ought to have) any standard/guideline for category (and corresponding article) names —— e.g. capitalization; legal name vs common name; and group taxonomy labels (e.g. "people" vs "nation" vs "tribe" vs nothing; always vs disambiguation vs never). From browsing, I infer that "Category:Foo people" is the standard for subcats of
Category:Native American people by tribe, so
Category:Mohave people is about individuals (plural "people") whereas
Mohave people is about the group (singular "people"). (The fact that Category:Mohave people is a subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe also seems to imply, contra the nomination, that that the Mohave people are in some sense a tribe.)
jnestorius(
talk) 23:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
†corrected myself: current name is "Mohave tribe", not "Mohave people"
jnestorius(
talk) 22:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Regardless whether it is renamed or not, shouldn't we convert the category page to a disambiguation page just like in article space?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes No, it says "three Cherokee tribes are federally recognized", not the same thing. It also says 'By the 19th century, White American settlers had classified the Cherokee of the Southeast as one of the "Five Civilized Tribes"'.
Five Civilized Tribes says "The term Five Civilized Tribes was applied ... to the five major Native American nations in the Southeast".
Category:Cherokee people is a direct subcat of
Category:Native American people by tribe. Article
Tribe (Native American) says "In the United States, an American Indian tribe, Native American tribe, Alaska Native village, Indigenous tribe or Tribal nation may be any current or historical tribe, band, nation, or community of Native Americans in the United States. ... Many terms used to describe Indigenous peoples of the United States are contested but have legal definitions that are not always understood by the general public." We have a variety of words (tribe, band, nation, community, people, ...) used variously across different articles and categories, sometimes in accordance with a US federal legal definition, sometimes in a different sense used by ethnologists or historians; sometimes meaning an
ethnic group, sometimes a subcomponent of an ethnic group split out by geography, administration, or something else. Are you implying that Wikipedia article/category titles should always used words in the sense given to them by U.S. federal law? That is certainly not true in general; it may be the consensus for WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America but I have not seen evidence of that yet.
jnestorius(
talk) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support for simiplicity's sake, although
Category:Mojave would be even better. "tribe" lowercased isn't a problem, so not enthusiastic about massive renaming of all Foo tribe categories.
Yuchitown (
talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitownreply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Comments in general would be appreciated, but in particular input on whether this should be a {{
category disambiguation}} and the precise new name – if it is to be renamed – whether the new name should be "Mohave" or "Mojave". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 04:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your proposed new name is not available, because it is an existing subcategory. Are you suggesting merging the two? In general we have separate categories for an ethnicity and for people who have that ethnicity; merging them only makes sense if they are both small.
jnestorius(
talk) 17:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hmmm now that you mention it, yes. The subcategory (created February 2023) has only 3 articles and a subsubcategory with 2 articles.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The articles in that category were original part of both categories you have mentioned. Hence the overcategorization-claim. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
The Banner (
talk •
contribs) 15:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: All 4 items are articles about the films themselves. Follow-up to previous CfDs finding that the controversy should be the subject of a stand-alone article, and not just a (sub)section in the article about the film itself.
That also applies here. Should a sufficient number of stand-alone articles about film controversies in Spain be written, this category can be re-created without prejudice.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose. I would note that there are 59 other sibling categories in
Category:Film controversies by country, and all of them are populated almost entirely by "the films themselves" rather than "stand-alone" articles about the controversies as separate topics. So I'm unclear on why this would be different than all of the others — either they're all problematic for the same reasons and need to be collectively considered together, or this is as valid as the others, and there's no legitimate reason to single this one out for different treatment than the others. As well, most of the "precedents" listed above aren't particularly relevant here — Christmas, adventure and animation didn't get deleted on the grounds that it was fundamentally improper to categorize films as "controversial", they got deleted on the grounds that the intersection of controversy with genre wasn't defining. So I'm not at all wedded to the need for this, but those categories have nothing to do with it because they're not the same issue in the slightest.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair points. In my defence, I didn't intend to single out Spain and spare all other countries in the world; I was just busy improving the
Category:Culture of Spain tree, as you can see.
Per
WP:OTHERSTUFF, feel free to follow-up nominate all other categories populated only by articles about the films and not stand-alone articles on the controversies they created. I did not intend setting a higher standard for Spain; if we conclude this category is improper, or at least improperly populated at the moment, that should evidently apply to all children of
Category:Film controversies by country.
NLeeuw (
talk) 19:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
While I understand that we cannot single out one country, I would encourage a broader nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In principle, I agree with you, but all the deities I checked that are currently categorized as food gods/goddesses/deities are actually harvest/agriculture gods.
PepperBeast(talk) 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge for Food deities agree with @
AHI-3000, The Hindu goddess
Annapurna (goddess) is the goddess of food, but is unrelated to Agriculture.
Phosop is the goddess of rice, not agriculture in general.
Mellona is the goddess of apples.
RedtigerxyzTalk 16:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 19:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted per
this request at my talk page (previously closed as "merge"). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 16:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Food and agricultural/ Harvest are two different characteristics. There is many agricultural/harvest deities, who are also related to Grain, thus food. There are other overlaps also. Many agricultural deities are also fertility deities as they make humans and the land fertile.
RedtigerxyzTalk 14:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose merging food god(esse)s/deities. Not all food is derived from agriculture, which is why we have
Category:Hunting deities -- there are other ways to get food. Hunter-gatherers don't do agriculture. --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 21:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Categories containing only 1 article. Unlikely to be expanded since the group has been inactive for 40 years.
Mika1h (
talk) 12:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: See
comment by
Pppery. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep While not a guideline, there is consensus per
WP:ALBUMSTYLE "that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk •
contribs) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Does that still apply if there is no article for the artist?
USA for Africa redirects to the single. –
FayenaticLondon 08:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Overcategorization by location. While a few Canadian cities do have "Military personnel from City" categories (but not "Canadian military personnel from City"), there's no comprehensive scheme in place of doing this across the board for all cities — they otherwise exist only for the major megacities with populations of half a million or more, whose base "People from City" categories were overpopulated into the hundreds or thousands and needed diffusion for size control, and not for every city across the board. But with just 67 articles in
Category:Canadian military personnel from British Columbia and just six in
Category:People from Kelowna, neither of the parent categories are large enough to need this for diffusability. There's no particularly unique relationship between military service and being from Kelowna per se, so this isn't needed for just three people if other Canadian cities in Kelowna's weight class (Lethbridge, Regina, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Gatineau, Sherbrooke, Moncton, etc.) don't have the same.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Disagree Kelowna is the third largest locality in BC. Uncontroversial categories exist for the two largest localities (Vancouver and Victoria). It already has three entries which is often considered the criterion for a category, and is likely to gain more in the future as more biographies are created. ☆ Bri (
talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Firstly, the standard minimum size for a category is normally five, not three, and even then size alone doesn't automatically trump other considerations. A category that is failing or violating other rules isn't exempted from those other rules just because you can get its size to five per se.
Secondly, "(Canadian) military personnel" categories don't exist for either Vancouver or Victoria at all yet, so I don't know what you even think you're talking about with that argument.
Thirdly, it's not "ordinal size rank within province" that determines whether such a category is warranted in this tree, but "is the base people-from category large enough to need diffusion or not" — which with just six people in it now and only nine even if these get upmerged to it (well, actually eight, because one of these three people is already in a different occupational subcategory as it is), Kelowna's is not. At present, these categories exist only for big cities where an undifferentiated "People from" category without occupational subcategories would be populated past the 500-article or 1,000-article marks, which is not where Kelowna is sitting, and they do not automatically exist as a matter of course for every small or medium city that had one, two or three military people come from there.
My mistake on thinking there was a category for military personnel from Victoria and Vancouver. It is actually
Category:Writers from British Columbia that includes those two cities, and now (since I created it) Kelowna. Which is a good reason to think maybe they should all be in a category, rather than ruling out Kelowna because the other two haven't been created yet.
I could add
Trevor Cadieu from Vernon, which is on the same lake as Kelowna and with city limits separated by ~10 km, possibly considered a suburb. Also since this nom, I discovered that
George Randolph Pearkes served with the BC Dragoons which is a Kelowna reserve unit (
Okanagan Military Museum). I don't want to change the categories of either bio right now in case this is an error and would be perceived as gaming this nom. ☆ Bri (
talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The smallest other city with a sibling category is both (a) four times Kelowna's size, and (b) about 80 years older than Kelowna, both adding up to the fact it has several hundred more articles in its "People from" tree than Kelowna does, and thus needs to be diffused more than Kelowna's does.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: An odd entry in
Category:LGBT arts, because of the "-related" adjective not shared by any parent category (but shared by some subcategories that may need to be renamed as well). Sister categories at that level (in LGBT arts) are just LGBT dance, LGBT literature, LGBT arts organizations, LGBT theatre, and LGBT art. No "-related" anywhere there. Another option would be to rename everything to the form of 'X about Y", although I am not sure if "about LGBT" sounds best (ex. "Music about LGBT"?). For now, removing "-related" from that tree might be easiest in terms of standardization. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, I guess it is called "-related" because it also contains LGBT musicians and LGBT musical groups subcategories with artists who do not all create LGBT content.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I would note that the category is named the way it is because CFD previously renamed it from the proposed new name to the existing one on the grounds that the music itself doesn't have its own innate sexual orientation, but is merely contextually related to the sexual orientations of people. I would further note things like
Category:LGBT-related films,
Category:LGBT-related television shows and
Category:LGBT-related books, which are also categorized as "LGBT-related", and not just as "LGBT", for the same reason, which means there's a mixture of "LGBT" vs. "LGBT-related" among its siblings rather than this being a one-off outlier. It's a complicated question, for sure, but the reason it's named this way is because of a prior CFD discussion on it, so it's not nearly as clearcut as the nominator makes it out to be.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep based on the names of the sibling categories that Bearcat mentions.
Mason (
talk) 03:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean to delete, it is quite a stretch to say that these songs are about capitalism. I found several that are just critical of modern society in general, some others about the labour movement.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I can understand why one ould argue that should be deleted because of the nebulous nature, but it is pretty clear that many of these songs have lyrics that are anti-capitalist.
Velociraptor888 (
talk) 23:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No, it is not clear at all. It relies very much on subjective judgement.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as this awards are defining characteristic of recipients and they are frequently labelled as Padma Awardee in references. Another reason is lists of Padma awardees are not by their fields but by year. Each list contains all awardee of all field in a year. So field-wise categories help to find awardees in perticular field too like above literature and education.-
Nizil (
talk) 11:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, we normally categorize burials only by place of burial e.g. by cemetery, not by geographic places. A geographic place is either where the person lived, in that case they should just be in a "Peoples from" category. Or else it is a random place, e.g. the place of the hospital where they died, which is not defining.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Article has recently gone through a name change to Atari 8-bit computers. This category should reflect that.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename Keep in sync with parent article. "Atari 8-bit computer" is more historically accurate than "Atari 8-bit family".
Dgpop (
talk) 17:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment As the individual who made the move of the
Atari 8-bit family article I will politely refrain from the above discussion. I only want to notice that if the rename is decided upon, then also these other categories should be renamed, to maintain consistency:
Nominator's rationale: In baseball, unlike knuckleball pitchers who are utterly unique and stand apart from all other pitchers, its actually hard to tell screwball pitchers apart from someone throwing a circle changeup so people who never threw one are in here. And while throwing a real screwball is uncommon, they aren't so rare as to warrant a category of their own - certainly not as rare as knuckleball pitchers.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 12:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Unlike knuckleball pitchers, throwing a screwball is not a defining characteristic. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment As category creator, no objection to this discussion. It was a BOLD idea on a whim. --
Jprg1966(talk) 03:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:merge to clarify that this is about
women's history rather than a category of historians who happen to support feminism.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't this one be more specific to Historians of feminism?
Mason (
talk) 22:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think these are the same scope. I'm leaning Keep.
NLeeuw (
talk) 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 00:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 04:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defning intersection between ethnicity (flemish) and subspecialization. Single merge because the only person in the category is already in the French sinologists category.
Mason (
talk) 04:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, political orientation, and nationality. If not merged, rename to Berber Algerian feminists. to match parent Berber Algerians
Mason (
talk) 03:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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: Non-defining intersection, we don't categorize by the two languages translators know. We categorize by their nationality
Mason (
talk) 01:59, 23 April 2024 (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.
Oppose Why is it redundant? It includes 5 articles and clearly has a scope for expansion.
Dimadick (
talk) 22:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have removed
Corned beef and
Goulash but I will withdraw my support because of the other three articles that have just been added.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Because those article weren't in there when I nominated it, just the subcategory. But now that they are, my position has changed. Withdrawn.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 07:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and gender. I don't see translation having a gendered component. This is a related follow-up to
[1]Mason (
talk) 23:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. As I stated in the prior discussion, I wasn't too attached to the need for subbing translators by gender — the only other country that has any siblings is India, and even then only for women — but the issues around these were different enough from the issues around the other batch (which hinged on whether subbing Canadian translators out by province of residence was necessary or not) that it didn't make sense to bundle these in with that. But they're still not necessary.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I would certainly say that gender can have an impact how things are phrased in translation, just like male and female authors write things differently (I can often guess, but I haven't done a blind test so don't trust me haha). I'm reminded of the fact that
Mary Ann Evans began her literary career as a translator of Das Leben Jesu, but felt compelled to adopt the male pseudonym
George Eliot to avoid the negative bias against female writers and translators at the time. But, is this significant enough to need to categorise translators by gender? Or do we think the original author's gender has much more creative influence than the translator? In practice, I'm inclined to agree with Bearcat: English Wikipedia indeed has a rather limited
Category:Male translators by nationality tree, and none for women. By contrast, Commons has huge
c:Category:Female translators and
c:Category:Male translators trees. Whether C is overcomplicating things, or acknowledging how defining gender can be in translations in a way English Wikipedia fails to do, I don't know. I guess I'm neutral on this proposal. Incidentally, I changed target 1's parent
Category:Canadian non-fiction writers to
Category:Canadian writers, because translators can obviously also translate fiction.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete/Merge I don't think it makes sense for us to categorize based on if people meet the DSM/ICD-criteria for a disorder (which is exactly what this wording would suggest). Both of "with depression" and "with mood disorders" are more vague and therefore better in this regard.
Draken Bowser (
talk) 07:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At least delete the fictional subcategory, this contains characters who are colloquially depressed, not characters who have a MDD diagnosis.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific disability and source of the disability.
Mason (
talk) 23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
My understanding of the categorization rules (
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that congenital amputee status is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g.,
https://www.amputee-coalition.org/resources/amputations-in-childhood/ . This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with congenital vs acquired amputations is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/zl8rdk/looking_for_insight_into_child_amputee/).
Note also that there is a Wikipedia page for congenital amputees (
/info/en/?search=Congenital_amputation) which per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining.
Calculatedfire (
talk) 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Also meant to add- there is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (
/info/en/?search=Category:Amputees). Certainly congenital amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., having its own Wikipedia page) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that congenital meets the required threshold of defining.
Calculatedfire (
talk) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think you'll be able to make a more compelling case if you review
WP:EGRS/D which gives clearer rules for intersections with disability and other characteristics (gender, race, sexuality etc). Could you show me where having a wikipedia page about a condition means that "per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining"? Because I don't think that is sufficient to have a wikipedia page to ensure that it could be a category.
Mason (
talk) 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean to oppose, I may be mistaken but at first glance I don't think there is a trivial intersection at stake.
Congenital amputation is being born without a limb, which is a "thing" in itself.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But is it defining for individuals? I'm open to having my mind changed, but I don't think people tend to have the lead of the article stating that they are a congenital amputee. If anything, the leads will be about amputees who acquired their disability through a headline grabbing fashion. Now, I'm well aware that there is literature on differences between acquired and congenital disabilities, and that has implications for interventions as well as well-being.
However, I still don't think that "
reliable sources [...] regularly describe the person as having th[e] characteristic". Fuller quote from
Wikipedia:EGRS/D
This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with child (as compared to adult amputation or congenital amputation) is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/12nfcrl/adults_who_had_their_amputations_as_very_young/,
https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/15j1kp2/looking_for_support_child_lost_a_finger/).
There is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (
/info/en/?search=Category:Amputees). Certainly child amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., coming up in the introduction) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that child meets the required threshold of defining.
Another criteria for defining category is that it is in the lead to an article (
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Defining). This is the case with many entries in this category, reflecting the fact that many members of this category are on Wikipedia because of their advocacy or involvement in activities related to their childhood amputation. Some examples:
I want to emphasize here the importance of not collapsing child and congenital into one category because of, again, the relevant community's differentiation in these two groups' experiences, as well as how medical research has coalesced on these differences (you will notice that child amputees are not included in the congenital amputee page, for instance). Note this follows Wikipedia's criteria of categorization in so far as categories should be as specific as possible:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categorization_dos_and_don%27tsCalculatedfire (
talk) 23:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I understand that you have experiences with this community, however, we don't typically have categories that distinguish people by what stage of development they were disabled. I am extremely sympathetic, but the examples you give are people who are defined by the intersection of their
activism while having a disability, not that they were amputees during their childhood. Please review other categories for children.
Mason (
talk) 03:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Manually merge, trivial intersection between type and starting age of disablement. People will need to get used to missing a limb irrespective of their age. Most articles are already in a
Category:Amputees by nationality subcat so a plain merge will lead to a lot of duplication.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Fictional characters by political orientation
Nominator's rationale:split, this category is confusing in its current implementation, it contains fictional anarchists, monarchists, nationalists and socialists on the one hand (by political orientation, not activists) and environmentalists, advocates of women's rights and pacifists on the other hand (activists, not political orientation). These are very different things.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I don't think this is necessary. And are you really sure that environmentalism and feminism not specific political ideologies/movements?
AHI-3000 (
talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
They are primarily social movements and certainly not a political orientation like socialism. In relationship to politics they have only one issue on their agenda and their target audience is the entire political spectrum, not one ideology.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It isn't a matter of size, it is a matter of plain wrong.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well that's just what you think.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Split per nom.Mason (
talk) 21:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation, type of law, and nationality. We don't even have a parent category for
Category:Criminal lawyers.
Mason (
talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category (and the merge target). I think it needs a merge and rename. I think that these are supposed to be about non-binary people who identity as lesbian or gay.
Mason (
talk) 21:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure that these intersections meets the EGRS criteria for defining. The lesbian name may be objective, but I don't think it works in tandem with
Non-binary gay people. I found the lesbian category nested within the gay category, which made the entire nested structure more confusing. Can you point to some literature on
Non-binary gay people, because I haven't been able to find any? (Also the thread you linked to voices concerns about the category, including its creation being disruptive; so the thread isn't that clear cut.)
Mason (
talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In this case, I would support a keep as well, provided that each category is defined enough so they can effectively be used. As such, I reject this nomination / merger.
Historyday01 (
talk) 01:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete both as trivial intersections.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep / Do not mergeCategory:Non-binary lesbians, I'm unsure on the gay people cat but I think non-binary lesbians is a relevant category to have and is not trivial.
AlexandraAVX (
talk) 08:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep A simple Google search yields plenty of results for non-binary lesbians. It's clearly a common and defining identity.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete sure, these identities exist & are in use, but I don't see evidence they are defining for indiduvals. (
t ·
c) buidhe 00:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That was part of my hesitation, as well as motivation for merging into a name that was more clearly gender neutral.
Mason (
talk) 03:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is not very natural language. It is inconsistent with the same level categories "Classical Latin-language writers", "Latin-language writers of late antiquity", "Medieval Latin-language writers", "Old Latin-language writers", and "Renaissance Latin-language writers".
This is because "Neo-Latin" etc are actually styles, that are associated with a period.
Jim Killock(talk) 05:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But these are not "by period"; they are "by style". This especially true for Neo-Latin. The periods and styles often coincide, but not precisely. Better would be to follow the styles defined in the articles, so:
I've explained elsewhere that the periods and styles are not precise. For instance, a writer in the Renaissance may have employed Medieval Latin, or Renaissance Latin; and some may define their Renaissance Latin as Neo-Latin. These are stylistic boundaries which roughly match period, but it is the style, not the period, that determines their classifications.
Jim Killock(talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JimKillock I know.
Category:14th-century Neo-Latin writers were a thing; it's good that you created that category. But I don't see how it would create a problem if we renamed it Category:14th-century writers in Neo-Latin. If anything, it is even clearer that "14th-century" refers to "writers" and not to "Neo-Latin", so that we shouldn't assume that the kind of Latin they wrote was Medieval Latin. This is all the more reason in favour of renaming, so that our readers understand the difference between style and period.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The issue is that the whole category structure is used to amalgamate and conflate these two ideas. I don't have an easy solution to it, that doesn't involve some work. It's reasonable to say that a C12th Medieval Latin writer used Medieval Latin, or a C20th writer uses Neo-Latin. Boundary centuries seem debateable. However, the structure makes an absolute assumption, that century and style are the same, except where I started to break it up. This has come up in two recent discussions, the other being when someone wanted to remove my boundary category. But it's clear that the intention was that
Category:Classical Latin-language writers should contain Classical Latin writers, ie be a style category, not a time category. Likewise, Late Latin and Neo-Latin. There can be doubt about
medieval Latin because of it seems to refer to a period rather than a style; however as it is a set of style categories we should assume it is about style, likewise for
Renaissance Latin. The fact that the categories group information from centuries is a laziness, nothing more. In short it is a mess but it is only made worse by changing the names to appear to refer to time periods, some of which don't really exist (Classical Latin isn't a time, nor is Latin Latin, nor is Neo-Latin).
Taking one example to show why the suggested formulation can sound wrong.
Category:Writers in Old Latin; Old Latin is recognised as a phase of Latin, rather than a "style" of Latin, so a bit different, but it functions the same. It is like Old English, not quite the same as Modern English. So, "writers in Old Latin" doesn't work because You [verb] in [language]; you don't [person] in [language]. It is either People writing in Old Latin or Old Latin writers. So
Category:Old Latin writers sounds better, another option would be
Category:Writers using Old Latin.
So there seems to be some inconsistency of approach in the current suggestion, as well as a somewhat clumsy use of "in" that isn't needed.
It has taken me some time to pinpoint the issue with "in"; but I think it is because language can be either a noun or an adjective. When it is a style, describing how someone writes, "Classical Latin" etc, is an adjective. If "Classical Latin" is an adjective, then "in" shouldn't be used. If "Classical Latin" is a noun, as with "Classical Latin" the topic then "in" is possible, eg "Grammar in Classical Latin", or "They write in Classical Latin". As an adjective, it works as "Classical Latin writers". --
Jim Killock(talk) 00:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I suppose this will have to be moved to full then...
NLeeuw (
talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The 5 speedy nominees were opposed by
Jim Killock, see Copy of speedy discussion above.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I do not follow the objection. If this is about style then the categories should be named
Category:Writers in foo-style Latin and the larger part of the proposal follows that format.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin" is extremely clunky; I have no opinion about the rest.
Furius (
talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The grammar objection is this. I write in Noun-Neo-Latin. I am a adjective-Neo-Latin noun-writer. I am not in Neo-Latin. Thus a writer is not "in" Neo-Latin. Thus writers cannot be "in" Neo-Latin. At least; it's not great English. I can imagine someone saying "A list of writers in English"; yet this isn't really correct, it should be a "A list of English writers", for the same reason (English here is an adjective, not a noun) (or "A list of writers writing in English", so that English can be used as a noun). see
wiktionary:en:Latin#English regarding the noun and adjectival uses of Latin.
Jim Killock(talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I must say I find the category fairly dubious to begin with: it has only 6 articles (which could easily be diffused to "by century" categories), and the rest are just Xth-century writers in Latin from the 3rd to the 8th, all of which are already children of
Category:Writers in Latin by century. The added value of such arbitrary duplication eludes me. "Late antiquity" isn't a very commonly used term anyway; the conventional timeframes are "Antiquity" and "Middle Ages". If we can't agree on how to properly phrase the catname, maybe we should just delete or upmerge it instead.
it should be a "A list of English writers" This is the kind of convention we have been phasing out for years, because adjectives such as "English" (or "Latin", for that matter) are ambiguous due to their multiple meanings (language, country, nationality, ethnicity, geography/location, "style" (e.g.
English landscape garden, which you could surprisingly create anywhere on Earth outside England as well)), which almost inevitably leads to confusion and miscategorisation. "Latin-language writers of late antiquity" is hardly a prettier phrase than "writers in Latin", which at least makes clear that the writers wrote in Latin, and that they were not ethnically speaking one of the
Latins, or from the
Latin League, or from
Latin America, or a songwriter of
Latin music songs etc. etc.
NLeeuw (
talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree the categorisation is not done correctly overall. They conflate period and style. The category names are mostly unambiguiously about style. The socially predominate categorisation of Latin is by style, so that is what people will expect.
I also agree with the principle of removing ambiguous phrases, I just don't agree with naming things with incorrect grammar. Writers are not in a noun-Language. People do something in a language; books and poems are written in a language. A different formulation is needed for "writers" to use the adjectival form avoiding "in".
Jim Killock(talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I see both catnames as merely an abbreviation of a longer phrase.
Books in Latin = Books that were written in Latin
Writers in Latin = Writers who wrote in Latin
Makes sense to me. (Also per
WP:CONCISE, or whatever the category equivalent of that is).
NLeeuw (
talk) 15:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Books in Latin": it isn't incorrect, to my understanding, as a thing can be in a language. There may be an implied "is". Perhaps the omission of "is" feels natural in contractions ("the book is in Latin" vs "the writer is in Latin", doesn't work). Perhaps it is also because writers can change their language, so one can't say a writer is "in" a language. At some point one has to ask what "sounds" right; I feel it doesn't.
Jim Killock(talk) 11:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It is always possible to read things differently than intended. "Neo-Latin writers" could be read, hypothetically, as writers who are Neo-Latin themselves. Likewise, reading "writers in Neo-Latin" as if the writers are in something themselves is equally bizarre.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 22:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the issue is that contractions normally omit a part of the verb "to be" rather than some other verb. However "Neo-Latin writers" is clearer because NL is an adjective not a noun, so the phrase does not need a verb.
Jim Killock(talk) 11:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Individual musicians and groups are not the same. Either populate this with articles of individual people or delete it as an innapropriate redirect without another good target.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed. Delete with no objection to recreation should there be content to populate it with. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Category newly created to hold just one thing, with virtually no potential for growth. "YYYY short stories" categories do not otherwise exist for any year prior to the 17th century -- it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s, or at the very least has seen almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, with the result that categories in the
Category:Short stories by year tree don't otherwise exist for any year earlier than 1613, over 800 years later than this. Accordingly, this doesn't need to exist for just one story, but it's never going to contain more, so
Category:794 works is more than sufficient.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you provide the specific Wikipedia policies which would justify such a deletion? Otherwise the stated reasons are not policy based; they are just your own personal feelings, which apparently consist of imposing arbitrary chronological lines-in-the-sand. I'd also like to express my disagreement with the claim that almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, and point out the Eurocentricity of the claim that it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s. Wikipedia categories are not and cannot be comprehensive. There are plenty of other Classical Chinese short stories (
Chuanqi) from within a few centuries on either side of the year 794 that simply have not been categorized yet, or which lack Wikipedia pages altogether. And that's just one set of examples.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The reader is not served by chopping everything up into one-entry microcategories. The basis for the existence of this category is not that one thing exists to file in it, and would require at least five things in it — the point of categories is to help readers navigate between related articles, so a category isn't needed if there's nothing else in it to navigate to.
Bearcat (
talk) 13:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, this is not helpful for navigation between related articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This mixes up Cypriots who are (Cypriot-)Turkish by ethnicity (but do not necessarily live in Northern Cyprus or have an NC passport), and people who are born in or residing in the territory of limited-recognised Northern Cyprus. We might even have to split it in three ways, for people who have a Northern Cyprus "nationality" / passport. Whatever we decide, the current category (tree) is mixing up ethnicity, residence and nationality; we should unweave them somehow.
NLeeuw (
talk) 21:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Split, people living in Northern Cyprus aren't necessarily Turkish Cypriots and vice versa.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly single-item categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Most content is categorized at decade level and that seems to suffice.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Honestly, I don't think that drawing artist is a defining category.
Mason (
talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There is
Ledger art but I am not sure if the articles would fit that. In fact most articles just say "artist", so the merge seems reasonable.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge. There are not good terms for fine artists who prominently draw (pen and ink, pencil, pastels, etc.). Illustrators, draftsmen, and graphic artists are sometimes used, but the phenomenon of Native American, First Nations, and especially Inuit artists who predominantly draw is well established.
Yuchitown (
talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you point to literature on the this predominance? And do you have a suggestion for better name for the occupation?
Mason (
talk) 03:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The contents are mainly biographies, with one podcast. I have added this new category into
Category:Political science but don't think this is a helpful addition to the hierarchy. –
FayenaticLondon 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the articles are mostly in the tree of
Political scientists anyway and I don't think you can split political scientists neatly on the basis of whether they study right or left wing politics.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So my rationale with this is that the study of right-wing politics actually is an explicit focus for some scholars, historians, and journalists. I can clarify the description of the category to ensure it is only meant to include those researchers who state that they study right-wing politics.
Also, I'm not sure if this matters, but it seems to be primarily sociologists, historians, and journalists, rather than career political scientists.
Bluetik (
talk) 06:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If not deleted, it should certainly be renamed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
so the category I created is broader in two senses:
it includes people who are neither academics nor writers, eg:
Know Your Enemy is a podcast, and
Ernie Lazar is an important researcher, but wasn’t known for his writing.
then also, yes, correct it’s additionally broader in that it would include right-wing and far-right (eg MMFA which spends time watching Fox News, Rick Perlstein writes a lot about the National Review).
I’d love to learn how to merge (guessing under
WP:Overlap), but still new here, so happy to leave it to a more experienced editor, or wait for consensus from more repliers
Bluetik (
talk) 23:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, thank you for identifying that!
Bluetik (
talk) 23:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Note that the category content is mainly about American conservatism, so if not deleted that may be included in the rename as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentNederlandse Leeuw, I don't think the categories for Scholars of Greek are suitable for speedy renaming as the categories contain a mixture of scholars of Greek language and literature. Also Latin is the other classical language and there is no
Category:Linguists of Latin.
TSventon (
talk) 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
TSventon I discussed thus with @
Fayenatic london in another thread (about
Category:Grammarians of Persian), he thought it was a good idea. It's virtually impossible to study the literature of a language without also studying the language itself. (I've been studying
Old East Slavic as an amateur lately, because I want to write about
Rus' chronicles on Wikipedia). Also,
Category:Latinists exists; it currently serves the same function as a Category:Linguists of Latin would.
NLeeuw (
talk) 02:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nederlandse Leeuw, I have looked at the content of the categories and am suggesting that these categories are not suitable for speedy renaming. I am happy for the CfD admins to accept or reject my argument. Studying the literature of a language generally involves studying the language itself, but some academics focus more on literature and others on liguistic topics and this is reflected in our categories.
Category:Latinists exists and has a Greek counterpart,
Category:Hellenists.
TSventon (
talk) 14:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay. I'm not convinced this makes them unsuitable for speedy renaming, but we'll see. Otherwise I'm happy to move to full, although I think it's unnecessary.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this kind of discussion is better held at a full CfD than here.
Ymblanter (
talk) 19:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Purge and rename, there are some non-linguists e.g. Byzantinists and New Testament scholars in these categories, but that does not match with the clearly linguistic purpose of these categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. These categories have a different scope than those for linguists, and that scope is indicated by the title. If you change both the title and scope of the categories, you are essentially creating different categories, and doing so would eliminate valid categories that exist for a logical purpose. It would be better to create new categories under the proposed names, limiting inclusion to those entries that are actually linguists, than to convert existing categories into something that they were never intended to be, changing both the names and criteria for inclusion. The proposed change strikes me as saying, "this fire engine is red. It should be green. Also, it should be a pickup truck." I'm not great with analogies.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What is, in your view, the difference between a scholar of language A and a linguist of language A?
NLeeuw (
talk) 09:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Linguist" is typically used to mean one of two things in English: 1. An interpreter or translator; 2. Someone studying the technical aspects of language using the 'science' of linguistics—a fairly specific and limited field compared with all scholarship involving a language. At one time, the term was used more broadly, perhaps the source of confusion here. But presumably many scholars of Greek are neither linguists in the technical sense nor interpreters in the common sense. The proposal would narrow the scope of the category by excluding all scholars of a language who are not linguists. There seems to be value in being able to categorize scholars of a language irrespective of whether they are linguists, and likewise a category limited to linguists would be useful. The two categories would overlap, but the scholars category would be much broader. They should probably both exist, rather than one replacing the other.
P Aculeius (
talk) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: just to clarify one thing my previous comment may not have done very well. A linguist, in the technical sense (as opposed to a translator) is a scholar of the technical aspects of language; i.e. (as our article on linguistics suggests) syntax, morphology, semantics, phonetics. Broader scholarship of a language might not focus on any of these aspects, but instead upon the literature and historic uses of a language, its distribution within a community, the social or cultural relationships between speakers of different dialects, or other languages—whether or not related, and other questions that are peripheral to modern linguistics as a science, or even "historical linguistics". Naturally there should be some overlap, especially as the fields and topics are not always sharply defined. But there are many scholars of language who, though notable in their fields, would not generally be considered linguists. Perhaps "linguists of Fooian" might be seen as a subcategory within the broader category, "scholars of Fooian".
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure that has much bearing on scholars → linguists, since grammar is one of the technical aspects of language that might be included under the heading of "linguistics". However, I note that "grammarians" is a historic term, at least in classical languages, while "linguists" is a modern one, and would seem anachronistic applied to ancient Greek or Roman grammarians (who studied, taught, and wrote on a broader selection of topics than what we usually describe as "grammar" today). I'm not sure whether this would also apply to Arabic or Persian, although certainly ancient or medieval grammarians of these languages would probably not be described as "linguists" in literature on the subject. Modern grammarians of these languages could probably be called "linguists", since their scholarly focus would be narrower, and within the realm of modern linguistics.
P Aculeius (
talk) 20:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The convention that was established a few years ago was that the "grammarians" categories could be kept for ancient languages. In this case, too,
Category:Grammarians of Ancient Greek (which contains ancient people who spoke and wrote in ancient Greek and were important in shaping its grammar, if I understand correctly) will stay a subcategory of
Category:Scholars of Ancient Greek, even if it is renamed
Category:Linguists of Ancient Greek as proposed. When we say "linguists of Ancient Greek", we are indeed referring to (usually) modern scholars who study the Ancient Greek language in hindsight, rather than people living at the time who shaped it when it flourished in its ancient form. Perhaps @
Fayenatic london or @
Marcocapelle could explain further?
NLeeuw (
talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Are all (or nearly all) of the members of these categories necessarily going to fit distinctly into one or the other of these groups, or in some cases belong to both of them? If so, then perhaps this suggests a solution. But if there are members who don't distinctly fit into either group, then the answer is probably to create the linguists category and populate it with a subgroup of scholars, without altering the existing categories.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation; extremely unlikely to be confused with the flower called the Indian paintbrush (Castilleja). ~
Dissident93(
talk) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: See
request to reopen and relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
support unnecessary disambiguation. -
Altenmann>talk 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose, first the article should be renamed, then the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The nomination claims specifically that "Indian Paintbrush films" is unlikely to be confused with the flower, not that the company is the primary topic for
Indian Paintbrush.
* Pppery *it has begun... 19:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Convention is that categories follow disambiguation as used in article space (sometimes category names even contain disambiguation when the primary topic article doesn't).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hence you're substantively opposing this nomination that tries to break from that convention, right?
* Pppery *it has begun... 01:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Piotrus: what other content are you planning to add to this category? That will provide the answer to the question. If topic articles are going to be added then "view" seems the right name. If only video games are going to be added then "video games" is the obvious right name.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:16th-century Chilean people by occupation
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 04:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: To be more objective. The current title became unnecessary since every non-binary biography is diffused into subcategories. I can understand that not every person with a non-binary gender identity self-identifies as non-binary personally, and that the list uses this phrase in the title, but we name
Category:Non-binary writers, not
Category:Writers with non-binary gender identities. And the names would be too big. --
MikutoHtalk! 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support as nominated.
Raladic (
talk) 01:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nomination.
Funcrunch (
talk) 02:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The Category:Combined authorities was renamed Category:Combined authorities and combined county authorities, to reflect the renaming of the article page to
Combined authorities and combined county authorities. This proposal seeks to mirror this in relation to CA and CCA mayoralties.
UnicornSherbert (
talk) 21:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. This is a fringe subject with only three articles and one subcat, which has a tendentious name (there are no "remote viewers", remote viewing is nonsense). Creator is permabanned and globally locked. Guy (
help! -
typo?) 21:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:rename per actual content of the category (and purge the main article which still can be kept in the header). Reparent the first one under
Category:Princely states of Rajasthan.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a maintenance category. It's needed to help ensure that our language articles are reliably sourced.
— kwami (
talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You just turned it into a maintenance category, but it is not clear that any sort of maintenance is required for articles in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep as a maintenance category, or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 04:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment It seems that "Linglist" is a standard parameter in
Template:Infobox language that refers to an external site. E.g.
Abipón language has linglist=axb.html, which apparently automatically links it to
https://web.archive.org/web/20160808200116/http://multitree.org/codes/axb.html. So what seems to be going on is that there is some system which automatically links the Linglist parameter input to an archived url at multitree.org. If there is a bot actively archiving all those URLs to prevent linkrot, that seems to be maintenance, and a category could be helpful for that. But I have no expertise in this field.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, this is a variation of
WP:OC/U#not-based. Note that this nomination does not imply to object to any of the userboxes.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This isn't a OC/U#not-based; it's a category that doesn't slot into binary or otherwise pigeonholing labeling. Deleting this would also strongly suggest deleting any other u-boxes that don't equate to "gay" or "straight" (like bi, pansexual, etc.) So, what next? Are we going to erase non-binary and intergender editors as "not-based" for not agreeing to be labeled male or female? Don't people have more pressing things to attend to than trying to police other people's u-boxes, for no encyclopedically-constructive or editor-relations-and-understanding-building rationale? The actual reason we do not want truly not-based u-boxes or categories that are simply the opposites of affirmative ones is that they are seen as redundant: simply leaving the affirmative one off is taken to imply its opposite. While this is actually very poor reasoning, because it obviously fails to take into account that there is a difference between "I am the opposite of this category", "I didn't even know about this/these category/categories", and "I don't care enough about this/these category/categories to bother with them", even this faulty rationale does not apply here, because not identifying particularly as gay or straight isn't the opposite of being gay or straight, it's simply different adjacent category within the same spectrum/area. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 07:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, this nomination is not about the userboxes but about the category. The category does not consist of users collaborating on a specific topic area, so the userboxes are sufficient.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe, then, the categories should merge there and the templates be adjusted to use it and its subcats? —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That would not necessarily be what users try communicating with their userbox.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per
Pppery, this is another branch of LGBT+. I also agree with the others that LGBT+ is being treated as a special label when other demographics do not get such treatment. The established reason for this is that LGBT+ people have profound social connectivity that many other demographics, like straight people in general, lack. Some evidence of this is many other category talks including those listed at
Category talk:Gay Wikipedians, an article for the demographic at
LGBT and Wikipedia, and an organization for the demographic at
meta:Wikimedia LGBT+. Public evidence of this demographic getting Wikipedia related harassment is at
Talk:LGBT_and_Wikipedia#No_sexual_assault_in_2023_Wikimania_toilet. Categories like this one are part of the process for finding ways to surface and report the private evidence and harassment stories against such editors. Bashing LGBT+ people is part of the politics in most countries, so this is a necessary category for peer-to-peer advocacy.
Bluerasberry (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Is there a reason this category refers to sexual preference instead of
sexual orientation? --
Trystan (
talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I can't think of a good one. It's probably just an artifact of the wording preferences of someone a long time ago. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If not deleted, I agree that "preference" should be changed to "orientation" for consistency.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or rename to substitute "orientation" for "preference". This category does not relate to a binary or non-binary gender, but rather someone's sexual orientation. An editor may be confused about their sexual orientation and it is not for Wikipedia to decide their sexual orientation for them. The merge discussion cited above would also be of no purpose because the category really would be in relation to someone unable to make their mind up whether they are a certain sexual orientation or not.
UnicornSherbert (
talk) 21:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
These actors are on contract with either Jim Henson Company or Disney (Muppet), Sesame Workshop (Sesame Street), or Jim Henson Company (Fraggle Rock), to perform numerous roles. Such contracts are incredibly rare, and even the most finite involvement with any of them, the puppeteer remains known as having been part of the troupe, akin to a college alumni category.
Keep, especially the Muppet category. They're distinct performances/performers, categories and brands of puppeteering.
Scanlan (
talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
Nominator's rationale:Purge and rename. E.g.
Abdul Rashid Dostum was a military officer, not a politician, of the DRA (1978–1992). –
FayenaticLondon 15:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At least purge, possibly rename per nom.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At least purge, possibly rename, people who weren't a politician in the Korean Empire do not belong here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic
Nominator's rationale: The contents seem to be broader than political office-holders, so "from" will be more appropriate than "of". –
FayenaticLondon 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, while "from" is the default, I think "of" is also a good possibility for politicians and for military personnel.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Of" is fitting for political office-holders, but we don't use it for politicians generally. I suppose we have "opposition politicians of a country" who are appointed to a formal role, but e.g. revolutionaries or independence activists would be better described as "from" the country. –
FayenaticLondon 22:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency and given the broader scope of the category.
Mason (
talk) 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: If there are concerns that lead to categories such as
Category:American male artists (and similar articles) being treated as non-diffusing, it seems that the same rationale should apply to Native American artists. (Apologies if I've made any formatting errors. This is my first time submitting a cfd.)
Katya (
talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and make non-diffusing. There seems to be solid academic interest in the intersection of gender and Native American artists, including exhibitions
[5][6], academic books
[7], and academic courses
[8]. I looked for women artists. Also if not kept, the category should also be merged to
American male artists and
American women artists.
Mason (
talk) 21:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So, it looks like there's been
discussion in the past about whether or not there should be any "male artist" categories, without any consensus. In the absence of consensus to delete them, I think we should keep the Native American male artist categories, in keeping with other paired male / female artist categories elsewhere on the site. (Or we could revisit the issue of whether "male artist" categories should exist at all, but I think that's a separate issue. Again, my original question was just whether or not the categories should be non-diffusing.)
Katya (
talk) 01:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose I think what is meant here is
wikt:craft#noun meaning #7 plural: A branch of skilled work or trade, especially one requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill, but sometimes applied equally to any business, calling or profession; the skilled practice of a practical occupation. So it's a bit like a patron saint of a branch of handicraft professions. I worry that by making it singular, "craft" can be misunderstood for any of its many other meanings, such as "vehicle" (aircraft, spacecraft etc.; I wouldn't be surprised if some religion came up with that if Pope John Paul II in 1997 could retroactively declare
Isidore of Seville the "patron saint of the internet"), or as a colloquial conjugation of the verb "to craft", "craft(ed) gods", compare "graven images", human-made "idols" of gods. But I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not sure if this is a significant risk.
NLeeuw (
talk) 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I kind of see your point, actually, but 'crafts' is not the solution. I'd be ok with, say, handicraft deities.
PepperBeast(talk) 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Why is it not? I suppose it reads a lot better with 'the': "the crafts", just like "the arts", "the humanities". Some things are better in plural. Then again, "deities of the crafts" sounds a bit cumbersome. At any rate, would "handicraft deities" be correct for the contents of these categories?
NLeeuw (
talk) 10:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think handicraft fits pretty well, going by the articles I had a look at. Sorry, I ama native speaker, and I can't tell you why some noun modifiers can be plural and some not, but "crafts Gods" is just not normal English. Probably the same reason we don't have cars mechanics or brains surgeons :-)
PepperBeast(talk) 12:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm a little worried that handicraft has connotations of a hobby or at best "artisanal" activity, distinct from mainstream manufacturing. In a pre-industrial society, activities like weaving and smithing are mainstream, the only ways clothes and metal objects are produced. Does it help that the ancient Greek word is τέχνη, techne, (the root of technical, technology and technique and by no means merely a philosophical concept as
our article claims), translated as skill, craftsmanship, art, craft, technique, design and other such, rather than as handicraft?
NebY (
talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I see your point, too, but none of those suggestions strikes me as a really superior choice. A few years ago, I would have said artisan was perfect, but it seems to have gone all lumpy socks and unsliceable bread. Artificer seems too stilted.
PepperBeast(talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Now I'm fretting about this very small point. "War gods" is clearly better than "wars gods"; the singular stands for the general. But Hephaestus, for example, was a smith god, not a god of all craft/handicraft, so is a member of the set of deities of various crafts.... Aargh.
NebY (
talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I find "gods of handicrafts" in the authoritative standard text Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, translated from the German by John Raffan. I often got the impression that Burkert's phrasing was better in German than could be translated but still, it seems "handicrafts" may be the best English term a good translator could find. Reckon I should stop worrying and accept it! It's better than either "craft" or "crafts".
NebY (
talk) 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, but what are you proposing as an alt rename then? Handicraft deities or Handicrafts deities?
And does choosing
handicraft mean excluding larger-scale construction works in
stoneworking/stonecraft such as bridge-building and, well, "building-building", as well as
woodworking /
carpentry such as
shipbuilding? Because that would mean a significant narrowing of the scope, and I don't think any of us is advocating that.
NLeeuw (
talk) 16:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We currently include deities of shipbuilding and bridgebuilding? I'm beginning to think it's too complicated for me to suggest anything.
NebY (
talk) 18:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well I was just being hypothetical, but if we look at some random examples:
Arazu a god of construction who built and restored temples.
Minerva a goddess of wisdom, justice, law, victory, and the sponsor of arts, trade, and strategy.
Ninmug a goddess of artisanship, especially with metalworking, as evidenced by her epithet tibira kalamma, "metalworker of the land."
I don't see a really clear pattern here. Some articles do not seem to mention anything to do with "the crafts" at all (like
Minerva being responsible for lots of things, but not really "the crafts"), and might have to be Purged from this tree. Part of them could reasonably be called deities of handicrafts like Athena, Nunura, and Hedjhotep. Others seem to be about larger structures, buildings, cities even. Architects design buildings, not decorative small objects normally associated with "handicrafts". I guess it was my mistake thinking that "handicrafts" and "crafts" meant the same, but evidently handicrafts are a subset of the crafts.
NLeeuw (
talk) 20:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for doing the legwork! I am uncertain that users of English distinguish handicrafts from crafts consistently. I haven't tried a survey; serendipitously, last night I read "the development of farming techniques, building skills, craft traditions such as pottery, trade networks" (Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East).
NebY (
talk) 13:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I can understand NebY's reaction. Shouldn't we rather split this to handicraft on the one hand and building/construction on the other hand?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Perhaps, if the literature supports such a division. But lots of articles in this tree do not seem to mention any "crafts" at all, or I just don't properly understand the term.
NLeeuw (
talk) 20:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think such a split would make sense. We can easily conceive of a set that includes all of building, construction, weaving, smithing and pottery, and in at least one language it can easily be given a name. I fear that in English it can't and so en-wiki can't usefully have such a category.
NebY (
talk) 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further comments on splitting? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already in the tree of the three potential targets.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Are we certain there are no Rātana people who stood but were not elected? I would prefer to keep ‘politicians’, but delete ‘MPs’. If that is not preferred, then yes, I would still delete ‘politicians’. — HTGS (
talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: there seems to be a lot of confusion in this category (and in articles relating to Rātana as a political force). Some of these people are adherents of the Rātana faith who became MPs, others of them were MPs for the Rātana Party or (after affiliation with the Labour Party) MPs officially endorsed by the Rātana church.
Soraya Peke-Mason, for example, is a Rātana, but not an official Rātana-endorsed MP. If that can be cleared up I'd support Marcocapelle's second suggestion (merging MPs into politicians).
Grutness...wha? 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Dual Upmerge. There's no need to diffuse 20th-century Latvian ceramists by region. There are only nine Latgalian ceramists in the entire tree.
Mason (
talk) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is more about the Rātana faith overall than adherents to the faith. As such, it should be singular rather than plural. In any case, as a
Māori word, the plural would simply be Rātana. Because of this, I was also tempted to add the category
Category:New Zealand Rātanas for renaming to something like
Category:New Zealand Rātana adherents, but given that all other religious adherents categories simply use an -s suffixed plural, I've left that as is.
Grutness...wha? 15:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: That would be true if they were the only articles in the category. That's no longer the case. There are several articles which were not in the category simply because of its confusing name.
Grutness...wha? 04:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I see, then a rename would improve it.
Rātana movement would probably even be clearer (and the category name following that).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That would make sense, too, although the main article is at
Rātana. Mind you, if there's an article merge in the offing, then a name change at the same time might be possible too.
Grutness...wha? 13:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection between occupation and ethnicity. There is mostly no need to merge, the articles are already in a parallel Indian or Pakistani category if applicable.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It is mainly about Indian descent, as the second link also illustrates. Hardly any of these articles is about someone of Pakistani descent, while a clear majority of Punjabi are Pakistanis.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Violates
NPOV by calling people listed in category "traitors." Peter Hitchens was listed by category creator as a member but I reverted it as a
BLP violation.
Thebirdlover (
talk) 13:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The article about this category states this was a promotional campaign, not an award. As such, it seems non-defining.
User:Namiba 13:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Categories for artworks by subject currently use a mixture of the style "[Paintings, sculptures, etc.] of [a subject]" and "[Paintings, sculptures, etc.] depicting [a subject]", and the style with "of" is the predominant one. Looking at categories for paintings and sculptures, which comprise the bulk of these, there are currently 187 instances of "Paintings of [a subject]" to the 84 of "Paintings depicting...", and 425 of "Sculptures of [a subject]" to the 14 of "Sculptures depicting...". For some other types of artwork we use the style with "of" almost exclusively: "Portraits of...", "Statues of..." and "Murals of...". The word "depicting" is an unfortunate choice for three-dimensional works because the etymology refers to the act of painting.
In the case of
Category:Art depicting people and its subcategories which begin "Art depicting...", the categories using "depicting" are inconsistent with most of their sibling categories, which instead use "...in art". Similarly, the subcategories of
Category:Topical postage stamps which use the word "depicting" are inconsistent with the majority, which use "...on stamps".
Ham II (
talk) 08:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft oppose This is an interesting question. I think some might think of "of" as meaning "by", but we've got the
Category:Works by artist tree for that, so I suppose that is not a big problem. "depicting" is less ambiguous in my view, but for consistency's sake, I'm willing to go with the majority formula if there are no other considerations. The only strong objection I really have is that the vast majority of the nominees are about mythological, legendary or religious figures whose existence has not been proven (and often cannot be proven), and/or about whose identities considerable controversies have arisen. "Painting of Foo" suggests more directly that Foo was posing while the painter was painting their portrait (like "Photographs of Foo"; if you were there while Foo was there, you could have captured a similar image yourself), while "depicting" suggests more distance, more creative imagination about what Foo might (have) look(ed) like, while nobody alive in the artist's time has ever observed Foo. Obviously this doesn't apply to
Queen Victoria or
Elizabeth II, but because stamps often depict mythological or legendary figures as well, I understand that the category tree has been kept consistent with "depicting". I also understand the etymological argument that depicting comes from pingere "to paint", which wouldn't fit other types of art like sculpture, but the meaning of words can change. "picture" is nowadays usually synonymous with "photograph", which has nothing to do with painting either. So I understand the nom, but I can't fully support it for these considerations.
NLeeuw (
talk) 09:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Paintings of Foo" doesn't imply that they were done from life; that's only true of "Photographs of Foo", and you've drawn too close an analogy because of the linguistic similarity. It wouldn't be more accurate to call Leonardo's Last Supper a "painting depicting the Last Supper" than a "painting of the Last Supper"; the meaning of both phrases is identical.
"Of" instead of "depicting" would also be preferable in order to avoid unnecessary wordiness further down the category tree: "
Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Sandro Botticelli" is less of a mouthful than "Category:Paintings depicting the Madonna and Child by Sandro Botticelli".
Ham II (
talk) 07:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Additionally, although I know usage has gone beyond this, & it may no make much sense etymologically, part of me dislikes using "depict" when no paint is involved. Can we also change "themes" for the correct "subjects" in
Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible themes to
Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes & the New Testament one. In art, "death" and "love" are themes, the
Lamentation of Christ is a subject (which has themes as well).
Johnbod (
talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support one format across the tree, either "of" or "depicting". I do not really have a preference between them so I am happy to go with the current "of" majority.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutral. In other instances—film, for example, I might have opposed this, because films frequently depict persons or things other than their subjects. But in the case of paintings, it seems less likely that we'd need to distinguish between the subject of the painting and something depicted in it. A painting that shows Mars or Helen or the Trojan Horse or the Apostle Paul in the background would probably still be reasonably described as a painting of that person or thing, even though the main subject might be something else. "The Last Supper" is still a painting of each of the Apostles, simply because they appear in it. There's nothing inherently wrong with the "depiction" language, though, and it makes sense to distinguish depictions from subjects in other media, so consistency is not a good argument, IMO.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Some examples of articles to be selectively upmerged
Western European marriage pattern, a contested hypothesis in demographics that sets the boundary of "Western Europe" in an almost straight line between Venice and Saint Petersburg, crossing through countries that are variously grouped as "Southern, Western, Central, Eastern or Northern Europe" depending on countless definitions other than this one.
Heimatschutz Architecture, an early 20th-century style mostly found in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the latter of which may be grouped as "Western" or "Central European", while Germany may be grouped as "Western" or "Central European" and former East Germany as "Eastern Europe".
Elterngeld, which states that Elterngeld schemes exists in Germany, France, and
Scandinavia. Depending on definitions, that's Central, Eastern (former East Germany), Western, Southern (southern France is often considered "Southern Europe") and Northern Europe combined! Yet it is only categorised as
Category:Northern European culture.
Etc.
There's enough room in
Category:Culture of Europe for these articles that can hardly be limited by arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe.
NLeeuw (
talk) 08:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Apart from the subcategories the articles are quite a hodgepodge so plain deletion could also be a satisfactory outcome.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh I do think all the articles fit in
Category:Culture of Europe. I just don't think we could limit them to arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe.
NLeeuw (
talk) 04:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No, because both child cats are already in that tree, and all 5 pages are already in both child cats except the
Cetinje chronicle, which is a manuscript containing several chronicles rather than a chronicle in itself. Merging would lead to duplication.
NLeeuw (
talk) 04:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes.
Category:Old East Slavic chronicles as language (at least, the medieval parts as copied. The Hustyn continuation is in Late Ruthenian / Early modern Ukrainian. As theme, it might also fit "
Ukrainian chronicles", although that category does not exist yet, and that name is ambiguous.)
NLeeuw (
talk) 21:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Indian independence activists from Pakistan
Nominator's rationale:rename, Pakistan did not exist yet when they were independence activists. Purge
Mufti Mehmood who was not from Sindh.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't you mean Sindh, with an h? Otherwise I agree.
NLeeuw (
talk) 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. If not merged, it should be renamed to Nigerian-American art
Mason (
talk) 04:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.
If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.
Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:
*[[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
If the current name
should be redirected rather than deleted, use:
* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use:
* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~
Remember to tag the category page with:{{
subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 09:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 194 open requests (refresh).
Administrators and
page movers: Do not use the "Move" tab to move categories listed here!Categories
are processed following the 48-hour waiting period and are moved by a bot.
Current requests
Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).
It is very unusual to include Egypt in Maghreb, and the article does not discuss Egyptian Jews in detail.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose all word order changes for the political office, or changes from "Ministers for [dept]" to "Ministers of [dept]", unless demonstrated to be local usage. Especially opposing "Ministers of Finance" to "Finance ministers" – I recently renamed these according to local usage; where there is no article for the position in the country, I followed the majority usage in the biography articles. They do not have to follow the wording "Finance ministers" from the parent
Category:Finance ministers by country. Note: I am not opposing decapitalisation, nor moving to "of [Country]", which can go ahead speedily. –
FayenaticLondon 20:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: Wasn't aware, sorry for the extra work these noms have made. Thought I was helping out but you're two steps ahead of me!
Hey man im josh (
talk) 20:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Just noting that I removed all of the nominations I created that were opposed by Fayenatic London. I did make more that were within their scope of what was okay.
Hey man im josh (
talk) 19:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In some countries the list article is "Finance Minister (Country)", in others "Minister of Finance (Country)" or "Minister for Finance (Country)", or "Minister for Economy" etc. The category name should match the post name as described in the country, but in lower case according to
MOS:JOBTITLE. –
FayenaticLondon 12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We don't need to move to full in order to do that; I could withdraw this nom and create the first one myself out of the second.
NLeeuw (
talk) 22:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy. Female versus women is not clear cut, especially not under C2C.
Mason (
talk) 00:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose There is no consensus on "women" versus "female" as an adjective, and existing cats should generally not be renamed.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
NLeeuw, for future reference, do you have a source for what you said?
TSventon (
talk) 22:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is not very natural language. It is inconsistent with the same level categories "Classical Latin-language writers", "Latin-language writers of late antiquity", "Medieval Latin-language writers", "Old Latin-language writers", and "Renaissance Latin-language writers".
This is because "Neo-Latin" etc are actually styles, that are associated with a period.
Jim Killock(talk) 05:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But these are not "by period"; they are "by style". This especially true for Neo-Latin. The periods and styles often coincide, but not precisely. Better would be to follow the styles defined in the articles, so:
I've explained elsewhere that the periods and styles are not precise. For instance, a writer in the Renaissance may have employed Medieval Latin, or Renaissance Latin; and some may define their Renaissance Latin as Neo-Latin. These are stylistic boundaries which roughly match period, but it is the style, not the period, that determines their classifications.
Jim Killock(talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JimKillock I know.
Category:14th-century Neo-Latin writers were a thing; it's good that you created that category. But I don't see how it would create a problem if we renamed it Category:14th-century writers in Neo-Latin. If anything, it is even clearer that "14th-century" refers to "writers" and not to "Neo-Latin", so that we shouldn't assume that the kind of Latin they wrote was Medieval Latin. This is all the more reason in favour of renaming, so that our readers understand the difference between style and period.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The issue is that the whole category structure is used to amalgamate and conflate these two ideas. I don't have an easy solution to it, that doesn't involve some work. It's reasonable to say that a C12th Medieval Latin writer used Medieval Latin, or a C20th writer uses Neo-Latin. Boundary centuries seem debateable. However, the structure makes an absolute assumption, that century and style are the same, except where I started to break it up. This has come up in two recent discussions, the other being when someone wanted to remove my boundary category. But it's clear that the intention was that
Category:Classical Latin-language writers should contain Classical Latin writers, ie be a style category, not a time category. Likewise, Late Latin and Neo-Latin. There can be doubt about
medieval Latin because of it seems to refer to a period rather than a style; however as it is a set of style categories we should assume it is about style, likewise for
Renaissance Latin. The fact that the categories group information from centuries is a laziness, nothing more. In short it is a mess but it is only made worse by changing the names to appear to refer to time periods, some of which don't really exist (Classical Latin isn't a time, nor is Latin Latin, nor is Neo-Latin).
Taking one example to show why the suggested formulation can sound wrong.
Category:Writers in Old Latin; Old Latin is recognised as a phase of Latin, rather than a "style" of Latin, so a bit different, but it functions the same. It is like Old English, not quite the same as Modern English. So, "writers in Old Latin" doesn't work because You [verb] in [language]; you don't [person] in [language]. It is either People writing in Old Latin or Old Latin writers. So
Category:Old Latin writers sounds better, another option would be
Category:Writers using Old Latin.
So there seems to be some inconsistency of approach in the current suggestion, as well as a somewhat clumsy use of "in" that isn't needed.
It has taken me some time to pinpoint the issue with "in"; but I think it is because language can be either a noun or an adjective. When it is a style, describing how someone writes, "Classical Latin" etc, is an adjective. If "Classical Latin" is an adjective, then "in" shouldn't be used. If "Classical Latin" is a noun, as with "Classical Latin" the topic then "in" is possible, eg "Grammar in Classical Latin", or "They write in Classical Latin". As an adjective, it works as "Classical Latin writers". --
Jim Killock(talk) 00:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I suppose this will have to be moved to full then...
NLeeuw (
talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Going full is fine with me. I hope we end up with a naming convention that is consistently applied. LP's speedy proposals are an improvement, and a fine intermediate step, but if we could skip that step and rename them all to Encyclopedias in Fooian in one go, well, all the better. :)
NLeeuw (
talk) 07:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentNederlandse Leeuw, I don't think the categories for Scholars of Greek are suitable for speedy renaming as the categories contain a mixture of scholars of Greek language and literature. Also Latin is the other classical language and there is no
Category:Linguists of Latin.
TSventon (
talk) 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
TSventon I discussed thus with @
Fayenatic london in another thread (about
Category:Grammarians of Persian), he thought it was a good idea. It's virtually impossible to study the literature of a language without also studying the language itself. (I've been studying
Old East Slavic as an amateur lately, because I want to write about
Rus' chronicles on Wikipedia). Also,
Category:Latinists exists; it currently serves the same function as a Category:Linguists of Latin would.
NLeeuw (
talk) 02:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nederlandse Leeuw, I have looked at the content of the categories and am suggesting that these categories are not suitable for speedy renaming. I am happy for the CfD admins to accept or reject my argument. Studying the literature of a language generally involves studying the language itself, but some academics focus more on literature and others on liguistic topics and this is reflected in our categories.
Category:Latinists exists and has a Greek counterpart,
Category:Hellenists.
TSventon (
talk) 14:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay. I'm not convinced this makes them unsuitable for speedy renaming, but we'll see. Otherwise I'm happy to move to full, although I think it's unnecessary.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this kind of discussion is better held at a full CfD than here.
Ymblanter (
talk) 19:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
PLEASE NOTE: I have moved all of the following Categories here pending adequate confirmation of their eligibility under C2C. I made a serious effort to look for that, but was unable to find such confirmation. There is a massive jumbled welter of Categories in this realm, with no prevailing pattern that I can discern.
Anomalous+0 (
talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:North African Jews is a redirect to
Maghrebi Jews. Egyptian Jews are already in the tree of Middle Eastern Jews.
Aldij (
talk) 09:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete/redirect, the content in these categories is broader than North Asia which is not very helpful, e.g. about Russia as a whole, or the Soviet Union as a whole. Even the Japanese Empire is among its former countries. The only content that really belongs is about Siberia, which already has its own categories, except for
Category:Exploration of Siberia.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Telenovelas are basically the same as soap operas. The only difference between the two is length of series.
Telenovelafan215 (
talk) 04:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete (or merge), there isn't any particular telenovela in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. there's only one person in this category which is unhelpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 03:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge or rename? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 22:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:rename and purge, in 1849 the Sikhs ceased to have power in Punjab, the
Sikh Empire was merged into British India. The category also contains military personnel of India who happen to be Sikhs, e.g.
Jagjit Singh Aurora, they should be purged as a matter of trivial intersection.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Question What do you think this category is supposed to contain right now? And what do you think the category should contain?
Based on the proposal my response is predictable: I think the category is supposed to contain Sikh warriors while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sidenote: there wasn't really any such thing as military personnel of the
Sikh Confederacy since the military was primarily organized per member state. They just joined forces upon need.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
while the Sikhs were self-governing, i.e. governing the Punjab region in which they were in the majority. I'm afraid that is an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Political and military control over an area never perfectly coincides with the area where a certain ethnic, linguistic, religious etc. group lives or lived. That is the fiction of the modern nation-state, that you can have population and state borders coincide. E.g. there never was a time when all inhabitants of the "Netherlands" were "Dutch" by ethnicity, language, nationality or whatever, nor did they ever all adhere to exactly the same religion. Crosscats of people by nationality, by religion, by ethnicity and by language are always inappropriate for that reason.
It is more than likely that the area that the Sikhs controlled did not exactly match with the spread of their religion. But that does not matter for the articles which are clearly about Sikh warriors defending their territories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A: Propose renamingCategory:Sikh military to
Category:Military of the Sikh Empire, and Purging this tree of everything unrelated to the
Sikh Empire (which may mean either removing all three subcategories, or also renaming and purging those subcategories as a follow-up to this nomination); or
B: Propose deletingCategory:Sikh military as an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT (and also Delete the subcategories (at least the Wars and Military units ones) as a follow-up to this nomination)
Nominator's rationale: Renaming (A) may be a good idea because of parents
Category:Sikh Empire and
Category:Military by former country, and siblings in
Category:Military by former country. However, as @
Marcocapelle pointed out at Speedy, this requires more discussion because there is lots of content in the category that pre-dates the
Sikh Empire. Moreover,
Dharamyudh (Sikhism) (an article I wrote some years ago) is a religious concept, and does not belong solely to the Sikh Empire as a state. Alternately, we could also decide that this is just an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be deleted (B). Also, I think that the two recently created children
Category:Military units and formations of the Sikhs and
Category:Wars involving the Sikhs may be
WP:ARBITRARYCATs, which will also have to be renamed (A) or deleted (B).
Category:Sikh warriors may be a valid category (if it passes
WP:EGRS), but not all those within the military of the Sikh Empire were necessarily adherents of
Sikhism, so unless renamed & rescoped, that subcategory should be removed from this tree. Please indicate your preference, as both seem workable solutions to the current issues.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is a difficult one, because the Sikhs dominated (parts of)
Punjab, but did not have a consistent political structure in that region during the two centuries that this category tree is about. They did have military though, to defend their territories. The period covers the
Early Mughal–Sikh wars until the
Afghan–Sikh wars and it is only during the latter wars that there was first a
Sikh Confederacy and later a
Sikh Empire. Deletion or purging would certainly be counter-productive because it would arbitrarily break the military history of the region. At most diffuse by different periods. An alternative in a completely different direction is renaming to
Category:Sikh military (1621–1849).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I really don't think we should be categorising military history by religious denomination. That's kinda like creating
Category:Anabaptist military and then throwing
Münster rebellion and
Anabaptist riot in there, as if those were carried out by the Armed Forces of the same "state". They weren't.
The comparison with Anabaptists is unfair because the two articles you mentioned are situated at two different places and the Anabaptists held power in only one of them. Hypothetically, if they would have maintained longer in Münster, and if there they would have been called "the Anabaptists" by historians as belligerant in wars, then by all means
Category:Anabaptist military would have been a valid category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it is fair, because as you mentioned, the
Sikh Empire is a different state than the
Sikh Confederacy, and formations such as the
Akal Sena are even older, but did not yet have their own state; they were in rebellion against the
Mughal Empire. (I suppose that's what you are referring to by your suggestion to start counting form 1621?).
At any rate, we should avoid categorising military personnel by religion per
WP:EGRS. A military or armed group is either always connected to a state, or usually intends to form its own state or quasi-state, and sometimes already operates a proto-state or quasi-state (even gangs and mafia can have territories of influence where they extract 'protection money', i.e. tribute). (It is for this reason that we have maintained Military personnel of Fooland rather than Military personnel from Fooland conventions; their service to Fooland defines them, not their birth or residence in Fooland).
The
Akal Sena was such a group, whose military aspects were defined by their loyalty to
Guru Hargobind, and their pursuit to establish an independent Sikh state (the
First Sikh State arose in 1709). The personal religious beliefs of the individual soldiers in the Akal Sena are
WP:NONDEFINING for the group as a military force in service of a guru and a proto-state in the Punjab region.
NLeeuw (
talk) 10:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It may have started as a rebellion, but so did the
Dutch Republic which is in retrospect said to have started in the 1570s while it was only recognized by Spain in 1648. There is usually a grey area between rebellion and independence. For the Sikhs independence presumably started in 1606 with the
Akal Takht and the first battle against the Mughal Empire taking place in 1621, the
Battle of Rohilla.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Tweaking category names to be more representative of their intended usage. As they stand currently, I believe that the categories could be misunderstood as not aligning with Brazil's
official regions. I hope to remedy that with this change.
BaduFerreira (
talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The term "
people's peers" is chiefly informal, while the new title is unambiguous as to its scope and resembles other similar category names, e.g. "Peers appointed by [monarch]". — RAVENPVFF·talk· 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 20:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The term 'Arab Jews' is politically contested, often by Zionists or by Jews with roots in the Arab world who prefer to be identified as Mizrahi Jews. This category may inappropriately label persons.
Aldij (
talk) 16:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. The small amount of articles in this category illustrates the point.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Given how much overlap between the two categories there is I don't think these concepts are distinct enough to warrant both.
* Pppery *it has begun... 15:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Continental Army soldiers from North Carolina
Nominator's rationale: Delete; this seems to be the only category by state (colony?) for Army soldiers.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 15:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison I'm not sure if Estopedist would appreciate it that you changed their nomination. It makes sense, but I think it's better to ask the nominator to include other categories to their nomination than to do it yourself without their prior consent.
If Estopedist agrees, however, I also favour upmerging the additional categories for now without prejudice.
NLeeuw (
talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Estopedist1 @
Smasongarrison @
Nederlandse Leeuw thanks very much for the work here, I was looking at these last night but then had to go to sleep! I've done a little more tidying:
Category:Czechoslovak numismatists is empty (with one moved to Czech
Category:New Zealand numsimatists is empty (the one classed as numismatist is really a coin designer, so moved to that category)
Category:Belarusian numismatists - I can't seem to locate the proposal for it?
There are some more things I had in mind that I will try to get to, today
Lajmmoore (
talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge for now, without objection to recreate any of these categories when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: by nominator. Excellent job, mates! Thanks for modifying my original nomination!--
Estopedist1 (
talk) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Glad to know you didn't mind. Personally I usually don't appreciate it when other people change my nomination without asking, but not everyone is the same way.
NLeeuw (
talk) 00:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: - Categories: Belarusian, Estonian, Lithuanian and Pakistani numismatist are no longer single person categories.
Lajmmoore (
talk) 21:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
They have only two or three articles so they can still be merged.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think for the discipline it's useful for catgeories that reflect more than one article to be separate, and I believe the nominations were made prior to the addition of more people to the categories
Lajmmoore (
talk) 09:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
These categories also show users which articles still need to be created in the English Wikipedia based on the categories in other language Wikipedias. For example, I was surprised by how many articles we are still missing for Estonian numistamists in enwp. Obliterating the categories won't help people with that.
On a side note, I was also surprised by how few of the people in the same category in other language wps had properly filled out items in Wikidata that could be used to query numistamists from these places, even when they are in the properly titled categories in other wps. To me, this looks like a very good reason to get people together to expand and create articles on these people in enwp, filling out the categories, instead of deleting the categories. -
Yupik (
talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge - Albanian, Algerian, Azerbaijani, Czechoslovak, Jordanian, Latvian, New Zealand Serbian, Slovak, Sri Lankan, but ...
@
Nederlandse Leeuw - apologies for the late reply. My opinion is that all the numismatist by nationalisty categories should remain, but I also recognise that compromise is important, so I would would suggested that the Belarusian, Estonian and Lithuanian categories are kept (since they have more than one person in each), and the others deleted if need be
Lajmmoore (
talk) 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment If you merge the Jordanian, Slovak, Czechoslovak, Belarusian, Algerian, and Albanian numismatists, you also need to put them into categories for their nationalities, like
Category:Jordanian people or a subcategory. It would be wrong to take these people out of their nationality categories entirely.
123.51.107.94 (
talk) 23:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: While "HD" is a proper noun, "HDS" is not. -
UtherSRG(talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, not a defining characterstic. If kept, rename per nom.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Queen of ♡ |
speak 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Marcocapelle: "Species described in year" and "IUCN vulnerable species" categories are not defining characteristics, either, but those are widely used. How are those acceptable but this isn't? For the record, I oppose deletion. -
UtherSRG(talk) 10:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
UtherSRG: the tree of
Category:Species by IUCN Red List category is also very questionable, as species may easily be moved from one list to another in the course of time. At least IUCN is a global organization, while the category we are discussing is only regional.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep: It looks like the nominator has no understanding of the importance of
Sahitya Akademi Awards in India. While List article may exist, it is important to have this category for the recipients. The award is presented every year to writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit published in any of the 22 languages separately. Nobel prize list articles also exists, as well as categories for recipients of each categories of Nobel prizes.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 12:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Its standing isn't like that of the Nobel Prize.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 16:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to
Category:Rurikids. "Volodimerovichi" is rarely used in comparison to "Rurikids", also does not follow the title of the main article.
Mellk (
talk) 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This category is fine as it is. It is part of larger tree of princely clans and branches of Kievan Rus'. During several renamings and recategorisations last year, it was agreed to be cautious with categorising anyone as a "Rurikid", as the historicity of
Rurik (as well as
Sineus and Truvor) is disputed as a possibly a founding myth (similar to
Remus and Romulus etc.), and there is no concept of a "Rurikid dynasty" in historical sources until the 16th century. However, Volodimer' (Vladimir, Volodymyr, Uladzemir) is a well-known historical figure, and his family / descendants are commonly known as "Volodimerovichi" in English-language reliable sources. Just like, for example,
Category:Sviatoslavichi family and
Category:Olgovichi family. It is preferable if there is a main article with the same name for these families, but so far, there are only redirects to the founder of each princely branch, e.g.
Olgovichi redirects to
Oleg I of Chernigov,
Sviatoslavichi to
Sviatoslav II of Kiev, and
Volodimerovichi to
Vladimir the Great. It's also much better for navigation not to lump all these people into one big category, but by commonly recognised princely branches.
NLeeuw (
talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As there is no article
Volodimerovichi yet, it would be helpful to add a source in the header of the category page indicating that this is a common name among historians indeed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sounds like a good idea.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There are no such branches at this stage, this comes later and we already have cats for those as they are widely accepted Rurikid branches. The term "Volodimerovichi" is used by a couple of historians instead of "Rurikids". Whether Rurik existed or not is irrelevant because the term "Rurikid" is widely used by later historians (similarly to the term "Kievan Rus" even though the state was not called as such then), hence this is POV to use an uncommon term that has not been widely accepted (yet).
Mellk (
talk) 05:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hmmm now I'm beginning to doubt. Christian Raffensperger seems to use it for all members of princely clans of Kievan Rus' in general, as a replacement "Riurikovichi", rather than just Volodimer' and his descendants. One wonders about the predecessors of Volodimer' (Yaropolk, Sviatoslav, Igor, Oleg and the alleged Riurik), who could hardly retro-actively be called "Volodimerovichi". I'll think about it some more, I'll get back to this issue.
NLeeuw (
talk) 07:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have checked the literature more thoroughly, and I think it might have been a mistake to name this category in this way. Since the early 2010s, scholars including Raffensperger, Ostrowski, Halperin and others have been using "Volodimerovichi" as an alternative to "R(i)urikovichi" or "R(i)urikids" altogether, and not as a specific branch within the larger clan structure of Kievan Rus', like the later -ovichi families. Theoretically, "Volodimerovichi" could still be used that way (and sometimes it is), but this is not widespread in historiography yet.
I do think it's useful to keep it as a separate category, but it's better to change the name according to our conventions. As both nom and I have suggested, it is useful to follow the main article title wherever possible. However, the current main article title is
Family life and children of Vladimir I. The last part probably should be Vladimir the Great instead of Vladimir I, given the
Vladimir the Great biography title. (I myself prefer Volodimer I of Kiev, which is common amongst modern scholars, but not (yet) the
WP:COMMONNAME in all English-language literature). The first part is also unusual; there is no other enwiki article title with Family life and children of X. The common formula is Family of X. So per
WP:TITLECON, it should be Family of Vladimir the Great.
In that case I would prefer merge as nominated. We could hypothetically create a "family of" for every grand prince but it would just overlap with
Category:Rurikids.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
MarcocapelleFamily life and children of Vladimir I is the only "Family of" main article of a (grand) prince of Kiev. So I'm not worried about having to create a "family of" category for every grand prince as long as there is no "family of" main article for every grand prince. Moreover, it arguably merits a category on account of his many wives and children, and subsequent princely branches directly and exclusively descended from him. That is quite uncommon in Kievan Rus' history.
NLeeuw (
talk) 10:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So far everyone seems to be supporting the RM. We'll see what happens.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The fact that the article exists, with this name, does not mean a category should also exist. I still think it is rather arbitrary to split off one particular "family" from
Category:Rurikids. Ultimately Rurikids is the family.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Like the other comments, I support this merger. These categories were erroneously created and this needs to be corrected.
Historyday01 (
talk) 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, but manually merge because articles may already be in a subcategory of a merge target.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support, with exception of "Intersex transgender men" and "Intersex transgender women," as those can be useful categories and don't have the same issue as the other proposed categories for deletion.
ForsythiaJo (
talk) 21:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge the last three (LGBT intersex categories), keep the rest per ForsythiaJo. All intersex people are categorized as LGBT, but are all intersex men gay men or transgender men? The rationale doesn't apply to these categories. --
MikutoHtalk! 23:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Question for the keeps, I don't think the 3x intersection is supportable in terms of category size or under EGRS. Can somebody point to some literature that supports these intersections?
Mason (
talk) 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There are many more intersex transgender people around the world, and their struggle for notability is hindered by oppression faced by them. —
CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I'm not disputing that these people exist or that they experience hardships, but what I haven't been able to find is academic literature that would support this as a defining intersection, which is typically the benchmark for EGRS intersections.
Mason (
talk) 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose I strongly oppose the erasure of asexual and intersex people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and the subsequent eradication of any categories that mention LGBT intersex and asexual people. Being both LGBT and intersex or LGBT and asexual is a relevant and defining intersection of two oppressed groups, a minority within a minority. Likewise, there are many intersex people who identify as cis/hetero or straight and many asexuals who identify as cis/heteroromantic or straight.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 10:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This is not erasure of people who are asexual and LGBTQIA. It is literally in the acronym already.
Mason (
talk) 12:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison Yes, it is erasure. And "LGBT" is the standard acronym used for articles and categories for Wikipedia. Not all asexual people are gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender. Gay asexual men exist. Lesbian asexual women exist. Biromantic asexuals exist. Transgender asexuals exist. Just as there are asexuals who identify as straight and/or hetero. There needs to be a way to describe and acknowledge the reality of asexuals who are LGB and/or T. A marginalized group within a marginalized group. As a compromise, I'd be fine with merging the LGBT categories but keeping the L, G, B, and T subcategories. Those are undoubtedly valid.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 22:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Bohemian Baltimore: I totally agree. I hope we can gather more support and achieve consensus from a neutral point of view to oppose deletion of this of category. I left a message on your talk page for the same. —
CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 16:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose "All intersex people are LGBT" is a blatant assumption made without listening to all intersex people, and made on basis of only the acronyms LGBTI+, LGBTQI+, LGBTQIA+, LGBTQIAP+, LGBTQIAP+, LGBTQ2SIA+, LGBTQ2SIAP+, etc.
"I’m Bonnie Hart, I’m a woman, and I’m kind of straight-ish. Being intersex has nothing to do with gender identities or presentations, or sexual orientation. Intersex people identify as female, male, both, and all sorts of identities between the binary. It’s a lived experience"
The LGBQIAP+ acronym includes only those intersex people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (non-binary, genderfluid, agender, polygender, pangender, and so on) and/or polyamorous, asexual, graysexual, ace-spec, aromantic, grayromantic, aro-spec, and so on. Intersex people who are straight, monoamorous, cisgender, binary, and/or allosexual and so on, and rest of the non-LGBTQ+ intersex people have constantly stated again and again that they are not lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer, and hence they are not LGBTQ+.
Just like there are many overlaps between and among all groups of people everywhere, there are many overlaps between groups of LGBTQ+ people and non-LGBTQ+ people, whether they are intersex or endosex, cisgender or transgender, binary or non-binary or agender. All ethically good people's sexualities, biological sex, and genders must be respected. —
CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 09:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
CrafterNova: what you arguing is that Intersex categories should not automatically have LGBT parents. Whether one agrees with that or not, for the merge discussion it is not really relevant. The merge proposal is about avoiding trivial intersections. E.g. there does not have to be a micro category for people who are intersex and gay man simultaneously, instead articles may well be put in an intersex category and in a gay men category independently of each other.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: There do have to be subcategories and microcategories. There are many examples where secondary, tertiary, and quaternary categories are required, such as:
The people, whose articles are in such subcategories and microcategories, have criteria that makes them eligible to be placed in such categories.
These are not "trivial intersections", rather intersections of various forms of oppression and discrimination, various professions, eras and time periods, nationalities, genders, biological sex, sexualities, etc.
Representation of people at these intersections is important, especially people who face long-term discrimination based on genders, biological sex, sexualities, nationalities, race, ethnicities, and so on. —
CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 07:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This sounds like we categorize just because we can, not because it serves any purpose.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
CrafterNova: no that is not the purpose. The goal of categories is to allow easy navigation between related articles for readers, and by creating many layers in categories we merely make navigation more difficult.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle:by creating many layers in categories we merely make navigation more difficult.
According to your understanding of easy navigation of categories, wouldn't quaternary categories be more difficult to navigate than teritary categories such as
Category:Intersex transgender people in this case?
Readers can navigate through secondary, tertiary and quarternary categories just as easily as all categories. Ease of navigation does not depend on subcategorization and microcategorization. Rather, ease of navigation depends on accessibility features, and whether category naming criteria, intersection criteria, and rest of relevant criteria are met or not. —
CrafterNova[ TALK ][ CONT ] 07:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Readers do not have to navigate in the tree at all if they find a sufficient amount of content in the category that they find at the bottom of the article that they are reading, it then suffices to select every article in that category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep transgender intersex people category (at least this one isn't a triple intersection, as much as
Category:Intersex non-binary people isn't too). I'm neutral on merging the others. --
MikutoHtalk! 22:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per CrafterNova and Bohemian Baltimore.
59.152.195.28 (
talk) 07:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:merge/redirect, it looks like the scope of the two categories coincides.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom
Mason (
talk) 17:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge given that main article is
List of Indian massacres in North America. I don't think that title is very helpful though, as the scope is both of and by "Indians". But that should be discussed at its talk page, not here.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment there have been massacres in India... so the category name is ambiguous. This category name should be salted, so that India cannot use this category name either. --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 05:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree that "Indian" is ambiguous, so I'd rather stick to merge as nominated rather than reverse merge. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Marcocapelle (
talk •
contribs) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge on the grounds "Indigenous" should be capitalized in accordance with
WP:INDIGENOUS and
MOS:RACECAPS. --
ARoseWolf 11:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
For sure "Native American tribes" is clearer than "tribes in the United States". However "unrecognized" is clearer than "self-identify" because tribes that are recognized also self-identify as such but that is obviously not in scope here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle They aren't tribes though. They are organizations. To incorrectly call them "tribes" implies that they are indeed tribes but are merely waiting to be recognized. That's a POV.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 11:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Opposed -
Dear Wikipedia Editors,
I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendment that seeks to rename the category “Unrecognized tribes in the United States” to “Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes.” This change not only misrepresents our tribe but also undermines the historical and cultural recognition we have long held.
The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe of Wampanoag Nation has a well-documented history in Plymouth, Bourne, Massachusetts dating back thousands of years. We still have care and custody of our sacred places, burial grounds and our 1838 Meetinghouse, one of 3 built for the Tribe after the arrival of the colonizers. Our continuous presence and stewardship of these lands are recognized by historical records,deeds and treaties and so on. Additionally, our status is acknowledged by the two MA federal tribes, the Commission on Indian Affairs, Plymouth, Bourne and the Commonwealth which affirms our legitimacy beyond mere self-identification.
The proposed renaming of the category on Wikipedia is not only inaccurate of many but also insulting. It disregards the deep cultural and ancestral ties we have to our land—ties that are integral to our identity and existence. Labeling us as an organization that self-identifies as a Native American tribe fails to recognize these ties and the acknowledgment we have received from authoritative entities.
Mislabeling our tribe and any other legitimate Tribes in this manner can lead to the spread of hate, misinformation and further marginalization. It is crucial that platforms like Wikipedia, which serve as a global source of information, ensure the accuracy and integrity of the content they host.
Tribes without legislative recognition often face significant administrative hurdles to gain federal recognition, and being labeled as "self-identified" can add to these challenges by casting doubt on our legitimacy.
We face persistent disparagement on platforms like Wiki All the while we are still walking the path to recognition.
The lack of recognition does not protect tribes from discrimination or persecution, and the term "self-identified" can perpetuate these issues by invalidating their identity.
The term "self-identified" can be problematic for tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, especially in states like Massachusetts that lack a legislative recognition process, for several reasons: diminished sovereignty, historical erasure, legal implications, administrative challenges, discrimination and persecution.
It's important for platforms like Wikipedia to use terminology that accurately reflects the status and history of tribes, especially those with longstanding recognition by other tribes and federal entities, rather than terms that can lead to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of their identity and rights. The Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe's situation exemplifies the need for careful consideration of how tribes are categorized and described in public and legal contexts.
We urge you to consider the implications of this change and to seek a category name that respects and reflects the recognized status of tribes like the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe. We are open to dialogue and collaboration to find a solution that honors the truth of our history and existence.
Goldendragonfly77 (
talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I think that this rename has major negative connotations that are unwarrented.
Category:Unrecognized tribes does the same thing without the connotation.
Mason (
talk) 18:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What negative connotations? "Unrecognized tribes" doesn't work because these organizations are not actually tribes.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 11:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Mason and Marcocapelle. While I understand the idea behind the "self-id" part, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket statement on all unrecognized groups. Self-ID also carries highly negative connotations, as Mason stated, and I don't think that warrants being a blanket statement. "Unrecognized" is also by far the most common term in literature, afaik, however I don't have any data to back that up.
PersusjCP (
talk) 04:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
How is self-id a negative? It is simply describing that we don't have a citation to support their claims. I disagree with the statement that recognized tribes self-identify. The process to gain recognition is rigorous and recognized tribes, at least those federally recognized, have to document their continuous direct connection with the original tribes that were here prior to and during colonial contact. With no direct proof connecting them they are therefore self-identifying. They may very well share a heritage and be descendants but they cannot verify by showing a direct connection. That is only a negative because people on Wikipedia and even some of those who self-identify are trying to push that perspective to distort reality. At no point are we saying they are "pretendians". That would require reliable sources stating it through investigation. Self-identify does not equal "pretendian". --
ARoseWolf 13:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Saying someone "identifies" as something vs "being" something very much does have a negative connotation. It implies it is only in their head. There is even a famous transphobic joke (I identify as an attack helicopter/whatever) about how one's self-ID is meaningless.
PersusjCP (
talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We cannot declare every one of these groups to be tribes; that's
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH. Is there a term you see as more neutral than "identifies"? I don't mind if "self" is removed. Re: transphobia, a Native American tribe is a collective political identity, while a person's gender and sex is an individual identity; the two concepts are completely different from each other.
Yuchitown (
talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitownreply
It's wordy, but I would think along the lines of "claims descent/to be the successor from historical tribe/the aboriginal ___ people" or something like that. Maybe "
Organizations that claim descent from Native American tribes." Since "descent"or being the "successor" is generally the more politically accurate idea to what modern day tribes are to historical entities.
PersusjCP (
talk) 20:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So sorry, but I believe that would be original research since not all the groups claim descent from Native American tribes, like the Una Nation of Mixed-Bloods from Eugene, Oregon, who see themselves as a completely new entity (that is somehow still Native American). Just as a reminder, the corresponding article is
List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, so this proposal isn't charting new territory but trying to bring the category inline with the article.
Yuchitown (
talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah that's a good point, I forgot about them... Okay, I support the current/future wording of "Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes," unless someone else can think of a more neutral, all-applicable wording. Maybe alternatively: get rid of the "self" in "self-identify," but I don't know if that makes it more neutral. Or like, "Orgainzations not recognized as Native American tribes," although that's kind of broad. Unfortunately I think because it is such a contentious topic that it is hard to be truly "neutral" in this.
PersusjCP (
talk) 21:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I can see how "self-identifying" could be regarded as problematic, as if they could be somehow "delusional" (although I must say this is the first time I've heard it having any negative connotation).
But so can "unrecognised", right? Doesn't this imply that that these people are in fact tribes, but the U.S. government is just being 'stubborn, uncooperative and discriminatory' in 'refusing' to recognise them as such? The word "unrecognised" arguably carries a subtle
WP:POV in it in favour of recognition, and arguably an implied criticism against the government that has so far not extended it to the applicants.
NLeeuw (
talk) 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support. All we can substantiate is that these organizations have collectively have identified as being Native American tribes. We cannot go further and do not have that authority; an outside authority having nothing to do with Wikipedia would have to make that distinction. Saying they identify does not mean none of the groups have Native American ancestry or that none of the groups are respected as successors of historical political tribes. But to collectively say all these groups are "tribes" is
WP:OR and beyond our capacity or what we can support through published sources.
Yuchitown (
talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitownreply
That does not solve the problem that recognized tribes also identify as being Native American tribes. The question is what distinguishes the two groups and the answer is that one group is recognized and the other group not. Not recognized is the key descriptor here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes but this does not address the objection. The objection is not about recognized, it is about unrecognized.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What about "Organizations not recognized as Native American tribes" as I said in another thread here? The only problem is pretty much this applies to anything except federally-and-state recognized tribes, but maybe it is clear enough with context.
PersusjCP (
talk) 21:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That would include almost every organization on the planet. I’m not being facetious. “Identifying as Native American tribes” is a necessary component.
Yuchitown (
talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support - I've watched this discussion for a few days and tried to understand or see all the perspectives. I disagree with the negative connotation many are trying to place on self-identification and I think that term should defined somewhere on Wikipedia much like other terms have. The fact that it can be negative or potentially be negative shouldn't be considered because anything can be negative depending on who is defining it. What we should be looking at is the literal meaning of self-identification. These entities are the ultimate source of their identification. I know, some will say, The most notable ones did get recognized by reliable sources or government resolutions. But ultimately the source of their legitimacy when you dig into it is the subject entity itself. If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition. So we are left with an entity that identifies itself as Native American. This may be true and it may not be true, it's still self-identification at its foundation. I support the change in title on that basis. Calling them "unrecognized tribes" places a legitimacy on these groups that cannot be verified. It is wholly non-neutral for Wikipedia to be the one conferring legitimacy. Many don't even call themselves tribes. --
ARoseWolf 12:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose per what Mason and Marcocapelle said, which is that self-ID can have a highly negative connotation and "unrecognized" is the common term in literature. I've already encountered the issue of self-ID violating
BLP in an article. If the category was changed as proposed, it's likely we'd have many more BLP issues in individual articles about people. This may seem like a minor word change, but there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native "self identifies," because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles covered by BLP because articles about Native people typically link to their tribe's article. --
SouthernNights (
talk) 19:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no consensus in any discussion you can point to that says "self-identification" is considered a BLP violation. If I remove anything that I believe "can" be considered negative from every BLP on Wikipedia how long do you think it would take before I was community banned? Yet that's what you did based on your own personal opinion, not consensus. That is the worst obvious and most ridiculous example of POV pushing I have ever seen and quite frankly what I consider very much a misuse of the admin tools. It calls into question your neutrality, not on a personal level because we are all biased to some degree, but your willingness to use the tools you were granted to support your bias despite other good faith editors objecting. --
ARoseWolf 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." In the case of the
article I'm referring to, the recent edits that her tribe supposedly self-identifies absolutely qualified as such which is why I removed them. And I'm hardly the only one who sees it this way -- several editors raised concerns in this very category discussion about such descriptions being seen as negative. For more perspectives on this topic, check out this
2021 research paper published in the American Sociological Association journal (pdf download). Finally, your
personal attacks here cross a definite line and violate Wikipedia policy. I strongly advise you do not continue with such attacks.
SouthernNights (
talk) 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Her self-identification as Lipan Apache is not unsourced. We know that her non-profit organization has neither state nor federal recognition. That is a fact, not an opinion. Their identity as a Native group comes purely from their own self-identification, not from government recognition. You referring to "her tribe" is itself a POV and also factually untrue, because it isn't actually a tribe. It's a non-profit organization. There's nothing supposed about it. That's what it is.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If my statements were attacks then so were yours when you attacked good faith editors by declaring us POV pushers. What does that make you pushing your personal point of view? --
ARoseWolf 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose There are a number of reasons why this conversation about Native American identity should not be renamed self-identify. Here are the top four in my mind:
1. The term self-identify as proposed is unmistakably negative, intentionally so. It’s negative in that it’s divisive, exclusionary, and demeaning. It attacks a significant part of Indian Country, like Lily Gladstone, by claiming they’re not real Native Americans, only pretending to be ones (of course there’s a page for that). No, it’s not racism, certainly not colorism. It’s crude chauvinism. It says that on one hand there are normal real Native Americans and on the other there are abnormal people who illegitimately and with no more foundation than their own volition identify as Native Americans, on no better basis than folks who identify as attack helicopters (credit Persus). Everybody hates attack helicopter wannabes. Native American, normal, positive. Self-identify Native American, abnormal, negative. The dots connecting the term as proposed to its pejorative roots couldn’t be drawn closer.
2. It effaces the concept of indigeneity. It says Native American is an identity established, not by self-identity, but by the US govt through a CDIB card. It says that Native Americans are creations not of thousands of years of independent existence and identity, but of the power that recently in their history came to occupy their land. Further, that occupying power can take back the identity only it, nobody and nothing else, can confer, as it has demonstrated in the past it can do.
3. The question is much bigger than this discussion setting can possibly do it justice. It’s not just a matter of slightly adjusting the name of a WP page. It’s a matter of possibly stumbling into a big philosophical and political decision due to a slight of hand; that self-identity is just a clearer way of saying not acknowledge by the US. No scholarly citations. No peer-reviewed article(s), it would never cut muster in that environment-- that's why there's none (I checked). Just the argument that, you know, it’s neater to say self-identify than non-recognized. And should it be done, a micro-minority POV has been imposed on a long-settled question of who decides who's Native American. From that point on, Native American identity means US citizenship and a CDIB. Born and raised in Paris and just found out you had a % grandparent with a CDIB, you're in. Born and raised in a historical Indigenous community in, say, Guatemala or Canada and migrated to an enclave of your community in Miami or LA where everybody still speaks your native language, you're out. Of course, it's a settled question that Indian Country is no bigger than the United States and Native American identity is entirely a Unitedstatean question. Not.
4. It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity. This discussion has already been had over a much longer period, involving many many more participants, in a much more transparent and deliberative fashion. And a consensus was reached. Then instead of being shelved or secreted away, it was announced to the world and has been in place for years, known today as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN). This widely publicized consensus speaks directly against the proposal to change the name of this page by declaring that indigenous identity is necessarily self-identify. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tsideh (
talk •
contribs) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
There are more, but I'll stop here for now. Tsideh.:Tsideh
Tsideh (
talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC) —
Tsideh (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Could you share where on Wikipedia this conversation took place? “It goes against a vast and longstanding consensus on the concept of indigenous identity”: I’ve never seen such a conversation on Wikipedia.
Yuchitown (
talk) 14:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support I don't see any BLP violation or anything objectively negative about the term self-identify. I do see a big NPOV problem with the current category name as it uses the word "tribes" suggesting in Wikivoice that these are actual tribes in the context of indigenous American tribes.
Doug Wellertalk 11:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would say that is my biggest concern even more than the self-identity argument that seems to have developed. Some of these are organizations that have filed for 501C3 status with the same government they decry as holding them back from recognition. While some are heritage groups trying to bring awareness to Native American topics. Others may have legitimate claims. Still others are pretendian organizations seeking financial gain on the backs of Native Americans. The one thing that is common between them all is they cannot provide evidence which link them to the sovereign nations they claim to be part of with any continuity. Had they been able to do so they would have gained the political recognition from the US government to be able to speak for the respective nation they associate with. Without a doubt Wikipedia should not legitimize them in Wiki-voice as Native American/American Indian tribes, recognized or unrecognized, self-identified or otherwise and even if reliable sources that are not owned by legitimately recognized nations identify them as such. --
ARoseWolf 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose. The proposed renaming would result in very awkward-sounding categories that thousands of readers and article subjects could find to be inaccurate, biased, or even offensive.
"Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes" is not wording that is typically used in academic literature.
Federal recognition is a controversial topic that should be discussed in the article text itself. It should not be forced into category names.
Category names should be based on serious non-biased anthropological and sociological research, and should not be based on decisions made by bureaucratic governments that may not always be fair.
I primarily focus on ethnic groups in the Middle East and Balkans, and categorizing thousands of individuals and entire clans as "self-identified" would be extremely offensive. For example, what if Serbia, Iran, or others do not officially recognize certain ethnic groups that Western anthropologists would certainly recognize as genuine ethnic or ethnoreligious groups? For example, if we were to label
Yazidis or
Alevis as self-identified minorities, that would be completely unencyclopedic, POV, and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia.
There are also many
unrecognized ethnic groups in China, since the Chinese (PRC) government officially recognizes only 56 ethnic groups. Should we also categorize every single individual from those unrecognized minorities as "self-identified minorities"? Certainly not, as that would be very awkward, controversial, and out of line with what Wikipedia categories should really be all about.
Another good reason to oppose this renaming is the
WP:CONCISE guideline. We shouldn't make category names overly long and complicated.
The same should apply to Native Americans, First Nations, and other indigenous peoples in North America.
WP:NDNID was written by members of the
Indigenous peoples of North America Wikiproject. It was thoughtfully constructed and thoroughly discussed to aid non-Native editors on Wikipedia gain an understanding of what being Native American is. Native American identity is not a matter of race or ethnicity. There is not a unified "Native American" ethnic identity. So the ethnic groups mentioned would not be an accurate comparison. This should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. --
ARoseWolf 13:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: To label all of the entities in the category tribes is definitely original research. The article was renamed to accurately and honestly include groups such as the
Kaweah Indian Nation,
Ani-Stohini/Unami, and
Vinyard Indian Settlement as well as the
Mississippi Choctaw Indian Federation,
Brothertown Indians, and
Verona Band of Alameda County (i.e. those with no demonstrated connection to historic Native American communities to those with well-documented connections). I've cited Miller's book, but it was also written in 2006; many of these groups have formed since then. This lengthy discussion will probably result in "No Consensus"; however, all of the editors who actively contribute to and improve Native American topics on Wikipedia have voted to "Support" the renaming.
Yuchitown (
talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I haven't seen any opposition to using "Native American" instead of "in the United States" so we seem to have a minimal consensus.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would absolutely be opposed to changing the category to "Category:Unrecognized Native American tribes" which is what seems to be implied here. --
ARoseWolf 12:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 11:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, this will leave three subcategories and two articles in the 18th century so it does not require very granular diffusion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment Can we at least merge these categories into centuries in Judaism categories? It seems like some articles were removed from categories not manually but just mistakes in a template. LizRead!Talk! 19:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If these articles can be found they should certainly be added to the century category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:merge, currently only one article in the category, which is not helpful for navigation.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, in the absence of humorous comments about shipwrecks and navigation. –
FayenaticLondon 11:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge. Hazard to navigation.
Herostratus (
talk) 12:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: No reason has been given why this unnecessarily
WP:NARROWCAT has been created. It only contains two taxons which is not enough to justify an entire separate category.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ultimately doing that is just shuffling around deck chairs and makes no real difference. But I think the more longstanding categories (since 2006) should take precedence over your new 2024 category, not things be merged just because you want your category to be prominent. You have just stated an opinion but not provided a reason to back why taxon is better than the vertebrate/invertebrate split.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 09:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm: My suggestion is to leave "Fictional animals by taxon" with 8 subcategories instead of 2, if your only argument is that it's too small right now.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Both the nominated and the alt proposal could be an improvement, but I prefer the alternative, in order to keep taxa together as a recognizable attrribute. I have tagged the two subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Wikipedia:Overcategorization. This is not a defining characteristic for any of these individuals, it's trivial, and narrow. Its also temporary. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 01:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: Let’s consider what
Wikipedia:Overcategorization defines as non-trivial characteristics: “For biographical articles, it is usual to categorize by such aspects as their career, origins, and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have would be considered trivia.” It is indisputably a major accomplishment and notable career event to have been the very last member of a political party to win a statewide election. These people were alone and remain alone as members of their parties with statewide power, reflecting ideological transitions and resource disparities. That is why this trait is noted in the introduction of almost every biography under the category. It does not remotely compare with arbitrary preferences or traits, and you have failed to elaborate about why it should. You have essentially conceded that there is no formal rule whatsoever against categories which are so-called “temporary.” Of course elections and generational turnover mean that pages will eventually be swapped out. In many cases in this category, this will likely take years to decades - underscoring how the category is illustrative of partisan leans and relevant to understanding both the unique "maverick" identities of some politicians as well as the electoral geography of the United States. Wikipedia is updated to reflect current events. This category, along with many other categories and biographies, is no different. Finally, it is hardly narrow to cover 23 politicians from 23 22 different states and multiple decades.
1Matt20 (
talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This epon category has the poet and the one of their colleagues. That's not helpful for navigation, considering that they already link to each other.
Mason (
talk) 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:NARROWCAT. The category is a limited scope to only four people. There will not be further additions to this.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 19:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Five articles are more than enough for a category.
Dimadick (
talk) 19:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean to delete, it does not seem a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:merge for now, currently the category has only one article, that is not helpful for navigation.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, anachronistic content,
Beringia is a concept from prehistoric geography, but the category only contains current-day geography.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose Marcocapelle's definition contradicts the maim article
Beringia, which defines it as a current
region.
Dimadick (
talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It does not. It was one coherent region because the Bering Street was dry land. That is no longer the case. Beringia is not usually on any current-day map.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Jewish communities destroyed in the Holocaust
Nominator's rationale: Disclaimer: I would like to say that this is a sensitive topic that should not be treated lightly. I am going to make some observations that seek to address what I see as inappropriate categorisation practices, but I thereby do not seek to deny or diminish or trivialise the severity of
The Holocaust. That said: I think this is an
WP:ARBITRARYCAT that should be listified, and every entry supported by
WP:RS.
Detailed explanation
Firstly: We cannot say that a city or town, which had at some point a "Jewish community" (something which should also be properly defined first in terms of numbers and characteristics) living in it, should in its entirety be included in this category. The precedent
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia comes to mind: a minority community within a populated place or administrative region cannot be
WP:DEFINING for the identity of that place or region as a whole. This is a wider issue within the
Category:Historic Jewish communities in Europe tree, but also in similar category trees of "communities" that categorise entire places or regions based on a minority of ethnic group X living within its borders.
Secondly, what exactly "destroyed" means is also not clear, as there have also been many
Holocaust survivors. Is a "community" only destroyed when 100% of its members did not survive the Holocaust, or is 90% enough? I'm sorry if that seems like a strange or inappropriate question, but it is one we need to ask to avoid having arbitrary percentages, and thus
WP:ARBITRARYCATs. It is the same reason why we can't have Category:Fooian-speaking countries just because, say, more than 50% of inhabitants in country X speaks Fooian, because '50%' is arbitrary. (So I had those categories all renamed last year as well).
What "destroyed" means exactly may also vary. A few years ago, there was a long dispute on Dutch Wikipedia about "List of castles destroyed by the French during the Franco-Dutch War" (it had many different titles, all of which were quite arbitrary and untenable; link:
nl:Wikipedia:Te beoordelen pagina's/Toegevoegd 20201103#Lijst van kastelen in Nederland, die door de Fransen rond 1672 of 1794 verwoest zijn). There, it turned out that some castles were rather "damaged" than "destroyed", or "demolished" outside of combat, and that a lot of
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH was involved in developing the list. Like this category, that list mostly sought to highlight and quantify the extent of the destruction wrought by a group of perpetrators, but failed to properly define what it was exactly about. "Community" is an even vaguer concept than "castle", and how one can "destroy a community" is really a question I would rather like to leave up to sociologists than us category Wikipedians.
If we listify this category, we could at least provide reliable sources in which scholars explain what they mean; categories cannot do that for us.
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the category contains articles about current-day European cities and towns rather than articles about pre-1945 Jewish communities. No objection against listification per se, but I think this task is far too big for someone to start with on a short term. The category content may be listed at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject before deletion, for someone, or maybe for multiple editors together, to start listifying in their own pace.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That seems like a good idea. Perhaps the creator @
Eladkarmel is willing to do so?
NLeeuw (
talk) 20:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per precedent. These are
WP:ARBITRARYCATs which do not aid navigation.
NLeeuw (
talk) 17:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is a confused nomination citing another confused discussion as precedent. There is certainly a reasonable intersection between the natural sciences, such as the biology, botany, zoölogy, paleontology, geology, etc. of a place, and the place that they represent. The nominator here and in the previous discussion linked above notes that the term "natural history" is somewhat synonymous with "natural sciences", which would be a valid reason to move these categories or change the titles to "natural history of foo", but not to delete them unless they simply duplicated "natural sciences of foo" or "environment of foo", or a similarly-named set of categories.
But in many instances there are no such categories; I came here from WikiProject West Virginia, and there does not seem to be a similar category combining the included articles or subcategories. The overlap mentioned by the nominator does not exist in this instance, and probably does not in many others. It makes no sense to use the supposed overlap with categories that do not exist as a justification for deleting others that do. The second comment above, supporting deletion, is for a completely different reason: the supposition that there is no valid intersection between the natural sciences of an area, region, or country.
The nominator seems to suppose that there is value in collecting these articles and subcategories, but that these are redundant and mistitled; the other person does not think there is any point in collecting them in the first place. This is the same pair of contradictory reasons provided by the same two editors in the above-linked discussion being cited as precedent. I also submit that said discussion involved only these two and one other editor, and so does not set a very strong precedent for deciding the fate of hundreds of existing categories.
P Aculeius (
talk) 11:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Natural history of West Virginia consists like its siblings of biota, flora, fauna, forests which are or belong in environment. There are also geology and paleontology subcategories which are very unrelated.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
They are related in the sense that "environment" is related to both geology and paleontology, and readers might be served by finding a category or container category for these items together, grouped by state, region, or country. Just as a category for "natural sciences" groups these topics (or parent categories containing them), someone studying a particular place wold benefit from being able to find a grouping of biology, geology, paleontology, etc. relating to that place.
It also makes sense to group the natural sciences away from cultural topics, such as history, politics, education, etc., rather than just having one overarching category for the place containing all of the subcategories or topics relating to it. For example, it makes sense to have "Fauna of West Virginia", "Geology of West Virginia", "Cheat Canyon", and "Mingo Oak" grouped together with each other, but not with "List of governors of West Virginia", "Taxation in West Virginia" and "Tennessee Gas Pipeline".
As far as the title is concerned, alternative formulations—"environment of", for example—can be a bit vague; is a list of species part of "environment", or the geography of the Appalachians? Is paleontology a topic within "environment"? It seems to me that "natural history" is the broadest formulation, as "natural sciences" might be understood to have a more limited scope; a salamander or a canyon might not sound like it fits in the latter category—although I suppose someone unfamiliar with the term "natural history" might regard it similarly. Either way, deleting the category seems unhelpful to readers.
P Aculeius (
talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per P Aculeius, whose arguments have completely convinced me that these categories are both useful and not redundant. Whether "natural history" or "natural science" is the better title I'm unsure of, but whichever is deletion is not the answer.
Thryduulf (
talk) 20:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There isn't any grouping in science that treats biology (flora and fauna), geology and paleontology as a coherent group. Neither "natural history" nor "natural sciences" are commonly used for such combinations.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:ARBITRARYCAT. 5 out of 16 are located in Spain, 1 in Israel, which are not usually considered part of the "Arab world" (itself a contested and arbitrary term). It also seems that "Turkish bath", "Islamic bath" and "Arab(ic) bath" are all lumped together. I think the non-Spain articles are best upmerged for now. For the others, subcategories can be created once they have at least 5 articles. Morocco, Syria, Egypt etc.
NLeeuw (
talk) 15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hmmm but not all of those were "Turkish/Ottoman" baths. I do agree that some of them could be transferred to
Category:Ottoman baths instead, especially the 9 with "Hammam" in their article titles.
NLeeuw (
talk) 16:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, a strange mix of military ranks by country and non-military Arab-language titles or offices.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, European regions do not have natural geographic boundaries and in history the European countries have interacted with each other heavily irrespective of any region definitions. I am not sure if the same applies to Asia.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The parents seem to be inappropriate but they do fit the content. All Sikhs in this category are Punjabis, all Jats in this category are Sikhs. The content of this category shouldn't be moved out of the Punjabi or Jat tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That they do fit the content is irrelevant; we've got other trees for that.
Chand Kaur is already in
Category:Punjabi women, for example. Btw
Duleep Singh was a Christian for several decades, so we can't assume all of them to have been Sikhs ever. If we really wanna categorise all that in 1 category, then we should rename them
Category:Punjabi Sikh Jat emperors or something.
NLeeuw (
talk) 16:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The nomination is to merge Sikh monarchs, so the fact whether or not they were Sikhs becomes moot.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:INDIGENOUS and
MOS:RACECAPS Indigenous should be capitalized when referring to or describing people and their citizenship.
ARoseWolf 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, only the eponymous article and
Clifford Mayes belong here, and these two are already directly interlinked.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 16:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. I don't think this category is clearly defined, and even if it were, I don't think that having only a single person in the category is helpful for navigation
Mason (
talk) 00:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Dual merge per nom, but one of the targets may be deleted (see discussion above this one) and then it will become single merge.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, as contains only one entry.
GCarty (
talk) 07:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Part of a large and established category tree. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 13:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It is not a tree in which every possible combination has its own category. For example there are no less than 33 articles directly in
Category:Swedish emigrants and only 30 subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Queen of ♡ |
speak 18:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Categories out of phase with their siblings in
Category:Fashion by country. These were both speedy-moved from the target names to their current names two weeks ago on C2D grounds because the head articles are at "fashion in country" -- but that should never have happened without wider discussion, because C2D and C2C are in conflict with each other here: with the isolated exception of Georgia, which has an established consensus to diverge from normal standards because of the Georgia-as-in-Tbilisi vs. Georgia-as-in-Atlanta problem, every other sibling category is at "Demonym fashion" rather than "Fashion in Country". But it's an important principle of category trees that they need to be as consistent as possible so that the location of a category is predictable, so these need to be named in the same format as their siblings. There may be a valid argument that they should all be moved to "Fashion in Country" across the board, so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody is willing to tackle a comprehensive batch nomination, but there's no legitimate case to be made that these two countries alone should be pushed out of sync with their siblings.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment As the nominator of the speedy renames above, I should say it was indeed my intention to move all categories to Category:Fashion in Fooland. This was a follow-up to a long-standing reorganisation effort of parent
Category:Culture by country and siblings such as
Category:Music by country by myself and others. The goal was to move away from ambiguous adjectives, and mention the country's name, as almost all main articles of those categories already did. So I set out to rearrange the
Category:Fashion by country tree, starting with the United States and India, which already had main articles that could be speedied. However, I found that several sibling cats such as
Category:German fashion had main articles with corresponding titles of Fooian fashion, like
German fashion. I was considering whether to BOLDly rename those per
WP:TITLECON, but I wasn't sure whether that would be enough, and then I sort of gave up, went on to do other stuff and forgot about it (sorry). I agree that the catnames should be consistent, but then the main article titles should be made consistent first in order to avoid an endless conflict between C2C and C2D. My preference would still be to rename all the main articles to Fashion in Fooland, after which the categories can follow.
NLeeuw (
talk) 18:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comparison Most child categories of
Category:Fashion by country do not have a main article, if they contain any articles at all (besides a few subcategories). Although most have Fooian fashion catnames right now, in Commons, all
c:Category:Fashion by country subcategories are named Category:Fashion of Fooland. The main articles which are about fashion in/of/from a particular country are about evenly matched in frequency between Fooian fashion (mostly concentrated in European articles) and Fashion in Fooland (from countries around the world, especially Asia). I've allowed for some variation in names, e.g.
Japanese street fashion and
Genderless fashion in Japan; a great example of inconsistency within the same country category.
This is illustrates the problem I ran into: I couldn't really invoke
WP:TITLECON, because there was no clear majority naming convention. We would have to discuss it in either a very large discussion, or on a tedious case-by-case basis, neither of which seemed very appealing to me.
NLeeuw (
talk) 19:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename for now per discussion above, without objection to a broader nomination in opposite direction.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a whole lot of entirely unrelated terms which have already been dispersed among other subcategories of
Category:Sikhism. The only exceptions are
Glossary of Sikhism,
Patit and
Sahajdhari which should be moved to
Category:Sikhism. Many "terminology" categories have been deleted before.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: 2x upmerge for now. There's not enough content to support diffusing Palestinian philosophers by century (2 people). Using petscan, I only found false positives
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=28100706Mason (
talk) 23:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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: Remove redirect/undo merge. This category was turned into a redirect by my own error. It was a part of a Cfd I started but this particular category was not meant to be part of it. It should be a part of a larger tree of MLB owners (personnel have their own seperate tree regardless of what the name of the team was/is).
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 21:59, 24 April 2024 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Confusion arises between Arab-Jewish ethnicity and the geographical grouping of member countries in the Arab League. Not all Moroccan Jews belong to the Arab-Jewish group, among other examples.
Aldij (
talk) 18:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The article
Arab Jews begins, "Arab Jews is a term for Jews living in or originating from the Arab world. The term is politically contested, often by Zionists or by Jews with roots in the Arab world who prefer to be identified as Mizrahi Jews." Presumably "the Arab-Jewish group" of which the nominator
Aldij speaks is one party to that political dispute. Well, if the categorisation is both contentious and a partial duplication of a less contentious hierarchy, then delete under
WP:OVERLAPCAT. –
FayenaticLondon 21:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:United States National Recording Registry albums
Merge per nom. Saying something is standard, so we should keep it, is not a compelling reason. Having only one category is not helpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Fix the rather ungrammatical title of this category and rename it to be consistent the main article,
Hitler cabinet (
t ·
c) buidhe 04:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to diffuse this category by occupation, when there is only one occupation in it
Mason (
talk) 03:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Meanwhile the nomination is moot.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, @
Marcocapelle I filled it with some other categories so there's no longer just one occupation in it. Thanks, --
Habst (
talk) 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: borderline C2C based on the parent category of People of Hungarian descent and sibling Sportspeople of Hungarian descent
Mason (
talk) 02:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete with its subcategory, the article in the subcategory is already in
Category:Serbian people of Hungarian descent while the subcategory therein is already in
Category:Hungarians in Vojvodina. The article (about a Hungarian parent of a Serb) and the subcategory (about the ethnic Hungarian people in Vojvodina) are entirely unrelated. I will tag the subcategory too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fine with me. I'll tag the category.
Mason (
talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lol, you beat me to it 😹😹
Mason (
talk) 23:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining 4x intersection of ethnicity, political orientation, nationality, and cause of death. This definitely doesn't meet the criteria under
WP:EGRSMason (
talk) 00:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The organization was dissolved and the members moved to the All-Age classification of Drum Corps International. I wish to rename it to Former Drum Corps Associates corps for maintaining the grouping for its historicity.
Why? I Ask (
talk) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or rename? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 13:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This will be the last relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 21:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, trivial intersection as is obvious from the very small amount of overarching topic articles. Funnily enough,
Hunky (ethnic slur) is derived from Hungarian, who are not Slavic at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Archaeological organizations based in the Republic of Ireland
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: Wires got crossed while doing large-scale category organiz(s)ation; move needed to comply with naming conventions for this country's categories –TCMemoire 19:30, 23 April 2024 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This seems to be about fictional or mythical tigers in Meitei culture, which would not exist if not for the Meitei culture, so this seems to be
WP:DEFINING.
NLeeuw (
talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comments I guess the proposed move is an improvement, although the fact that people belong to two different
federally recognized tribes does not prevent them belonging to a single (non federally recognized)
tribe. It is best to forestall readers drawing the inference, even if it is an invalid inference, hence deleting "peopletribe"
† from the name is an improvement. OTOH article
Mohave is currently a dab, so the shorter name may be ambiguous. I ask whether
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has (or ought to have) any standard/guideline for category (and corresponding article) names —— e.g. capitalization; legal name vs common name; and group taxonomy labels (e.g. "people" vs "nation" vs "tribe" vs nothing; always vs disambiguation vs never). From browsing, I infer that "Category:Foo people" is the standard for subcats of
Category:Native American people by tribe, so
Category:Mohave people is about individuals (plural "people") whereas
Mohave people is about the group (singular "people"). (The fact that Category:Mohave people is a subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe also seems to imply, contra the nomination, that that the Mohave people are in some sense a tribe.)
jnestorius(
talk) 23:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
†corrected myself: current name is "Mohave tribe", not "Mohave people"
jnestorius(
talk) 22:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Regardless whether it is renamed or not, shouldn't we convert the category page to a disambiguation page just like in article space?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes No, it says "three Cherokee tribes are federally recognized", not the same thing. It also says 'By the 19th century, White American settlers had classified the Cherokee of the Southeast as one of the "Five Civilized Tribes"'.
Five Civilized Tribes says "The term Five Civilized Tribes was applied ... to the five major Native American nations in the Southeast".
Category:Cherokee people is a direct subcat of
Category:Native American people by tribe. Article
Tribe (Native American) says "In the United States, an American Indian tribe, Native American tribe, Alaska Native village, Indigenous tribe or Tribal nation may be any current or historical tribe, band, nation, or community of Native Americans in the United States. ... Many terms used to describe Indigenous peoples of the United States are contested but have legal definitions that are not always understood by the general public." We have a variety of words (tribe, band, nation, community, people, ...) used variously across different articles and categories, sometimes in accordance with a US federal legal definition, sometimes in a different sense used by ethnologists or historians; sometimes meaning an
ethnic group, sometimes a subcomponent of an ethnic group split out by geography, administration, or something else. Are you implying that Wikipedia article/category titles should always used words in the sense given to them by U.S. federal law? That is certainly not true in general; it may be the consensus for WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America but I have not seen evidence of that yet.
jnestorius(
talk) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support for simiplicity's sake, although
Category:Mojave would be even better. "tribe" lowercased isn't a problem, so not enthusiastic about massive renaming of all Foo tribe categories.
Yuchitown (
talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitownreply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Comments in general would be appreciated, but in particular input on whether this should be a {{
category disambiguation}} and the precise new name – if it is to be renamed – whether the new name should be "Mohave" or "Mojave". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 04:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your proposed new name is not available, because it is an existing subcategory. Are you suggesting merging the two? In general we have separate categories for an ethnicity and for people who have that ethnicity; merging them only makes sense if they are both small.
jnestorius(
talk) 17:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hmmm now that you mention it, yes. The subcategory (created February 2023) has only 3 articles and a subsubcategory with 2 articles.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The articles in that category were original part of both categories you have mentioned. Hence the overcategorization-claim. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
The Banner (
talk •
contribs) 15:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: All 4 items are articles about the films themselves. Follow-up to previous CfDs finding that the controversy should be the subject of a stand-alone article, and not just a (sub)section in the article about the film itself.
That also applies here. Should a sufficient number of stand-alone articles about film controversies in Spain be written, this category can be re-created without prejudice.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose. I would note that there are 59 other sibling categories in
Category:Film controversies by country, and all of them are populated almost entirely by "the films themselves" rather than "stand-alone" articles about the controversies as separate topics. So I'm unclear on why this would be different than all of the others — either they're all problematic for the same reasons and need to be collectively considered together, or this is as valid as the others, and there's no legitimate reason to single this one out for different treatment than the others. As well, most of the "precedents" listed above aren't particularly relevant here — Christmas, adventure and animation didn't get deleted on the grounds that it was fundamentally improper to categorize films as "controversial", they got deleted on the grounds that the intersection of controversy with genre wasn't defining. So I'm not at all wedded to the need for this, but those categories have nothing to do with it because they're not the same issue in the slightest.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair points. In my defence, I didn't intend to single out Spain and spare all other countries in the world; I was just busy improving the
Category:Culture of Spain tree, as you can see.
Per
WP:OTHERSTUFF, feel free to follow-up nominate all other categories populated only by articles about the films and not stand-alone articles on the controversies they created. I did not intend setting a higher standard for Spain; if we conclude this category is improper, or at least improperly populated at the moment, that should evidently apply to all children of
Category:Film controversies by country.
NLeeuw (
talk) 19:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
While I understand that we cannot single out one country, I would encourage a broader nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In principle, I agree with you, but all the deities I checked that are currently categorized as food gods/goddesses/deities are actually harvest/agriculture gods.
PepperBeast(talk) 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge for Food deities agree with @
AHI-3000, The Hindu goddess
Annapurna (goddess) is the goddess of food, but is unrelated to Agriculture.
Phosop is the goddess of rice, not agriculture in general.
Mellona is the goddess of apples.
RedtigerxyzTalk 16:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom.
NLeeuw (
talk) 19:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted per
this request at my talk page (previously closed as "merge"). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 16:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Food and agricultural/ Harvest are two different characteristics. There is many agricultural/harvest deities, who are also related to Grain, thus food. There are other overlaps also. Many agricultural deities are also fertility deities as they make humans and the land fertile.
RedtigerxyzTalk 14:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose merging food god(esse)s/deities. Not all food is derived from agriculture, which is why we have
Category:Hunting deities -- there are other ways to get food. Hunter-gatherers don't do agriculture. --
65.92.247.66 (
talk) 21:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Categories containing only 1 article. Unlikely to be expanded since the group has been inactive for 40 years.
Mika1h (
talk) 12:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: See
comment by
Pppery. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep While not a guideline, there is consensus per
WP:ALBUMSTYLE "that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk •
contribs) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Does that still apply if there is no article for the artist?
USA for Africa redirects to the single. –
FayenaticLondon 08:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Overcategorization by location. While a few Canadian cities do have "Military personnel from City" categories (but not "Canadian military personnel from City"), there's no comprehensive scheme in place of doing this across the board for all cities — they otherwise exist only for the major megacities with populations of half a million or more, whose base "People from City" categories were overpopulated into the hundreds or thousands and needed diffusion for size control, and not for every city across the board. But with just 67 articles in
Category:Canadian military personnel from British Columbia and just six in
Category:People from Kelowna, neither of the parent categories are large enough to need this for diffusability. There's no particularly unique relationship between military service and being from Kelowna per se, so this isn't needed for just three people if other Canadian cities in Kelowna's weight class (Lethbridge, Regina, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Gatineau, Sherbrooke, Moncton, etc.) don't have the same.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Disagree Kelowna is the third largest locality in BC. Uncontroversial categories exist for the two largest localities (Vancouver and Victoria). It already has three entries which is often considered the criterion for a category, and is likely to gain more in the future as more biographies are created. ☆ Bri (
talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Firstly, the standard minimum size for a category is normally five, not three, and even then size alone doesn't automatically trump other considerations. A category that is failing or violating other rules isn't exempted from those other rules just because you can get its size to five per se.
Secondly, "(Canadian) military personnel" categories don't exist for either Vancouver or Victoria at all yet, so I don't know what you even think you're talking about with that argument.
Thirdly, it's not "ordinal size rank within province" that determines whether such a category is warranted in this tree, but "is the base people-from category large enough to need diffusion or not" — which with just six people in it now and only nine even if these get upmerged to it (well, actually eight, because one of these three people is already in a different occupational subcategory as it is), Kelowna's is not. At present, these categories exist only for big cities where an undifferentiated "People from" category without occupational subcategories would be populated past the 500-article or 1,000-article marks, which is not where Kelowna is sitting, and they do not automatically exist as a matter of course for every small or medium city that had one, two or three military people come from there.
My mistake on thinking there was a category for military personnel from Victoria and Vancouver. It is actually
Category:Writers from British Columbia that includes those two cities, and now (since I created it) Kelowna. Which is a good reason to think maybe they should all be in a category, rather than ruling out Kelowna because the other two haven't been created yet.
I could add
Trevor Cadieu from Vernon, which is on the same lake as Kelowna and with city limits separated by ~10 km, possibly considered a suburb. Also since this nom, I discovered that
George Randolph Pearkes served with the BC Dragoons which is a Kelowna reserve unit (
Okanagan Military Museum). I don't want to change the categories of either bio right now in case this is an error and would be perceived as gaming this nom. ☆ Bri (
talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The smallest other city with a sibling category is both (a) four times Kelowna's size, and (b) about 80 years older than Kelowna, both adding up to the fact it has several hundred more articles in its "People from" tree than Kelowna does, and thus needs to be diffused more than Kelowna's does.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: An odd entry in
Category:LGBT arts, because of the "-related" adjective not shared by any parent category (but shared by some subcategories that may need to be renamed as well). Sister categories at that level (in LGBT arts) are just LGBT dance, LGBT literature, LGBT arts organizations, LGBT theatre, and LGBT art. No "-related" anywhere there. Another option would be to rename everything to the form of 'X about Y", although I am not sure if "about LGBT" sounds best (ex. "Music about LGBT"?). For now, removing "-related" from that tree might be easiest in terms of standardization. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, I guess it is called "-related" because it also contains LGBT musicians and LGBT musical groups subcategories with artists who do not all create LGBT content.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I would note that the category is named the way it is because CFD previously renamed it from the proposed new name to the existing one on the grounds that the music itself doesn't have its own innate sexual orientation, but is merely contextually related to the sexual orientations of people. I would further note things like
Category:LGBT-related films,
Category:LGBT-related television shows and
Category:LGBT-related books, which are also categorized as "LGBT-related", and not just as "LGBT", for the same reason, which means there's a mixture of "LGBT" vs. "LGBT-related" among its siblings rather than this being a one-off outlier. It's a complicated question, for sure, but the reason it's named this way is because of a prior CFD discussion on it, so it's not nearly as clearcut as the nominator makes it out to be.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep based on the names of the sibling categories that Bearcat mentions.
Mason (
talk) 03:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean to delete, it is quite a stretch to say that these songs are about capitalism. I found several that are just critical of modern society in general, some others about the labour movement.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I can understand why one ould argue that should be deleted because of the nebulous nature, but it is pretty clear that many of these songs have lyrics that are anti-capitalist.
Velociraptor888 (
talk) 23:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No, it is not clear at all. It relies very much on subjective judgement.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as this awards are defining characteristic of recipients and they are frequently labelled as Padma Awardee in references. Another reason is lists of Padma awardees are not by their fields but by year. Each list contains all awardee of all field in a year. So field-wise categories help to find awardees in perticular field too like above literature and education.-
Nizil (
talk) 11:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToadetteEdit! 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, we normally categorize burials only by place of burial e.g. by cemetery, not by geographic places. A geographic place is either where the person lived, in that case they should just be in a "Peoples from" category. Or else it is a random place, e.g. the place of the hospital where they died, which is not defining.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Article has recently gone through a name change to Atari 8-bit computers. This category should reflect that.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Rename Keep in sync with parent article. "Atari 8-bit computer" is more historically accurate than "Atari 8-bit family".
Dgpop (
talk) 17:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment As the individual who made the move of the
Atari 8-bit family article I will politely refrain from the above discussion. I only want to notice that if the rename is decided upon, then also these other categories should be renamed, to maintain consistency:
Nominator's rationale: In baseball, unlike knuckleball pitchers who are utterly unique and stand apart from all other pitchers, its actually hard to tell screwball pitchers apart from someone throwing a circle changeup so people who never threw one are in here. And while throwing a real screwball is uncommon, they aren't so rare as to warrant a category of their own - certainly not as rare as knuckleball pitchers.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 12:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Unlike knuckleball pitchers, throwing a screwball is not a defining characteristic. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment As category creator, no objection to this discussion. It was a BOLD idea on a whim. --
Jprg1966(talk) 03:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:merge to clarify that this is about
women's history rather than a category of historians who happen to support feminism.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't this one be more specific to Historians of feminism?
Mason (
talk) 22:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't think these are the same scope. I'm leaning Keep.
NLeeuw (
talk) 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 00:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 04:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defning intersection between ethnicity (flemish) and subspecialization. Single merge because the only person in the category is already in the French sinologists category.
Mason (
talk) 04:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, political orientation, and nationality. If not merged, rename to Berber Algerian feminists. to match parent Berber Algerians
Mason (
talk) 03:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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: Non-defining intersection, we don't categorize by the two languages translators know. We categorize by their nationality
Mason (
talk) 01:59, 23 April 2024 (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.
Oppose Why is it redundant? It includes 5 articles and clearly has a scope for expansion.
Dimadick (
talk) 22:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have removed
Corned beef and
Goulash but I will withdraw my support because of the other three articles that have just been added.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Because those article weren't in there when I nominated it, just the subcategory. But now that they are, my position has changed. Withdrawn.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 07:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and gender. I don't see translation having a gendered component. This is a related follow-up to
[1]Mason (
talk) 23:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. As I stated in the prior discussion, I wasn't too attached to the need for subbing translators by gender — the only other country that has any siblings is India, and even then only for women — but the issues around these were different enough from the issues around the other batch (which hinged on whether subbing Canadian translators out by province of residence was necessary or not) that it didn't make sense to bundle these in with that. But they're still not necessary.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment I would certainly say that gender can have an impact how things are phrased in translation, just like male and female authors write things differently (I can often guess, but I haven't done a blind test so don't trust me haha). I'm reminded of the fact that
Mary Ann Evans began her literary career as a translator of Das Leben Jesu, but felt compelled to adopt the male pseudonym
George Eliot to avoid the negative bias against female writers and translators at the time. But, is this significant enough to need to categorise translators by gender? Or do we think the original author's gender has much more creative influence than the translator? In practice, I'm inclined to agree with Bearcat: English Wikipedia indeed has a rather limited
Category:Male translators by nationality tree, and none for women. By contrast, Commons has huge
c:Category:Female translators and
c:Category:Male translators trees. Whether C is overcomplicating things, or acknowledging how defining gender can be in translations in a way English Wikipedia fails to do, I don't know. I guess I'm neutral on this proposal. Incidentally, I changed target 1's parent
Category:Canadian non-fiction writers to
Category:Canadian writers, because translators can obviously also translate fiction.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete/Merge I don't think it makes sense for us to categorize based on if people meet the DSM/ICD-criteria for a disorder (which is exactly what this wording would suggest). Both of "with depression" and "with mood disorders" are more vague and therefore better in this regard.
Draken Bowser (
talk) 07:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At least delete the fictional subcategory, this contains characters who are colloquially depressed, not characters who have a MDD diagnosis.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between specific disability and source of the disability.
Mason (
talk) 23:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
My understanding of the categorization rules (
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categorization) is that categories that are relevant are based on what criteria are considered defining. I believe that congenital amputee status is considered a meaningful category in the emic (i.e., members) of the limb difference community. E.g.,
https://www.amputee-coalition.org/resources/amputations-in-childhood/ . This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with congenital vs acquired amputations is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/zl8rdk/looking_for_insight_into_child_amputee/).
Note also that there is a Wikipedia page for congenital amputees (
/info/en/?search=Congenital_amputation) which per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining.
Calculatedfire (
talk) 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Also meant to add- there is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (
/info/en/?search=Category:Amputees). Certainly congenital amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., having its own Wikipedia page) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that congenital meets the required threshold of defining.
Calculatedfire (
talk) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think you'll be able to make a more compelling case if you review
WP:EGRS/D which gives clearer rules for intersections with disability and other characteristics (gender, race, sexuality etc). Could you show me where having a wikipedia page about a condition means that "per categorization rules is an important signal that a category is defining"? Because I don't think that is sufficient to have a wikipedia page to ensure that it could be a category.
Mason (
talk) 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lean to oppose, I may be mistaken but at first glance I don't think there is a trivial intersection at stake.
Congenital amputation is being born without a limb, which is a "thing" in itself.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But is it defining for individuals? I'm open to having my mind changed, but I don't think people tend to have the lead of the article stating that they are a congenital amputee. If anything, the leads will be about amputees who acquired their disability through a headline grabbing fashion. Now, I'm well aware that there is literature on differences between acquired and congenital disabilities, and that has implications for interventions as well as well-being.
However, I still don't think that "
reliable sources [...] regularly describe the person as having th[e] characteristic". Fuller quote from
Wikipedia:EGRS/D
This reflects the fact that the lived experience of those with child (as compared to adult amputation or congenital amputation) is often quite different (e.g., variation in phantom limb experience, the need to actively learn how to function without a limb from birth vs learning as an adult, the use of prosthetics vs not [prosthetics are less frequently used by those with congenital limb differences]). I am aware of this through my extensive involvement with the limb difference community. It can also be observed by a read of the discussions of amputees and those with limb differences (e.g., one of many examples here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/12nfcrl/adults_who_had_their_amputations_as_very_young/,
https://www.reddit.com/r/amputee/comments/15j1kp2/looking_for_support_child_lost_a_finger/).
There is a precedence set for amputee categories based on the current categories presented (
/info/en/?search=Category:Amputees). Certainly child amputees is just as or probably notably recognized as per current Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., coming up in the introduction) than other categories (e.g., there is no page German amputees; "Works about Amputees" is certainly not a defining characteristic of much of the included media. This is not to say that these other categories should be removed, but rather, to show that child meets the required threshold of defining.
Another criteria for defining category is that it is in the lead to an article (
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Defining). This is the case with many entries in this category, reflecting the fact that many members of this category are on Wikipedia because of their advocacy or involvement in activities related to their childhood amputation. Some examples:
I want to emphasize here the importance of not collapsing child and congenital into one category because of, again, the relevant community's differentiation in these two groups' experiences, as well as how medical research has coalesced on these differences (you will notice that child amputees are not included in the congenital amputee page, for instance). Note this follows Wikipedia's criteria of categorization in so far as categories should be as specific as possible:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categorization_dos_and_don%27tsCalculatedfire (
talk) 23:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. I understand that you have experiences with this community, however, we don't typically have categories that distinguish people by what stage of development they were disabled. I am extremely sympathetic, but the examples you give are people who are defined by the intersection of their
activism while having a disability, not that they were amputees during their childhood. Please review other categories for children.
Mason (
talk) 03:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Manually merge, trivial intersection between type and starting age of disablement. People will need to get used to missing a limb irrespective of their age. Most articles are already in a
Category:Amputees by nationality subcat so a plain merge will lead to a lot of duplication.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Fictional characters by political orientation
Nominator's rationale:split, this category is confusing in its current implementation, it contains fictional anarchists, monarchists, nationalists and socialists on the one hand (by political orientation, not activists) and environmentalists, advocates of women's rights and pacifists on the other hand (activists, not political orientation). These are very different things.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose, I don't think this is necessary. And are you really sure that environmentalism and feminism not specific political ideologies/movements?
AHI-3000 (
talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
They are primarily social movements and certainly not a political orientation like socialism. In relationship to politics they have only one issue on their agenda and their target audience is the entire political spectrum, not one ideology.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It isn't a matter of size, it is a matter of plain wrong.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well that's just what you think.
AHI-3000 (
talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Split per nom.Mason (
talk) 21:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation, type of law, and nationality. We don't even have a parent category for
Category:Criminal lawyers.
Mason (
talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't really know what to do with this category (and the merge target). I think it needs a merge and rename. I think that these are supposed to be about non-binary people who identity as lesbian or gay.
Mason (
talk) 21:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure that these intersections meets the EGRS criteria for defining. The lesbian name may be objective, but I don't think it works in tandem with
Non-binary gay people. I found the lesbian category nested within the gay category, which made the entire nested structure more confusing. Can you point to some literature on
Non-binary gay people, because I haven't been able to find any? (Also the thread you linked to voices concerns about the category, including its creation being disruptive; so the thread isn't that clear cut.)
Mason (
talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In this case, I would support a keep as well, provided that each category is defined enough so they can effectively be used. As such, I reject this nomination / merger.
Historyday01 (
talk) 01:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete both as trivial intersections.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep / Do not mergeCategory:Non-binary lesbians, I'm unsure on the gay people cat but I think non-binary lesbians is a relevant category to have and is not trivial.
AlexandraAVX (
talk) 08:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep A simple Google search yields plenty of results for non-binary lesbians. It's clearly a common and defining identity.
Bohemian Baltimore (
talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete sure, these identities exist & are in use, but I don't see evidence they are defining for indiduvals. (
t ·
c) buidhe 00:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That was part of my hesitation, as well as motivation for merging into a name that was more clearly gender neutral.
Mason (
talk) 03:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is not very natural language. It is inconsistent with the same level categories "Classical Latin-language writers", "Latin-language writers of late antiquity", "Medieval Latin-language writers", "Old Latin-language writers", and "Renaissance Latin-language writers".
This is because "Neo-Latin" etc are actually styles, that are associated with a period.
Jim Killock(talk) 05:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But these are not "by period"; they are "by style". This especially true for Neo-Latin. The periods and styles often coincide, but not precisely. Better would be to follow the styles defined in the articles, so:
I've explained elsewhere that the periods and styles are not precise. For instance, a writer in the Renaissance may have employed Medieval Latin, or Renaissance Latin; and some may define their Renaissance Latin as Neo-Latin. These are stylistic boundaries which roughly match period, but it is the style, not the period, that determines their classifications.
Jim Killock(talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JimKillock I know.
Category:14th-century Neo-Latin writers were a thing; it's good that you created that category. But I don't see how it would create a problem if we renamed it Category:14th-century writers in Neo-Latin. If anything, it is even clearer that "14th-century" refers to "writers" and not to "Neo-Latin", so that we shouldn't assume that the kind of Latin they wrote was Medieval Latin. This is all the more reason in favour of renaming, so that our readers understand the difference between style and period.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The issue is that the whole category structure is used to amalgamate and conflate these two ideas. I don't have an easy solution to it, that doesn't involve some work. It's reasonable to say that a C12th Medieval Latin writer used Medieval Latin, or a C20th writer uses Neo-Latin. Boundary centuries seem debateable. However, the structure makes an absolute assumption, that century and style are the same, except where I started to break it up. This has come up in two recent discussions, the other being when someone wanted to remove my boundary category. But it's clear that the intention was that
Category:Classical Latin-language writers should contain Classical Latin writers, ie be a style category, not a time category. Likewise, Late Latin and Neo-Latin. There can be doubt about
medieval Latin because of it seems to refer to a period rather than a style; however as it is a set of style categories we should assume it is about style, likewise for
Renaissance Latin. The fact that the categories group information from centuries is a laziness, nothing more. In short it is a mess but it is only made worse by changing the names to appear to refer to time periods, some of which don't really exist (Classical Latin isn't a time, nor is Latin Latin, nor is Neo-Latin).
Taking one example to show why the suggested formulation can sound wrong.
Category:Writers in Old Latin; Old Latin is recognised as a phase of Latin, rather than a "style" of Latin, so a bit different, but it functions the same. It is like Old English, not quite the same as Modern English. So, "writers in Old Latin" doesn't work because You [verb] in [language]; you don't [person] in [language]. It is either People writing in Old Latin or Old Latin writers. So
Category:Old Latin writers sounds better, another option would be
Category:Writers using Old Latin.
So there seems to be some inconsistency of approach in the current suggestion, as well as a somewhat clumsy use of "in" that isn't needed.
It has taken me some time to pinpoint the issue with "in"; but I think it is because language can be either a noun or an adjective. When it is a style, describing how someone writes, "Classical Latin" etc, is an adjective. If "Classical Latin" is an adjective, then "in" shouldn't be used. If "Classical Latin" is a noun, as with "Classical Latin" the topic then "in" is possible, eg "Grammar in Classical Latin", or "They write in Classical Latin". As an adjective, it works as "Classical Latin writers". --
Jim Killock(talk) 00:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I suppose this will have to be moved to full then...
NLeeuw (
talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The 5 speedy nominees were opposed by
Jim Killock, see Copy of speedy discussion above.
NLeeuw (
talk) 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I do not follow the objection. If this is about style then the categories should be named
Category:Writers in foo-style Latin and the larger part of the proposal follows that format.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Category:Writers of late antiquity in Latin" is extremely clunky; I have no opinion about the rest.
Furius (
talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The grammar objection is this. I write in Noun-Neo-Latin. I am a adjective-Neo-Latin noun-writer. I am not in Neo-Latin. Thus a writer is not "in" Neo-Latin. Thus writers cannot be "in" Neo-Latin. At least; it's not great English. I can imagine someone saying "A list of writers in English"; yet this isn't really correct, it should be a "A list of English writers", for the same reason (English here is an adjective, not a noun) (or "A list of writers writing in English", so that English can be used as a noun). see
wiktionary:en:Latin#English regarding the noun and adjectival uses of Latin.
Jim Killock(talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I must say I find the category fairly dubious to begin with: it has only 6 articles (which could easily be diffused to "by century" categories), and the rest are just Xth-century writers in Latin from the 3rd to the 8th, all of which are already children of
Category:Writers in Latin by century. The added value of such arbitrary duplication eludes me. "Late antiquity" isn't a very commonly used term anyway; the conventional timeframes are "Antiquity" and "Middle Ages". If we can't agree on how to properly phrase the catname, maybe we should just delete or upmerge it instead.
it should be a "A list of English writers" This is the kind of convention we have been phasing out for years, because adjectives such as "English" (or "Latin", for that matter) are ambiguous due to their multiple meanings (language, country, nationality, ethnicity, geography/location, "style" (e.g.
English landscape garden, which you could surprisingly create anywhere on Earth outside England as well)), which almost inevitably leads to confusion and miscategorisation. "Latin-language writers of late antiquity" is hardly a prettier phrase than "writers in Latin", which at least makes clear that the writers wrote in Latin, and that they were not ethnically speaking one of the
Latins, or from the
Latin League, or from
Latin America, or a songwriter of
Latin music songs etc. etc.
NLeeuw (
talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree the categorisation is not done correctly overall. They conflate period and style. The category names are mostly unambiguiously about style. The socially predominate categorisation of Latin is by style, so that is what people will expect.
I also agree with the principle of removing ambiguous phrases, I just don't agree with naming things with incorrect grammar. Writers are not in a noun-Language. People do something in a language; books and poems are written in a language. A different formulation is needed for "writers" to use the adjectival form avoiding "in".
Jim Killock(talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I see both catnames as merely an abbreviation of a longer phrase.
Books in Latin = Books that were written in Latin
Writers in Latin = Writers who wrote in Latin
Makes sense to me. (Also per
WP:CONCISE, or whatever the category equivalent of that is).
NLeeuw (
talk) 15:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Books in Latin": it isn't incorrect, to my understanding, as a thing can be in a language. There may be an implied "is". Perhaps the omission of "is" feels natural in contractions ("the book is in Latin" vs "the writer is in Latin", doesn't work). Perhaps it is also because writers can change their language, so one can't say a writer is "in" a language. At some point one has to ask what "sounds" right; I feel it doesn't.
Jim Killock(talk) 11:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It is always possible to read things differently than intended. "Neo-Latin writers" could be read, hypothetically, as writers who are Neo-Latin themselves. Likewise, reading "writers in Neo-Latin" as if the writers are in something themselves is equally bizarre.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 22:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the issue is that contractions normally omit a part of the verb "to be" rather than some other verb. However "Neo-Latin writers" is clearer because NL is an adjective not a noun, so the phrase does not need a verb.
Jim Killock(talk) 11:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Individual musicians and groups are not the same. Either populate this with articles of individual people or delete it as an innapropriate redirect without another good target.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed. Delete with no objection to recreation should there be content to populate it with. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Category newly created to hold just one thing, with virtually no potential for growth. "YYYY short stories" categories do not otherwise exist for any year prior to the 17th century -- it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s, or at the very least has seen almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, with the result that categories in the
Category:Short stories by year tree don't otherwise exist for any year earlier than 1613, over 800 years later than this. Accordingly, this doesn't need to exist for just one story, but it's never going to contain more, so
Category:794 works is more than sufficient.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you provide the specific Wikipedia policies which would justify such a deletion? Otherwise the stated reasons are not policy based; they are just your own personal feelings, which apparently consist of imposing arbitrary chronological lines-in-the-sand. I'd also like to express my disagreement with the claim that almost no works published much earlier than the 1600s survive for us to know about, and point out the Eurocentricity of the claim that it's a literary form that largely didn't exist to any significant degree much earlier than the 1600s. Wikipedia categories are not and cannot be comprehensive. There are plenty of other Classical Chinese short stories (
Chuanqi) from within a few centuries on either side of the year 794 that simply have not been categorized yet, or which lack Wikipedia pages altogether. And that's just one set of examples.
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The reader is not served by chopping everything up into one-entry microcategories. The basis for the existence of this category is not that one thing exists to file in it, and would require at least five things in it — the point of categories is to help readers navigate between related articles, so a category isn't needed if there's nothing else in it to navigate to.
Bearcat (
talk) 13:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge, this is not helpful for navigation between related articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This mixes up Cypriots who are (Cypriot-)Turkish by ethnicity (but do not necessarily live in Northern Cyprus or have an NC passport), and people who are born in or residing in the territory of limited-recognised Northern Cyprus. We might even have to split it in three ways, for people who have a Northern Cyprus "nationality" / passport. Whatever we decide, the current category (tree) is mixing up ethnicity, residence and nationality; we should unweave them somehow.
NLeeuw (
talk) 21:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Split, people living in Northern Cyprus aren't necessarily Turkish Cypriots and vice versa.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge, mostly single-item categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Most content is categorized at decade level and that seems to suffice.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Honestly, I don't think that drawing artist is a defining category.
Mason (
talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There is
Ledger art but I am not sure if the articles would fit that. In fact most articles just say "artist", so the merge seems reasonable.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge. There are not good terms for fine artists who prominently draw (pen and ink, pencil, pastels, etc.). Illustrators, draftsmen, and graphic artists are sometimes used, but the phenomenon of Native American, First Nations, and especially Inuit artists who predominantly draw is well established.
Yuchitown (
talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you point to literature on the this predominance? And do you have a suggestion for better name for the occupation?
Mason (
talk) 03:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The contents are mainly biographies, with one podcast. I have added this new category into
Category:Political science but don't think this is a helpful addition to the hierarchy. –
FayenaticLondon 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, the articles are mostly in the tree of
Political scientists anyway and I don't think you can split political scientists neatly on the basis of whether they study right or left wing politics.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So my rationale with this is that the study of right-wing politics actually is an explicit focus for some scholars, historians, and journalists. I can clarify the description of the category to ensure it is only meant to include those researchers who state that they study right-wing politics.
Also, I'm not sure if this matters, but it seems to be primarily sociologists, historians, and journalists, rather than career political scientists.
Bluetik (
talk) 06:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If not deleted, it should certainly be renamed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
so the category I created is broader in two senses:
it includes people who are neither academics nor writers, eg:
Know Your Enemy is a podcast, and
Ernie Lazar is an important researcher, but wasn’t known for his writing.
then also, yes, correct it’s additionally broader in that it would include right-wing and far-right (eg MMFA which spends time watching Fox News, Rick Perlstein writes a lot about the National Review).
I’d love to learn how to merge (guessing under
WP:Overlap), but still new here, so happy to leave it to a more experienced editor, or wait for consensus from more repliers
Bluetik (
talk) 23:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, thank you for identifying that!
Bluetik (
talk) 23:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Note that the category content is mainly about American conservatism, so if not deleted that may be included in the rename as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
CommentNederlandse Leeuw, I don't think the categories for Scholars of Greek are suitable for speedy renaming as the categories contain a mixture of scholars of Greek language and literature. Also Latin is the other classical language and there is no
Category:Linguists of Latin.
TSventon (
talk) 22:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
TSventon I discussed thus with @
Fayenatic london in another thread (about
Category:Grammarians of Persian), he thought it was a good idea. It's virtually impossible to study the literature of a language without also studying the language itself. (I've been studying
Old East Slavic as an amateur lately, because I want to write about
Rus' chronicles on Wikipedia). Also,
Category:Latinists exists; it currently serves the same function as a Category:Linguists of Latin would.
NLeeuw (
talk) 02:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nederlandse Leeuw, I have looked at the content of the categories and am suggesting that these categories are not suitable for speedy renaming. I am happy for the CfD admins to accept or reject my argument. Studying the literature of a language generally involves studying the language itself, but some academics focus more on literature and others on liguistic topics and this is reflected in our categories.
Category:Latinists exists and has a Greek counterpart,
Category:Hellenists.
TSventon (
talk) 14:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay. I'm not convinced this makes them unsuitable for speedy renaming, but we'll see. Otherwise I'm happy to move to full, although I think it's unnecessary.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this kind of discussion is better held at a full CfD than here.
Ymblanter (
talk) 19:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Purge and rename, there are some non-linguists e.g. Byzantinists and New Testament scholars in these categories, but that does not match with the clearly linguistic purpose of these categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose. These categories have a different scope than those for linguists, and that scope is indicated by the title. If you change both the title and scope of the categories, you are essentially creating different categories, and doing so would eliminate valid categories that exist for a logical purpose. It would be better to create new categories under the proposed names, limiting inclusion to those entries that are actually linguists, than to convert existing categories into something that they were never intended to be, changing both the names and criteria for inclusion. The proposed change strikes me as saying, "this fire engine is red. It should be green. Also, it should be a pickup truck." I'm not great with analogies.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What is, in your view, the difference between a scholar of language A and a linguist of language A?
NLeeuw (
talk) 09:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Linguist" is typically used to mean one of two things in English: 1. An interpreter or translator; 2. Someone studying the technical aspects of language using the 'science' of linguistics—a fairly specific and limited field compared with all scholarship involving a language. At one time, the term was used more broadly, perhaps the source of confusion here. But presumably many scholars of Greek are neither linguists in the technical sense nor interpreters in the common sense. The proposal would narrow the scope of the category by excluding all scholars of a language who are not linguists. There seems to be value in being able to categorize scholars of a language irrespective of whether they are linguists, and likewise a category limited to linguists would be useful. The two categories would overlap, but the scholars category would be much broader. They should probably both exist, rather than one replacing the other.
P Aculeius (
talk) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: just to clarify one thing my previous comment may not have done very well. A linguist, in the technical sense (as opposed to a translator) is a scholar of the technical aspects of language; i.e. (as our article on linguistics suggests) syntax, morphology, semantics, phonetics. Broader scholarship of a language might not focus on any of these aspects, but instead upon the literature and historic uses of a language, its distribution within a community, the social or cultural relationships between speakers of different dialects, or other languages—whether or not related, and other questions that are peripheral to modern linguistics as a science, or even "historical linguistics". Naturally there should be some overlap, especially as the fields and topics are not always sharply defined. But there are many scholars of language who, though notable in their fields, would not generally be considered linguists. Perhaps "linguists of Fooian" might be seen as a subcategory within the broader category, "scholars of Fooian".
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not sure that has much bearing on scholars → linguists, since grammar is one of the technical aspects of language that might be included under the heading of "linguistics". However, I note that "grammarians" is a historic term, at least in classical languages, while "linguists" is a modern one, and would seem anachronistic applied to ancient Greek or Roman grammarians (who studied, taught, and wrote on a broader selection of topics than what we usually describe as "grammar" today). I'm not sure whether this would also apply to Arabic or Persian, although certainly ancient or medieval grammarians of these languages would probably not be described as "linguists" in literature on the subject. Modern grammarians of these languages could probably be called "linguists", since their scholarly focus would be narrower, and within the realm of modern linguistics.
P Aculeius (
talk) 20:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The convention that was established a few years ago was that the "grammarians" categories could be kept for ancient languages. In this case, too,
Category:Grammarians of Ancient Greek (which contains ancient people who spoke and wrote in ancient Greek and were important in shaping its grammar, if I understand correctly) will stay a subcategory of
Category:Scholars of Ancient Greek, even if it is renamed
Category:Linguists of Ancient Greek as proposed. When we say "linguists of Ancient Greek", we are indeed referring to (usually) modern scholars who study the Ancient Greek language in hindsight, rather than people living at the time who shaped it when it flourished in its ancient form. Perhaps @
Fayenatic london or @
Marcocapelle could explain further?
NLeeuw (
talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Are all (or nearly all) of the members of these categories necessarily going to fit distinctly into one or the other of these groups, or in some cases belong to both of them? If so, then perhaps this suggests a solution. But if there are members who don't distinctly fit into either group, then the answer is probably to create the linguists category and populate it with a subgroup of scholars, without altering the existing categories.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation; extremely unlikely to be confused with the flower called the Indian paintbrush (Castilleja). ~
Dissident93(
talk) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: See
request to reopen and relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
support unnecessary disambiguation. -
Altenmann>talk 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose, first the article should be renamed, then the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The nomination claims specifically that "Indian Paintbrush films" is unlikely to be confused with the flower, not that the company is the primary topic for
Indian Paintbrush.
* Pppery *it has begun... 19:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Convention is that categories follow disambiguation as used in article space (sometimes category names even contain disambiguation when the primary topic article doesn't).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hence you're substantively opposing this nomination that tries to break from that convention, right?
* Pppery *it has begun... 01:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Piotrus: what other content are you planning to add to this category? That will provide the answer to the question. If topic articles are going to be added then "view" seems the right name. If only video games are going to be added then "video games" is the obvious right name.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:16th-century Chilean people by occupation
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here, which isn't helpful for navigation.
Mason (
talk) 04:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: To be more objective. The current title became unnecessary since every non-binary biography is diffused into subcategories. I can understand that not every person with a non-binary gender identity self-identifies as non-binary personally, and that the list uses this phrase in the title, but we name
Category:Non-binary writers, not
Category:Writers with non-binary gender identities. And the names would be too big. --
MikutoHtalk! 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support as nominated.
Raladic (
talk) 01:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nomination.
Funcrunch (
talk) 02:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The Category:Combined authorities was renamed Category:Combined authorities and combined county authorities, to reflect the renaming of the article page to
Combined authorities and combined county authorities. This proposal seeks to mirror this in relation to CA and CCA mayoralties.
UnicornSherbert (
talk) 21:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. This is a fringe subject with only three articles and one subcat, which has a tendentious name (there are no "remote viewers", remote viewing is nonsense). Creator is permabanned and globally locked. Guy (
help! -
typo?) 21:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:rename per actual content of the category (and purge the main article which still can be kept in the header). Reparent the first one under
Category:Princely states of Rajasthan.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 21:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a maintenance category. It's needed to help ensure that our language articles are reliably sourced.
— kwami (
talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You just turned it into a maintenance category, but it is not clear that any sort of maintenance is required for articles in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep as a maintenance category, or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 04:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment It seems that "Linglist" is a standard parameter in
Template:Infobox language that refers to an external site. E.g.
Abipón language has linglist=axb.html, which apparently automatically links it to
https://web.archive.org/web/20160808200116/http://multitree.org/codes/axb.html. So what seems to be going on is that there is some system which automatically links the Linglist parameter input to an archived url at multitree.org. If there is a bot actively archiving all those URLs to prevent linkrot, that seems to be maintenance, and a category could be helpful for that. But I have no expertise in this field.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Toadette(
Let's talk together!) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, this is a variation of
WP:OC/U#not-based. Note that this nomination does not imply to object to any of the userboxes.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. This isn't a OC/U#not-based; it's a category that doesn't slot into binary or otherwise pigeonholing labeling. Deleting this would also strongly suggest deleting any other u-boxes that don't equate to "gay" or "straight" (like bi, pansexual, etc.) So, what next? Are we going to erase non-binary and intergender editors as "not-based" for not agreeing to be labeled male or female? Don't people have more pressing things to attend to than trying to police other people's u-boxes, for no encyclopedically-constructive or editor-relations-and-understanding-building rationale? The actual reason we do not want truly not-based u-boxes or categories that are simply the opposites of affirmative ones is that they are seen as redundant: simply leaving the affirmative one off is taken to imply its opposite. While this is actually very poor reasoning, because it obviously fails to take into account that there is a difference between "I am the opposite of this category", "I didn't even know about this/these category/categories", and "I don't care enough about this/these category/categories to bother with them", even this faulty rationale does not apply here, because not identifying particularly as gay or straight isn't the opposite of being gay or straight, it's simply different adjacent category within the same spectrum/area. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 07:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, this nomination is not about the userboxes but about the category. The category does not consist of users collaborating on a specific topic area, so the userboxes are sufficient.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe, then, the categories should merge there and the templates be adjusted to use it and its subcats? —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That would not necessarily be what users try communicating with their userbox.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep per
Pppery, this is another branch of LGBT+. I also agree with the others that LGBT+ is being treated as a special label when other demographics do not get such treatment. The established reason for this is that LGBT+ people have profound social connectivity that many other demographics, like straight people in general, lack. Some evidence of this is many other category talks including those listed at
Category talk:Gay Wikipedians, an article for the demographic at
LGBT and Wikipedia, and an organization for the demographic at
meta:Wikimedia LGBT+. Public evidence of this demographic getting Wikipedia related harassment is at
Talk:LGBT_and_Wikipedia#No_sexual_assault_in_2023_Wikimania_toilet. Categories like this one are part of the process for finding ways to surface and report the private evidence and harassment stories against such editors. Bashing LGBT+ people is part of the politics in most countries, so this is a necessary category for peer-to-peer advocacy.
Bluerasberry (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. Is there a reason this category refers to sexual preference instead of
sexual orientation? --
Trystan (
talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I can't think of a good one. It's probably just an artifact of the wording preferences of someone a long time ago. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If not deleted, I agree that "preference" should be changed to "orientation" for consistency.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete or rename to substitute "orientation" for "preference". This category does not relate to a binary or non-binary gender, but rather someone's sexual orientation. An editor may be confused about their sexual orientation and it is not for Wikipedia to decide their sexual orientation for them. The merge discussion cited above would also be of no purpose because the category really would be in relation to someone unable to make their mind up whether they are a certain sexual orientation or not.
UnicornSherbert (
talk) 21:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
These actors are on contract with either Jim Henson Company or Disney (Muppet), Sesame Workshop (Sesame Street), or Jim Henson Company (Fraggle Rock), to perform numerous roles. Such contracts are incredibly rare, and even the most finite involvement with any of them, the puppeteer remains known as having been part of the troupe, akin to a college alumni category.
Keep, especially the Muppet category. They're distinct performances/performers, categories and brands of puppeteering.
Scanlan (
talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Politicians of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
Nominator's rationale:Purge and rename. E.g.
Abdul Rashid Dostum was a military officer, not a politician, of the DRA (1978–1992). –
FayenaticLondon 15:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At least purge, possibly rename per nom.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At least purge, possibly rename, people who weren't a politician in the Korean Empire do not belong here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Politicians of the Second Polish Republic
Nominator's rationale: The contents seem to be broader than political office-holders, so "from" will be more appropriate than "of". –
FayenaticLondon 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, while "from" is the default, I think "of" is also a good possibility for politicians and for military personnel.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Of" is fitting for political office-holders, but we don't use it for politicians generally. I suppose we have "opposition politicians of a country" who are appointed to a formal role, but e.g. revolutionaries or independence activists would be better described as "from" the country. –
FayenaticLondon 22:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency and given the broader scope of the category.
Mason (
talk) 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: If there are concerns that lead to categories such as
Category:American male artists (and similar articles) being treated as non-diffusing, it seems that the same rationale should apply to Native American artists. (Apologies if I've made any formatting errors. This is my first time submitting a cfd.)
Katya (
talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and make non-diffusing. There seems to be solid academic interest in the intersection of gender and Native American artists, including exhibitions
[5][6], academic books
[7], and academic courses
[8]. I looked for women artists. Also if not kept, the category should also be merged to
American male artists and
American women artists.
Mason (
talk) 21:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So, it looks like there's been
discussion in the past about whether or not there should be any "male artist" categories, without any consensus. In the absence of consensus to delete them, I think we should keep the Native American male artist categories, in keeping with other paired male / female artist categories elsewhere on the site. (Or we could revisit the issue of whether "male artist" categories should exist at all, but I think that's a separate issue. Again, my original question was just whether or not the categories should be non-diffusing.)
Katya (
talk) 01:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose I think what is meant here is
wikt:craft#noun meaning #7 plural: A branch of skilled work or trade, especially one requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill, but sometimes applied equally to any business, calling or profession; the skilled practice of a practical occupation. So it's a bit like a patron saint of a branch of handicraft professions. I worry that by making it singular, "craft" can be misunderstood for any of its many other meanings, such as "vehicle" (aircraft, spacecraft etc.; I wouldn't be surprised if some religion came up with that if Pope John Paul II in 1997 could retroactively declare
Isidore of Seville the "patron saint of the internet"), or as a colloquial conjugation of the verb "to craft", "craft(ed) gods", compare "graven images", human-made "idols" of gods. But I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not sure if this is a significant risk.
NLeeuw (
talk) 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I kind of see your point, actually, but 'crafts' is not the solution. I'd be ok with, say, handicraft deities.
PepperBeast(talk) 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Why is it not? I suppose it reads a lot better with 'the': "the crafts", just like "the arts", "the humanities". Some things are better in plural. Then again, "deities of the crafts" sounds a bit cumbersome. At any rate, would "handicraft deities" be correct for the contents of these categories?
NLeeuw (
talk) 10:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think handicraft fits pretty well, going by the articles I had a look at. Sorry, I ama native speaker, and I can't tell you why some noun modifiers can be plural and some not, but "crafts Gods" is just not normal English. Probably the same reason we don't have cars mechanics or brains surgeons :-)
PepperBeast(talk) 12:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm a little worried that handicraft has connotations of a hobby or at best "artisanal" activity, distinct from mainstream manufacturing. In a pre-industrial society, activities like weaving and smithing are mainstream, the only ways clothes and metal objects are produced. Does it help that the ancient Greek word is τέχνη, techne, (the root of technical, technology and technique and by no means merely a philosophical concept as
our article claims), translated as skill, craftsmanship, art, craft, technique, design and other such, rather than as handicraft?
NebY (
talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I see your point, too, but none of those suggestions strikes me as a really superior choice. A few years ago, I would have said artisan was perfect, but it seems to have gone all lumpy socks and unsliceable bread. Artificer seems too stilted.
PepperBeast(talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Now I'm fretting about this very small point. "War gods" is clearly better than "wars gods"; the singular stands for the general. But Hephaestus, for example, was a smith god, not a god of all craft/handicraft, so is a member of the set of deities of various crafts.... Aargh.
NebY (
talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I find "gods of handicrafts" in the authoritative standard text Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, translated from the German by John Raffan. I often got the impression that Burkert's phrasing was better in German than could be translated but still, it seems "handicrafts" may be the best English term a good translator could find. Reckon I should stop worrying and accept it! It's better than either "craft" or "crafts".
NebY (
talk) 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, but what are you proposing as an alt rename then? Handicraft deities or Handicrafts deities?
And does choosing
handicraft mean excluding larger-scale construction works in
stoneworking/stonecraft such as bridge-building and, well, "building-building", as well as
woodworking /
carpentry such as
shipbuilding? Because that would mean a significant narrowing of the scope, and I don't think any of us is advocating that.
NLeeuw (
talk) 16:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We currently include deities of shipbuilding and bridgebuilding? I'm beginning to think it's too complicated for me to suggest anything.
NebY (
talk) 18:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well I was just being hypothetical, but if we look at some random examples:
Arazu a god of construction who built and restored temples.
Minerva a goddess of wisdom, justice, law, victory, and the sponsor of arts, trade, and strategy.
Ninmug a goddess of artisanship, especially with metalworking, as evidenced by her epithet tibira kalamma, "metalworker of the land."
I don't see a really clear pattern here. Some articles do not seem to mention anything to do with "the crafts" at all (like
Minerva being responsible for lots of things, but not really "the crafts"), and might have to be Purged from this tree. Part of them could reasonably be called deities of handicrafts like Athena, Nunura, and Hedjhotep. Others seem to be about larger structures, buildings, cities even. Architects design buildings, not decorative small objects normally associated with "handicrafts". I guess it was my mistake thinking that "handicrafts" and "crafts" meant the same, but evidently handicrafts are a subset of the crafts.
NLeeuw (
talk) 20:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for doing the legwork! I am uncertain that users of English distinguish handicrafts from crafts consistently. I haven't tried a survey; serendipitously, last night I read "the development of farming techniques, building skills, craft traditions such as pottery, trade networks" (Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East).
NebY (
talk) 13:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I can understand NebY's reaction. Shouldn't we rather split this to handicraft on the one hand and building/construction on the other hand?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Perhaps, if the literature supports such a division. But lots of articles in this tree do not seem to mention any "crafts" at all, or I just don't properly understand the term.
NLeeuw (
talk) 20:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think such a split would make sense. We can easily conceive of a set that includes all of building, construction, weaving, smithing and pottery, and in at least one language it can easily be given a name. I fear that in English it can't and so en-wiki can't usefully have such a category.
NebY (
talk) 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any further comments on splitting? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already in the tree of the three potential targets.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Are we certain there are no Rātana people who stood but were not elected? I would prefer to keep ‘politicians’, but delete ‘MPs’. If that is not preferred, then yes, I would still delete ‘politicians’. — HTGS (
talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: there seems to be a lot of confusion in this category (and in articles relating to Rātana as a political force). Some of these people are adherents of the Rātana faith who became MPs, others of them were MPs for the Rātana Party or (after affiliation with the Labour Party) MPs officially endorsed by the Rātana church.
Soraya Peke-Mason, for example, is a Rātana, but not an official Rātana-endorsed MP. If that can be cleared up I'd support Marcocapelle's second suggestion (merging MPs into politicians).
Grutness...wha? 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Dual Upmerge. There's no need to diffuse 20th-century Latvian ceramists by region. There are only nine Latgalian ceramists in the entire tree.
Mason (
talk) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is more about the Rātana faith overall than adherents to the faith. As such, it should be singular rather than plural. In any case, as a
Māori word, the plural would simply be Rātana. Because of this, I was also tempted to add the category
Category:New Zealand Rātanas for renaming to something like
Category:New Zealand Rātana adherents, but given that all other religious adherents categories simply use an -s suffixed plural, I've left that as is.
Grutness...wha? 15:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: That would be true if they were the only articles in the category. That's no longer the case. There are several articles which were not in the category simply because of its confusing name.
Grutness...wha? 04:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I see, then a rename would improve it.
Rātana movement would probably even be clearer (and the category name following that).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That would make sense, too, although the main article is at
Rātana. Mind you, if there's an article merge in the offing, then a name change at the same time might be possible too.
Grutness...wha? 13:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection between occupation and ethnicity. There is mostly no need to merge, the articles are already in a parallel Indian or Pakistani category if applicable.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It is mainly about Indian descent, as the second link also illustrates. Hardly any of these articles is about someone of Pakistani descent, while a clear majority of Punjabi are Pakistanis.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Violates
NPOV by calling people listed in category "traitors." Peter Hitchens was listed by category creator as a member but I reverted it as a
BLP violation.
Thebirdlover (
talk) 13:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment This category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The article about this category states this was a promotional campaign, not an award. As such, it seems non-defining.
User:Namiba 13:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Categories for artworks by subject currently use a mixture of the style "[Paintings, sculptures, etc.] of [a subject]" and "[Paintings, sculptures, etc.] depicting [a subject]", and the style with "of" is the predominant one. Looking at categories for paintings and sculptures, which comprise the bulk of these, there are currently 187 instances of "Paintings of [a subject]" to the 84 of "Paintings depicting...", and 425 of "Sculptures of [a subject]" to the 14 of "Sculptures depicting...". For some other types of artwork we use the style with "of" almost exclusively: "Portraits of...", "Statues of..." and "Murals of...". The word "depicting" is an unfortunate choice for three-dimensional works because the etymology refers to the act of painting.
In the case of
Category:Art depicting people and its subcategories which begin "Art depicting...", the categories using "depicting" are inconsistent with most of their sibling categories, which instead use "...in art". Similarly, the subcategories of
Category:Topical postage stamps which use the word "depicting" are inconsistent with the majority, which use "...on stamps".
Ham II (
talk) 08:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Soft oppose This is an interesting question. I think some might think of "of" as meaning "by", but we've got the
Category:Works by artist tree for that, so I suppose that is not a big problem. "depicting" is less ambiguous in my view, but for consistency's sake, I'm willing to go with the majority formula if there are no other considerations. The only strong objection I really have is that the vast majority of the nominees are about mythological, legendary or religious figures whose existence has not been proven (and often cannot be proven), and/or about whose identities considerable controversies have arisen. "Painting of Foo" suggests more directly that Foo was posing while the painter was painting their portrait (like "Photographs of Foo"; if you were there while Foo was there, you could have captured a similar image yourself), while "depicting" suggests more distance, more creative imagination about what Foo might (have) look(ed) like, while nobody alive in the artist's time has ever observed Foo. Obviously this doesn't apply to
Queen Victoria or
Elizabeth II, but because stamps often depict mythological or legendary figures as well, I understand that the category tree has been kept consistent with "depicting". I also understand the etymological argument that depicting comes from pingere "to paint", which wouldn't fit other types of art like sculpture, but the meaning of words can change. "picture" is nowadays usually synonymous with "photograph", which has nothing to do with painting either. So I understand the nom, but I can't fully support it for these considerations.
NLeeuw (
talk) 09:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Paintings of Foo" doesn't imply that they were done from life; that's only true of "Photographs of Foo", and you've drawn too close an analogy because of the linguistic similarity. It wouldn't be more accurate to call Leonardo's Last Supper a "painting depicting the Last Supper" than a "painting of the Last Supper"; the meaning of both phrases is identical.
"Of" instead of "depicting" would also be preferable in order to avoid unnecessary wordiness further down the category tree: "
Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Sandro Botticelli" is less of a mouthful than "Category:Paintings depicting the Madonna and Child by Sandro Botticelli".
Ham II (
talk) 07:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Additionally, although I know usage has gone beyond this, & it may no make much sense etymologically, part of me dislikes using "depict" when no paint is involved. Can we also change "themes" for the correct "subjects" in
Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible themes to
Category:Paintings of Hebrew Bible themes & the New Testament one. In art, "death" and "love" are themes, the
Lamentation of Christ is a subject (which has themes as well).
Johnbod (
talk) 17:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support one format across the tree, either "of" or "depicting". I do not really have a preference between them so I am happy to go with the current "of" majority.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutral. In other instances—film, for example, I might have opposed this, because films frequently depict persons or things other than their subjects. But in the case of paintings, it seems less likely that we'd need to distinguish between the subject of the painting and something depicted in it. A painting that shows Mars or Helen or the Trojan Horse or the Apostle Paul in the background would probably still be reasonably described as a painting of that person or thing, even though the main subject might be something else. "The Last Supper" is still a painting of each of the Apostles, simply because they appear in it. There's nothing inherently wrong with the "depiction" language, though, and it makes sense to distinguish depictions from subjects in other media, so consistency is not a good argument, IMO.
P Aculeius (
talk) 13:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Some examples of articles to be selectively upmerged
Western European marriage pattern, a contested hypothesis in demographics that sets the boundary of "Western Europe" in an almost straight line between Venice and Saint Petersburg, crossing through countries that are variously grouped as "Southern, Western, Central, Eastern or Northern Europe" depending on countless definitions other than this one.
Heimatschutz Architecture, an early 20th-century style mostly found in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the latter of which may be grouped as "Western" or "Central European", while Germany may be grouped as "Western" or "Central European" and former East Germany as "Eastern Europe".
Elterngeld, which states that Elterngeld schemes exists in Germany, France, and
Scandinavia. Depending on definitions, that's Central, Eastern (former East Germany), Western, Southern (southern France is often considered "Southern Europe") and Northern Europe combined! Yet it is only categorised as
Category:Northern European culture.
Etc.
There's enough room in
Category:Culture of Europe for these articles that can hardly be limited by arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe.
NLeeuw (
talk) 08:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Apart from the subcategories the articles are quite a hodgepodge so plain deletion could also be a satisfactory outcome.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh I do think all the articles fit in
Category:Culture of Europe. I just don't think we could limit them to arbitrarily defined subregions of Europe.
NLeeuw (
talk) 04:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No, because both child cats are already in that tree, and all 5 pages are already in both child cats except the
Cetinje chronicle, which is a manuscript containing several chronicles rather than a chronicle in itself. Merging would lead to duplication.
NLeeuw (
talk) 04:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes.
Category:Old East Slavic chronicles as language (at least, the medieval parts as copied. The Hustyn continuation is in Late Ruthenian / Early modern Ukrainian. As theme, it might also fit "
Ukrainian chronicles", although that category does not exist yet, and that name is ambiguous.)
NLeeuw (
talk) 21:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Category:Indian independence activists from Pakistan
Nominator's rationale:rename, Pakistan did not exist yet when they were independence activists. Purge
Mufti Mehmood who was not from Sindh.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't you mean Sindh, with an h? Otherwise I agree.
NLeeuw (
talk) 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Redudant category layer. If not merged, it should be renamed to Nigerian-American art
Mason (
talk) 04:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply