Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 6 June 8 >

June 7

Category:Patrol-derived films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. There's clearly no consensus to delete. There were valid concerns that later films were derivative rather than based on the original book, but the entire category tree of "based on" contains such derivative works. For instance, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (film) is in Category:Films based on Pride and Prejudice, but it's really based on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies whose connection to Pride and Prejudice is itself kind of murky. These concerns might hold merit, but that would involve a discussion on changing the scope of the entirety of the "based on" tree. In the meantime, derivative works are within the scope as per past practice, and the arguments for consistent naming are strong. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 06:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A whole heaping helping of WP:OR. There's no indication that four of the six films are based on the novel. That leaves two for something that isn't Moby Dick or Pride and Prejudice. Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Perfluorinated compound contamination

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category groups an airport, an explosion/fire, a river, a town, a power station and several air bases - the articles may all mention contamination by this particular class of chemicals, but it appears to be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of all/most of them. This isn't a sensible way to categorize as it could place an article (e.g. about a plane crash, a tsunami, a city) in dozens/hundreds of categories. Note: This category was created without any parents (indicating that the category creator has a limited understanding of Wikipedia categorization). DexDor (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The category groups valid locations of perfluorinated compound contamination (even if the above editor makes them look disparagingly dissimilar picking 5 and piping them)
All articles in the category DO in fact (not may) mention contamination by this particular class of chemicals.
The category is no WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of any of them.
The category is a sensible way to categorize certain articles, as it is highly specific, a unique qualifier not applicable to random articles (e.g. about a plane crash, a tsunami, a city).
This category was indeed created without any parents, but it has at least three now.
Lastly, to conclude that "the category creator has a limited understanding of Wikipedia categorization" would be casting aspersions, as alternate explanations for the behavior exist. In the same vein it would be inappropriate to surmise that DexDor is a radical deletionist, because they are not working with the category creator to improve categorization / cat name/ finding parents, etc pp. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 17:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Have you actually read WP:OC (e.g. the nutshell text "Do not create categories for every single verifiable fact in articles.")? Do you really think that, for example, Falmouth or Cottage Grove are commonly and consistently defined as a perfluorinated compound contamination site?
One reason why a scheme of categorizing places, events etc by what chemicals were involved is not sensible is because some places, events etc my involve contamination by hundreds/thousands of chemicals (e.g. the September 11 attacks article refers to "debris containing more than 2,500 contaminants").
As a matter of fact the category has not yet had any parent categories except those related to CFD. DexDor (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Have you actually read what I wrote? Have you actually any idea of environmental health, brownfields and remediation?
One reason why a category for this emerging contaminant is important is because they are unique, contamination with other compounds notwithstanding.
As a matter of fact the category has parent categories and I've invited you 1 week ago with an olivebranch to be cooperative/productive, rather than your most common contribution: deleting. please mind your tone.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 06:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
When/if you understand categorization (e.g. why your "it has at least three" statement above was/is incorrect) we may be able to have a more cooperative/productive discussion about categories. DexDor (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Wow. we may be able to be productive when you cooperate and come down your high horse.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 22:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-defining. If there were articles specifically about a particular chemical spill or specific disposal site or specific brownfield, that would be one thing. But we could put Hudson River and Thames River into dozens of similar categories. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
What WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic does it have then?-- Wuerzele ( talk) 06:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Listify before deleting, to keep relevant information about this topic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:46, 14 June 2016 (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.

Zulu Kingdom establishments

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename/delete as nominated. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename to fit the category scheme. Merge as per WP:SMALLCAT with precedent and delete the empty categories that result. ~ Rob Talk 17:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- This feels like a lot of threads all leading to the same place, which is a waste of space. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:W-League (Australia) players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename, to bring conformity with relevant articles and other category which was renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Page name has "W-League" in parentheses. Also to have consistency with rest of category as per discussion here. -- SuperJew ( talk) 16:20, 7 June 2016 (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.

Inca civilization categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge and delete as proposed. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
More merges
more deletion of resulting empty categories
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to centuries as per WP:SMALLCAT. These categories have a couple dozen articles between the lot of them, if that. Some of the resulting century categories will be small too, but at least they won't contain single articles. All the categories that will be deleted are emptied as a result of the merges, except the millennium categories, which should be deleted because the entire Inca civilization occurred in one millennium. All Inca civilization century categories are in the South American tree, so nothing lost there. Please restrict the scope of this nomination to establishments/disestablishments in the Inca civilization. There will likely be a follow-up nomination for the Inca civilization category tree more broadly, but that would make this nomination too difficult to figure out. ~ Rob Talk 15:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Noting the precedent here. ~ Rob Talk 16:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bangladeshi razakars

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category page is politically motivated and doesn't have any academic grounds. Besides, most of the pages present in category don't have any information related to claim of category page. ~Mohammad Hossain~ 03:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 13:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I've gone over the main article. It presents several different definitions of what a Razakar can be, one of which is even a derogatory term due to the atrocities of the associated war. There are BLP concerns with this. We also shouldn't keep a category that has several possible definitions. ~ Rob Talk 06:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The term is often used to attack people who it really does not fit. For example an organization found in 1987 was in this category until recently. There are much better ways to categorize people in relationship to the Bangladesh War of Indepdence than with a term that has become a generalized loose pejorative. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Abdul Hakeem, Pakistan

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as per WP:SMALLCAT. ~ Rob Talk 05:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Judaism terminology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on renaming. There were grammatical arguments for renaming and arguments questioning the validity of applying the adjective "Judaic" to terminology about Judaism. The alternative suggestion of "Terminology in Judaism" might gain support, but it wasn't sufficiently discussed here. Purge category of any biographies or other articles that aren't about a phrase defined by being a piece of terminology from Judaism. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 04:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Nominated at speedy page by user:Cgingold in order to use adjective rather than noun for proper grammar, as in Category:Buddhist terminology, etc. Brought here for a full discussion in relation to the above Category:Judaic studies at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_3. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • Category:Judaism terminology to Category:Judaic terminology - Use adjective rather than noun for proper grammar, as in Category:Buddhist terminology, etc. Cgingold ( talk) 22:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ Cgingold: This is a somewhat rare word. Is it necessary to use it here, e.g. to distinguish the religious nature of the topic, i.e. "Judaism-related" as opposed to "Jewish"? – Fayenatic L ondon 19:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply
      • @ Fayenatic london: - Hmmm. I'm not absolutely sure, but I would be inclined to go with "Judaic". However, I see that you've listed a couple of other cats above, which further muddy the picture. Perhaps these should all be taken to regular CFD for a full discussion. If you want to move them, I will notify the Wikiproject and invite their participation. Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 08:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I agree, it needs a better vehicle for discussion. Jewish studies doesn't necessarily mean the same as Judaic studies. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose This is simply wrong. "Judaism terminology" is the terminology of Judaism itself, not the terminology of the studies of Judaism as an academic discipline, which is Judaic studies. Debresser ( talk) 12:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Er, I'm not sure what it is you're opposing, here, Debresser. It sounds like you're objecting to the comment from User:Sir Joseph - whereas I am simply requesting a rename to Category:Judaic terminology to fix the grammar, as I explained above. (This is actually in line with the names of the related categories being discussed above.) Would you be kind enough to respond directly? Thanks. Cgingold ( talk) 03:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply
What don't you understand? I am replying to the nomination directly! And I am saying the proposed new title is factually wrong, and I explain why. Please read again. Debresser ( talk) 19:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Here's what I'm not getting: Why are you okay with "Judaic" in the other category names above, but not this one? I'm afraid I don't see a substantive difference. Cgingold ( talk) 10:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I was commenting on this proposal only. I didn't say anything about other categories. In this case, I think it is factually incorrect, a mistake between "Judaism" as a religion, and "Judaic studies" as an academic discipline. Other categories I didn't review, but the criteria would be the same. Debresser ( talk) 10:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
What on earth are you talking about?? This is a discussion about Judaic terminology -- not "Judaic studies", which is being discussed above, not here. Cgingold ( talk) 07:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Sigh... Yes, I know that, you have said that before. You see the word "studies" and your mind blanks out. I am sorry if you don't understand the argument. It is based on mistaking the words "Judaism" and "Judaic", which are not the same. Debresser ( talk) 12:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Okay, I'm gonna give this one last try. In order to make the name of this category grammatically correct, the word preceding "terminology" should be an adjective. "Judaism" is a noun, so it needs to be converted to the adjective, "Judaic", which of course means "pertaining or relating to Judaism" (just as "Buddhist" means "pertaining or relating to Buddhism"). I am not aware of any other term that could be used. And yet, you are asserting that there is some sort of fundamental distinction between "Judaism" and "Judaic". At this point I have to inquire, in what parallel universe is "Judaic" not the adjective for "Judaism"? Cgingold ( talk) 09:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Cgingold ( talk) 04:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Never saw a combination of two nouns? Compare Category:Christianity studies. Debresser ( talk) 13:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
What the hell is this "purge" that you are swinging around with on WP:CFD discussions? In my days, there was "delete", "merge", and "upmerge". Did you play a bit too much of Doom, perhaps? Please me more precise. Debresser ( talk) 17:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Remove articles that aren't about the topic, clean up the category content. (Just for info, I haven't invented the term, I copied it from other editors who have been contributing to this forum for a longer period than me, see e.g. this discussion.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 04:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we have too many "terminology" and "words and phrases" type categories that have articles about something substantive that has a paragraph on why that something is called what it is. In my mind that's not an article properly categorized in any words or terminology type category; I think we've been through this with words of Fooian origin type categories, where articles about things (rather than about words) get dumped into these categories. We have lots of articles about words and phrases ( Ye olde, Shit, Fuck, etc.), but unfortunately there's this tendency to put articles about concepts into categories reserved for articles about words (yes, Déjà vu comes from the French, but the article is about the concept, same with things like Replevin, about the legal remedy; Pietà comes from the Italian, but the article is about the art form, and God is dead somehow found its way into Category:German_words_and_phrases because Nietzsche (unoriginally) said so in German but the article is about the death of God(s), not about any German (or even English) words and phrases. These do need a good-ole (a ye olde?) purge per Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose There is sufficient differences in the two terms to require the continuation of the current name which is a more accurate reflection of the intent, if not the content. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 09:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Lean Toward Delete It seems obvious to me that Islam would have Arabic loan words, Christianity would have Latin loan words and Judaism would have Hebrew loan words. All of the articles in this tree are indeed Jewish/Judaic terms, but I think they are defined for being concepts, customs, ideas, garments, etc. RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (upmerging if/where necessary) or purge. Note: articles such as Goy are about terms, but are in Category:Yiddish words and phrases so don't need this category as well. DexDor (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of the Roman Empire

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The arguments for center around the history of the Roman Empire making up its whole existence. The arguments against center around the existing categorization tree. While this wasn't discussed much, there may also be a distinction between "History of ..." (i.e. events in the empire) and other categories that relate to the topic of the Roman Empire (biographies, etc). If the intent is to do away with all former countries in the "History of ..." tree, then that probably needs to be a group nomination. I seriously doubt consensus would be found for that, though. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 04:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no current Roman Empire. There is only the historical Roman Empire. It is therefore superfluous to speak of "History of"; every article about the Empire is about its history. See below also. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • We can merge either way, so of course we can discuss the merits of either of the two names. This however doesn't change a bit about the fact that about everything in the Roman Empire category refers to that former country's history. Of course the same holds for other former countries as well, and in a slightly different way it also holds for current countries. This massive category overlap produces a huge amount of problems, which we have to address either way. Any alternative suggestion that does away with this category overlap situation is welcome. -- PanchoS ( talk) 08:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- This is a merge nom not a deletion nom. All the subcategories will survive as subcategories of the target. There is in fact very little direct content in the subject category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • non responsive answer I discussed the impact of merging, as nominated: 'keep as is' in this case means 'do not merge'. Those negative impacts remain. Hmains ( talk) 17:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • keep as is per the explanation by Hmains. This seems to remove the categories involved from valid categories on former states. Dimadick ( talk) 19:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hmains is right that (by default) the parenting to the other tree gets lost. We can fix that however, if the closing admin of the discussion would be so kind to move the parents of Category:History of the Roman Empire to Category:Roman Empire before deleting Category:History of the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • A sloppy fix to a problem that is only created by the proposed merge. There is not reason for the merge in the first place. The parent categories contain 'history of' subcats and articles; there is no reason to change this category and thus make it an outlier in its parents. Hmains ( talk) 03:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I don't see it as a sloppy fix at all, rather an elegant solution. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There was some confusion over what affect this will have on the parent categories. The parent categories could definitely be moved to Category:Roman Empire so they aren't lost, although the issue of the new category name not fitting in the existing category scheme remains.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 04:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose - countries have "category:History of <foo country>", whether past countries or present countries. We also have "category:Demography of <foo>", "category:Religion in <foo>", "category:politics in <foo>". Shall we delete all those when country is dismantled? ridiculous and anachronistic. GreyShark ( dibra) 15:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    We shouldn't delete them at all. But we don't have e.g. political history or geographic history categories in former countries, that's not needed while there is already a politics and geography category. Likewise we don't need a history category because there is already a former country category. We can still have a history by period category, by the way. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    As I noted above, please see Category:Histories of empires's subcats. There are other cats of this type. - jc37 22:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that the nomination should not be applied to Roman Empire only, we should keep consistency across former empires. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support Category:Histories of empires is a WP:SHAREDNAME train wreck that should be deleted; who wants to navigate between the "Empire" of Brazil and the Carolingian Empire and why aren't empires included without the name "empire" in their title? Category:Former countries is already under the history category tree multiple times although we could certainly add it to Category:History by country as well. Other than those two parenting issues, I don't see any valid concerns and the nomination makes sense. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I still say Merge -- We probably need to follow this up by culling a lot of the siblings, several of which are merely housing year, decade, century (and even millennia) categories, creating a thicket that obstructs, not aids, navigation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Are you voting twice? Dimadick ( talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I have struck the duplicate !vote. @ Peterkingiron: a re-listing is not an invitation to double-!vote. It's OK to add further comments, but adding a second bold !vote is not permitted unless you strike the first one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Neferirkare Kakai

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus for deletion. There were solid arguments made for and against. The arguments against deletion were probably stronger, as they successfully explained why these categories should be the exception to categorizing by date. If reliable sources identify contemporaneous figures and events but can't date them, that's a strong justification for this category scheme. On the other hand, another editor proposed an alternative scheme (by dynasty) that is more in keeping with the typical "by date" categories. That suggestion didn't receive sufficient discussion to render any outcome. A more focused merge discussion may be helpful. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON and WP:SMALLCAT
Neferirkare Kakai was a 25th century BC pharaoh we know largely from inscriptions on his pyramid, Pyramid of Neferirkare. This category consists of those two articles which are already cross-referenced and, until we get a new archaeological discovery, it is unlikely to grow. (The other 3 categories have that same pharaoh/pyramid dynamic except the pharaoh articles aren't included for some reason.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: The notified Furius as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Ancient Egypt. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
RevelationDirect I partially agree with this assessment in that so far these categories seem useless. But contrary to what you say, I see plenty of room for growth: indeed this category could very well include all articles on queens, princes, princesses and administration officials who lived during Neferirkare's reign as well as the priests who served in his mortuary cult and this would add up to quite a number (these articles already exist!). Thus I see this category as a potential tool to regroup articles about people who were contemporaries. Iry-Hor ( talk) 06:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The categories can be expanded to include the following:
I'm not clear whether it would be necessary to rearrange the location and name of these categories if they are to be people associated with style categories (but I note that many pharaoh cats are already used that way) Furius ( talk) 09:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Good points, and I can see a further few names that can be added to Furius' suggestions above. This would certainly clarified who lived at the same time as who. Iry-Hor ( talk) 09:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Furius: Thank you for detailed reply as the creator. What you're proposing are mostly (but not entirely) family categories which we do have for some groups of notable people. The challenge here is, especially for the early dynasties, the relationships are often inferred and overlapping. Khentkaus III is a good example since she is probably the daughter of Neferirkare Kakai. And if we put here in her father's Pharaoh category, wouldn't we also put her in her likely husband's and her likely son's (or likely grandfather's and likely grandson's)? What do we gain grouping Khentkaus III by 3 or more overlapping pharaohs versus by 1 dynasty? RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support nomination, and oppose alternative per WP:OCASSOC. Note that these people are mostly categorized in a dynasty category already. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I haven't used the dynasty categories in a while, though I have at times tried to populate them and add them to parent categories. The basic category scheme is to place any royal family member to the dynasty/category he/she belonged. So it is not exactly necessary for navigation to have a category for every Pharaoh. However non-royal Egyptians are often left out of these categories. And in some cases it is unclear if they are related at all. For example the article on Ahaneith specifies that she was connected to Pharaoh Djet, but that it is uncertain whether she was his wife, a female relative, or a female official in his court. She has still been placed in Category:First Dynasty of Egypt. Dimadick ( talk) 13:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I suppose "dynasty" here could mean the royal family or the historical time period when they ruled. RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose deletion / Keep the category: I think we should keep these categories; they can easily expanded as shown above. I think it is a shame that the creator of these categories did not do that. In general it seems very useful to have all people, buildings and whatever of one king under one category. -- Udimu ( talk) 14:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose deletion / Keep the category: I see the category "Neferirkare Kakai" or any category attached to any given pharaoh not as a way to regroup members of the familly of the pharaoh (since indeed relations are often uncertain) but as a way to regroup contemporaries. WP:OCASSOC does NOT apply here because contrary to modern figures, such as John McCain mentioned in the OCASSOC example, i) knowing that some people were contemporaries is actually important in archaeology (especially so far back in time); ii) being contemporaries is not a vague criterion and in many case is known with enough certainty so as to confidently include say Khentkaus III in the "Neferirkare Kakai" category; and iii) there are few peoples to be put in the category but enough for it to escape WP:SMALLCAT as shown by Furius. Thus we should not blindly apply OCASSOC merely because it looks like it describes the type of this category. Neferirkare Kakai is not John McCain. Iry-Hor ( talk) 14:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Iry-Hor: I'm sympathetic to fixing people in their historical context but want to avoid having biography articles in 3+ pharaoh categories. Would expanding the use of Category:25th-century BC people and other century categories accomplish what you're looking for without the multiple categories? RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • RevelationDirect it would not in fact for two reasons: first absolute dates are generally unknown and in all cases far from certain. As you can see in the articles e.g. on Djedkare Isesi, the absolute dating of any given person can vary by more than 60 years so that it is factually impossible to decide who was a 25th century BC person. Instead relative dating is well established, that is, who lived at the same time as who. Second, such a broad category would be much less precise, for example would you consider yourself a contemporary of Queen Victoria? Yet category "25th-century BC people" would mean just that. Indeed Victoria could be classified as a 20th century people (having died in 1901) and, if you are more than 16 years old, then you too could be. Iry-Hor ( talk) 06:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • RevelationDirect: Dating people to the 3rd millenium BC by centuries is almost impossible. The stable fixpoint in Egypt, in terms of relative chronology is the king, so it makes perfect sense to keep these categories. The dating by centuries is still very much a matter of debate in research and can vary heavily (mainly as we do not know the length of the First Intermediate Period). -- Udimu ( talk) 10:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the thoughtful replies. We just happen disagree because I'm concerned about categorizing people under multiple pharaohs based on being contemporaries. It is a challenge to categorize people though when the historical record is so thin. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support nomination: I've given this some thought and I think the nominator is correct. Note that a number of other Pharaoh categories exist which use this system (e.g. Category:Khufu, :Djedefra, :Sneferu) and that RevelationDirect's concerns already arise to some degree - e.g. Hetepheres II. This seems that an inevitable consequence of (1) the vagueness of "active" and (2) the fact that dating by Pharaoh is often not much surer than dating by the Julian calendar. Categories are a very powerful tool, but they are not good at handling uncertainty. This suggests that they are probably not the ideal tool for indicating the dates of Ancient Egyptian individuals - something that can be annotated, like a List of people of the #th dynasty of ancient Egypt might be a better tool for this.
In addition, the parent categories for these pharaoh categories are, inevitably, Category:Pharaohs of the #th Dynasty of Egypt - this creates the expectation that all the articles within their subcategories will be Pharaohs - and they are not.
Finally, it seems to me that there are more useful ways of categorising the (not insubstantial) number of people within individual dynasties, which we are missing if we focus on trying to categorise them by date. There is no Category:Queens of the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt, no Category:Viziers of the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt, etc. This might be a much more useful way to divide the attested people up. Furius ( talk) 08:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- Egyptian history is normally split by dynasty, not by century BC, at least in the Old Kingdom. Accordingly, we should have a hierarchy:
Old Kingdom Egypt
Fifth dynasty Egypt
People of Fifth Dynasty Egypt
then split by office - Pharaoh, Queen, Vizier, etc. if there is sufficient content to warrant this. I do not think we have adequately (or even inadequately) dated history for anywhere else, so that I would suggest that we delete and salt all century categories for that remote period. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Ok for the category "People of the #th dynasty of ancient Egypt" and indeed all categories based on absolute dates should be deleted. Iry-Hor ( talk) 13:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 03:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I would be prepared to allow a category covering the people of each reign. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_7&oldid=1074816868"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 6 June 8 >

June 7

Category:Patrol-derived films

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. There's clearly no consensus to delete. There were valid concerns that later films were derivative rather than based on the original book, but the entire category tree of "based on" contains such derivative works. For instance, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (film) is in Category:Films based on Pride and Prejudice, but it's really based on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies whose connection to Pride and Prejudice is itself kind of murky. These concerns might hold merit, but that would involve a discussion on changing the scope of the entirety of the "based on" tree. In the meantime, derivative works are within the scope as per past practice, and the arguments for consistent naming are strong. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 06:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: A whole heaping helping of WP:OR. There's no indication that four of the six films are based on the novel. That leaves two for something that isn't Moby Dick or Pride and Prejudice. Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Perfluorinated compound contamination

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category groups an airport, an explosion/fire, a river, a town, a power station and several air bases - the articles may all mention contamination by this particular class of chemicals, but it appears to be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of all/most of them. This isn't a sensible way to categorize as it could place an article (e.g. about a plane crash, a tsunami, a city) in dozens/hundreds of categories. Note: This category was created without any parents (indicating that the category creator has a limited understanding of Wikipedia categorization). DexDor (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The category groups valid locations of perfluorinated compound contamination (even if the above editor makes them look disparagingly dissimilar picking 5 and piping them)
All articles in the category DO in fact (not may) mention contamination by this particular class of chemicals.
The category is no WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of any of them.
The category is a sensible way to categorize certain articles, as it is highly specific, a unique qualifier not applicable to random articles (e.g. about a plane crash, a tsunami, a city).
This category was indeed created without any parents, but it has at least three now.
Lastly, to conclude that "the category creator has a limited understanding of Wikipedia categorization" would be casting aspersions, as alternate explanations for the behavior exist. In the same vein it would be inappropriate to surmise that DexDor is a radical deletionist, because they are not working with the category creator to improve categorization / cat name/ finding parents, etc pp. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 17:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Have you actually read WP:OC (e.g. the nutshell text "Do not create categories for every single verifiable fact in articles.")? Do you really think that, for example, Falmouth or Cottage Grove are commonly and consistently defined as a perfluorinated compound contamination site?
One reason why a scheme of categorizing places, events etc by what chemicals were involved is not sensible is because some places, events etc my involve contamination by hundreds/thousands of chemicals (e.g. the September 11 attacks article refers to "debris containing more than 2,500 contaminants").
As a matter of fact the category has not yet had any parent categories except those related to CFD. DexDor (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Have you actually read what I wrote? Have you actually any idea of environmental health, brownfields and remediation?
One reason why a category for this emerging contaminant is important is because they are unique, contamination with other compounds notwithstanding.
As a matter of fact the category has parent categories and I've invited you 1 week ago with an olivebranch to be cooperative/productive, rather than your most common contribution: deleting. please mind your tone.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 06:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
When/if you understand categorization (e.g. why your "it has at least three" statement above was/is incorrect) we may be able to have a more cooperative/productive discussion about categories. DexDor (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Wow. we may be able to be productive when you cooperate and come down your high horse.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 22:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-defining. If there were articles specifically about a particular chemical spill or specific disposal site or specific brownfield, that would be one thing. But we could put Hudson River and Thames River into dozens of similar categories. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
What WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic does it have then?-- Wuerzele ( talk) 06:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Listify before deleting, to keep relevant information about this topic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:46, 14 June 2016 (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.

Zulu Kingdom establishments

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename/delete as nominated. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename to fit the category scheme. Merge as per WP:SMALLCAT with precedent and delete the empty categories that result. ~ Rob Talk 17:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- This feels like a lot of threads all leading to the same place, which is a waste of space. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:W-League (Australia) players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename, to bring conformity with relevant articles and other category which was renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Page name has "W-League" in parentheses. Also to have consistency with rest of category as per discussion here. -- SuperJew ( talk) 16:20, 7 June 2016 (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.

Inca civilization categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge and delete as proposed. -- Tavix ( talk) 16:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
More merges
more deletion of resulting empty categories
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to centuries as per WP:SMALLCAT. These categories have a couple dozen articles between the lot of them, if that. Some of the resulting century categories will be small too, but at least they won't contain single articles. All the categories that will be deleted are emptied as a result of the merges, except the millennium categories, which should be deleted because the entire Inca civilization occurred in one millennium. All Inca civilization century categories are in the South American tree, so nothing lost there. Please restrict the scope of this nomination to establishments/disestablishments in the Inca civilization. There will likely be a follow-up nomination for the Inca civilization category tree more broadly, but that would make this nomination too difficult to figure out. ~ Rob Talk 15:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Noting the precedent here. ~ Rob Talk 16:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bangladeshi razakars

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category page is politically motivated and doesn't have any academic grounds. Besides, most of the pages present in category don't have any information related to claim of category page. ~Mohammad Hossain~ 03:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 13:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I've gone over the main article. It presents several different definitions of what a Razakar can be, one of which is even a derogatory term due to the atrocities of the associated war. There are BLP concerns with this. We also shouldn't keep a category that has several possible definitions. ~ Rob Talk 06:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The term is often used to attack people who it really does not fit. For example an organization found in 1987 was in this category until recently. There are much better ways to categorize people in relationship to the Bangladesh War of Indepdence than with a term that has become a generalized loose pejorative. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Abdul Hakeem, Pakistan

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as per WP:SMALLCAT. ~ Rob Talk 05:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Judaism terminology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on renaming. There were grammatical arguments for renaming and arguments questioning the validity of applying the adjective "Judaic" to terminology about Judaism. The alternative suggestion of "Terminology in Judaism" might gain support, but it wasn't sufficiently discussed here. Purge category of any biographies or other articles that aren't about a phrase defined by being a piece of terminology from Judaism. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 04:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Nominated at speedy page by user:Cgingold in order to use adjective rather than noun for proper grammar, as in Category:Buddhist terminology, etc. Brought here for a full discussion in relation to the above Category:Judaic studies at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_3. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • Category:Judaism terminology to Category:Judaic terminology - Use adjective rather than noun for proper grammar, as in Category:Buddhist terminology, etc. Cgingold ( talk) 22:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ Cgingold: This is a somewhat rare word. Is it necessary to use it here, e.g. to distinguish the religious nature of the topic, i.e. "Judaism-related" as opposed to "Jewish"? – Fayenatic L ondon 19:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply
      • @ Fayenatic london: - Hmmm. I'm not absolutely sure, but I would be inclined to go with "Judaic". However, I see that you've listed a couple of other cats above, which further muddy the picture. Perhaps these should all be taken to regular CFD for a full discussion. If you want to move them, I will notify the Wikiproject and invite their participation. Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 08:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I agree, it needs a better vehicle for discussion. Jewish studies doesn't necessarily mean the same as Judaic studies. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose This is simply wrong. "Judaism terminology" is the terminology of Judaism itself, not the terminology of the studies of Judaism as an academic discipline, which is Judaic studies. Debresser ( talk) 12:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Er, I'm not sure what it is you're opposing, here, Debresser. It sounds like you're objecting to the comment from User:Sir Joseph - whereas I am simply requesting a rename to Category:Judaic terminology to fix the grammar, as I explained above. (This is actually in line with the names of the related categories being discussed above.) Would you be kind enough to respond directly? Thanks. Cgingold ( talk) 03:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply
What don't you understand? I am replying to the nomination directly! And I am saying the proposed new title is factually wrong, and I explain why. Please read again. Debresser ( talk) 19:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Here's what I'm not getting: Why are you okay with "Judaic" in the other category names above, but not this one? I'm afraid I don't see a substantive difference. Cgingold ( talk) 10:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I was commenting on this proposal only. I didn't say anything about other categories. In this case, I think it is factually incorrect, a mistake between "Judaism" as a religion, and "Judaic studies" as an academic discipline. Other categories I didn't review, but the criteria would be the same. Debresser ( talk) 10:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
What on earth are you talking about?? This is a discussion about Judaic terminology -- not "Judaic studies", which is being discussed above, not here. Cgingold ( talk) 07:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Sigh... Yes, I know that, you have said that before. You see the word "studies" and your mind blanks out. I am sorry if you don't understand the argument. It is based on mistaking the words "Judaism" and "Judaic", which are not the same. Debresser ( talk) 12:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Okay, I'm gonna give this one last try. In order to make the name of this category grammatically correct, the word preceding "terminology" should be an adjective. "Judaism" is a noun, so it needs to be converted to the adjective, "Judaic", which of course means "pertaining or relating to Judaism" (just as "Buddhist" means "pertaining or relating to Buddhism"). I am not aware of any other term that could be used. And yet, you are asserting that there is some sort of fundamental distinction between "Judaism" and "Judaic". At this point I have to inquire, in what parallel universe is "Judaic" not the adjective for "Judaism"? Cgingold ( talk) 09:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Cgingold ( talk) 04:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Never saw a combination of two nouns? Compare Category:Christianity studies. Debresser ( talk) 13:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
What the hell is this "purge" that you are swinging around with on WP:CFD discussions? In my days, there was "delete", "merge", and "upmerge". Did you play a bit too much of Doom, perhaps? Please me more precise. Debresser ( talk) 17:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Remove articles that aren't about the topic, clean up the category content. (Just for info, I haven't invented the term, I copied it from other editors who have been contributing to this forum for a longer period than me, see e.g. this discussion.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 04:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we have too many "terminology" and "words and phrases" type categories that have articles about something substantive that has a paragraph on why that something is called what it is. In my mind that's not an article properly categorized in any words or terminology type category; I think we've been through this with words of Fooian origin type categories, where articles about things (rather than about words) get dumped into these categories. We have lots of articles about words and phrases ( Ye olde, Shit, Fuck, etc.), but unfortunately there's this tendency to put articles about concepts into categories reserved for articles about words (yes, Déjà vu comes from the French, but the article is about the concept, same with things like Replevin, about the legal remedy; Pietà comes from the Italian, but the article is about the art form, and God is dead somehow found its way into Category:German_words_and_phrases because Nietzsche (unoriginally) said so in German but the article is about the death of God(s), not about any German (or even English) words and phrases. These do need a good-ole (a ye olde?) purge per Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose There is sufficient differences in the two terms to require the continuation of the current name which is a more accurate reflection of the intent, if not the content. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 09:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Lean Toward Delete It seems obvious to me that Islam would have Arabic loan words, Christianity would have Latin loan words and Judaism would have Hebrew loan words. All of the articles in this tree are indeed Jewish/Judaic terms, but I think they are defined for being concepts, customs, ideas, garments, etc. RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (upmerging if/where necessary) or purge. Note: articles such as Goy are about terms, but are in Category:Yiddish words and phrases so don't need this category as well. DexDor (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of the Roman Empire

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. The arguments for center around the history of the Roman Empire making up its whole existence. The arguments against center around the existing categorization tree. While this wasn't discussed much, there may also be a distinction between "History of ..." (i.e. events in the empire) and other categories that relate to the topic of the Roman Empire (biographies, etc). If the intent is to do away with all former countries in the "History of ..." tree, then that probably needs to be a group nomination. I seriously doubt consensus would be found for that, though. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 04:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no current Roman Empire. There is only the historical Roman Empire. It is therefore superfluous to speak of "History of"; every article about the Empire is about its history. See below also. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • We can merge either way, so of course we can discuss the merits of either of the two names. This however doesn't change a bit about the fact that about everything in the Roman Empire category refers to that former country's history. Of course the same holds for other former countries as well, and in a slightly different way it also holds for current countries. This massive category overlap produces a huge amount of problems, which we have to address either way. Any alternative suggestion that does away with this category overlap situation is welcome. -- PanchoS ( talk) 08:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- This is a merge nom not a deletion nom. All the subcategories will survive as subcategories of the target. There is in fact very little direct content in the subject category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • non responsive answer I discussed the impact of merging, as nominated: 'keep as is' in this case means 'do not merge'. Those negative impacts remain. Hmains ( talk) 17:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • keep as is per the explanation by Hmains. This seems to remove the categories involved from valid categories on former states. Dimadick ( talk) 19:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hmains is right that (by default) the parenting to the other tree gets lost. We can fix that however, if the closing admin of the discussion would be so kind to move the parents of Category:History of the Roman Empire to Category:Roman Empire before deleting Category:History of the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • A sloppy fix to a problem that is only created by the proposed merge. There is not reason for the merge in the first place. The parent categories contain 'history of' subcats and articles; there is no reason to change this category and thus make it an outlier in its parents. Hmains ( talk) 03:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I don't see it as a sloppy fix at all, rather an elegant solution. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There was some confusion over what affect this will have on the parent categories. The parent categories could definitely be moved to Category:Roman Empire so they aren't lost, although the issue of the new category name not fitting in the existing category scheme remains.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 04:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose - countries have "category:History of <foo country>", whether past countries or present countries. We also have "category:Demography of <foo>", "category:Religion in <foo>", "category:politics in <foo>". Shall we delete all those when country is dismantled? ridiculous and anachronistic. GreyShark ( dibra) 15:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    We shouldn't delete them at all. But we don't have e.g. political history or geographic history categories in former countries, that's not needed while there is already a politics and geography category. Likewise we don't need a history category because there is already a former country category. We can still have a history by period category, by the way. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    As I noted above, please see Category:Histories of empires's subcats. There are other cats of this type. - jc37 22:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that the nomination should not be applied to Roman Empire only, we should keep consistency across former empires. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support Category:Histories of empires is a WP:SHAREDNAME train wreck that should be deleted; who wants to navigate between the "Empire" of Brazil and the Carolingian Empire and why aren't empires included without the name "empire" in their title? Category:Former countries is already under the history category tree multiple times although we could certainly add it to Category:History by country as well. Other than those two parenting issues, I don't see any valid concerns and the nomination makes sense. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I still say Merge -- We probably need to follow this up by culling a lot of the siblings, several of which are merely housing year, decade, century (and even millennia) categories, creating a thicket that obstructs, not aids, navigation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Are you voting twice? Dimadick ( talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I have struck the duplicate !vote. @ Peterkingiron: a re-listing is not an invitation to double-!vote. It's OK to add further comments, but adding a second bold !vote is not permitted unless you strike the first one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Neferirkare Kakai

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus for deletion. There were solid arguments made for and against. The arguments against deletion were probably stronger, as they successfully explained why these categories should be the exception to categorizing by date. If reliable sources identify contemporaneous figures and events but can't date them, that's a strong justification for this category scheme. On the other hand, another editor proposed an alternative scheme (by dynasty) that is more in keeping with the typical "by date" categories. That suggestion didn't receive sufficient discussion to render any outcome. A more focused merge discussion may be helpful. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON and WP:SMALLCAT
Neferirkare Kakai was a 25th century BC pharaoh we know largely from inscriptions on his pyramid, Pyramid of Neferirkare. This category consists of those two articles which are already cross-referenced and, until we get a new archaeological discovery, it is unlikely to grow. (The other 3 categories have that same pharaoh/pyramid dynamic except the pharaoh articles aren't included for some reason.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: The notified Furius as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Ancient Egypt. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
RevelationDirect I partially agree with this assessment in that so far these categories seem useless. But contrary to what you say, I see plenty of room for growth: indeed this category could very well include all articles on queens, princes, princesses and administration officials who lived during Neferirkare's reign as well as the priests who served in his mortuary cult and this would add up to quite a number (these articles already exist!). Thus I see this category as a potential tool to regroup articles about people who were contemporaries. Iry-Hor ( talk) 06:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The categories can be expanded to include the following:
I'm not clear whether it would be necessary to rearrange the location and name of these categories if they are to be people associated with style categories (but I note that many pharaoh cats are already used that way) Furius ( talk) 09:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Good points, and I can see a further few names that can be added to Furius' suggestions above. This would certainly clarified who lived at the same time as who. Iry-Hor ( talk) 09:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Furius: Thank you for detailed reply as the creator. What you're proposing are mostly (but not entirely) family categories which we do have for some groups of notable people. The challenge here is, especially for the early dynasties, the relationships are often inferred and overlapping. Khentkaus III is a good example since she is probably the daughter of Neferirkare Kakai. And if we put here in her father's Pharaoh category, wouldn't we also put her in her likely husband's and her likely son's (or likely grandfather's and likely grandson's)? What do we gain grouping Khentkaus III by 3 or more overlapping pharaohs versus by 1 dynasty? RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support nomination, and oppose alternative per WP:OCASSOC. Note that these people are mostly categorized in a dynasty category already. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I haven't used the dynasty categories in a while, though I have at times tried to populate them and add them to parent categories. The basic category scheme is to place any royal family member to the dynasty/category he/she belonged. So it is not exactly necessary for navigation to have a category for every Pharaoh. However non-royal Egyptians are often left out of these categories. And in some cases it is unclear if they are related at all. For example the article on Ahaneith specifies that she was connected to Pharaoh Djet, but that it is uncertain whether she was his wife, a female relative, or a female official in his court. She has still been placed in Category:First Dynasty of Egypt. Dimadick ( talk) 13:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I suppose "dynasty" here could mean the royal family or the historical time period when they ruled. RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose deletion / Keep the category: I think we should keep these categories; they can easily expanded as shown above. I think it is a shame that the creator of these categories did not do that. In general it seems very useful to have all people, buildings and whatever of one king under one category. -- Udimu ( talk) 14:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose deletion / Keep the category: I see the category "Neferirkare Kakai" or any category attached to any given pharaoh not as a way to regroup members of the familly of the pharaoh (since indeed relations are often uncertain) but as a way to regroup contemporaries. WP:OCASSOC does NOT apply here because contrary to modern figures, such as John McCain mentioned in the OCASSOC example, i) knowing that some people were contemporaries is actually important in archaeology (especially so far back in time); ii) being contemporaries is not a vague criterion and in many case is known with enough certainty so as to confidently include say Khentkaus III in the "Neferirkare Kakai" category; and iii) there are few peoples to be put in the category but enough for it to escape WP:SMALLCAT as shown by Furius. Thus we should not blindly apply OCASSOC merely because it looks like it describes the type of this category. Neferirkare Kakai is not John McCain. Iry-Hor ( talk) 14:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Iry-Hor: I'm sympathetic to fixing people in their historical context but want to avoid having biography articles in 3+ pharaoh categories. Would expanding the use of Category:25th-century BC people and other century categories accomplish what you're looking for without the multiple categories? RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • RevelationDirect it would not in fact for two reasons: first absolute dates are generally unknown and in all cases far from certain. As you can see in the articles e.g. on Djedkare Isesi, the absolute dating of any given person can vary by more than 60 years so that it is factually impossible to decide who was a 25th century BC person. Instead relative dating is well established, that is, who lived at the same time as who. Second, such a broad category would be much less precise, for example would you consider yourself a contemporary of Queen Victoria? Yet category "25th-century BC people" would mean just that. Indeed Victoria could be classified as a 20th century people (having died in 1901) and, if you are more than 16 years old, then you too could be. Iry-Hor ( talk) 06:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • RevelationDirect: Dating people to the 3rd millenium BC by centuries is almost impossible. The stable fixpoint in Egypt, in terms of relative chronology is the king, so it makes perfect sense to keep these categories. The dating by centuries is still very much a matter of debate in research and can vary heavily (mainly as we do not know the length of the First Intermediate Period). -- Udimu ( talk) 10:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the thoughtful replies. We just happen disagree because I'm concerned about categorizing people under multiple pharaohs based on being contemporaries. It is a challenge to categorize people though when the historical record is so thin. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support nomination: I've given this some thought and I think the nominator is correct. Note that a number of other Pharaoh categories exist which use this system (e.g. Category:Khufu, :Djedefra, :Sneferu) and that RevelationDirect's concerns already arise to some degree - e.g. Hetepheres II. This seems that an inevitable consequence of (1) the vagueness of "active" and (2) the fact that dating by Pharaoh is often not much surer than dating by the Julian calendar. Categories are a very powerful tool, but they are not good at handling uncertainty. This suggests that they are probably not the ideal tool for indicating the dates of Ancient Egyptian individuals - something that can be annotated, like a List of people of the #th dynasty of ancient Egypt might be a better tool for this.
In addition, the parent categories for these pharaoh categories are, inevitably, Category:Pharaohs of the #th Dynasty of Egypt - this creates the expectation that all the articles within their subcategories will be Pharaohs - and they are not.
Finally, it seems to me that there are more useful ways of categorising the (not insubstantial) number of people within individual dynasties, which we are missing if we focus on trying to categorise them by date. There is no Category:Queens of the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt, no Category:Viziers of the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt, etc. This might be a much more useful way to divide the attested people up. Furius ( talk) 08:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- Egyptian history is normally split by dynasty, not by century BC, at least in the Old Kingdom. Accordingly, we should have a hierarchy:
Old Kingdom Egypt
Fifth dynasty Egypt
People of Fifth Dynasty Egypt
then split by office - Pharaoh, Queen, Vizier, etc. if there is sufficient content to warrant this. I do not think we have adequately (or even inadequately) dated history for anywhere else, so that I would suggest that we delete and salt all century categories for that remote period. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Ok for the category "People of the #th dynasty of ancient Egypt" and indeed all categories based on absolute dates should be deleted. Iry-Hor ( talk) 13:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 03:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I would be prepared to allow a category covering the people of each reign. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_7&oldid=1074816868"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE