Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 16 January 18 >

January 17

Category:People who detransitioned

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Common name for people who detransitioned. Referenced and used throughout the article itself. This change attempts to make the category name simpler. Brunnaiz ( talk) 22:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose — these are people, not those who advocate or techniques for detransitioning. Should be categorized under Category:Transgender, not Category:Gender transitioning (which is reserved for techniques). Search shows term "detransitioners" is mostly associated with conservative media outlets, while persons seem to call themselves "detrans". Also, some in this small category are "retransitioned" people (see also "ex-ex-gay"). People are fluid.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 04:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, "detransitioner" seems to be a very informal term, possibly with BLP issues. The articles in the category circumvent the issue by using a verb instead of a noun e.g. "announced to detransition". Which is what the current category title does too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose — Per WAS. There's also the implied change in meaning based on the tense difference: detransitioned indicates a completed action, whereas Detransitioners, well, who knows: does it include those who plan to detransition soon but haven't yet? It's imprecise. Mathglot ( talk) 09:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Theatres that have burned down

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 25#Category:Theatres that have burned down

Category:Ottoman Baroque architecture

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 25#Category:Ottoman Baroque architecture

Category:Airports in New Orleans

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one airport physically located in New Orleans. Merge to Category:Airports in the New Orleans metropolitan area, Category:Tourism in New Orleans, and Category:Transportation buildings and structures in New Orleans. – Aidan721 ( talk) 18:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hotels in Port Everglades, Florida

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Port Everglades is small part of Fort Lauderdale, Florida and the category already exists in Category:Hotels in Fort Lauderdale, Florida so merging is not necessary. – Aidan721 ( talk) 17:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shopping centers in Houston

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Established category naming convention. WP:OVERLAPCAT. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Types of software development tools

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No referring pages; category has since been renamed and redirected François Robere ( talk) 13:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Novels about people convicted on terrorism charges

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete or merge, the one article in the category does not seem to be about terrorists (the Osama bin Laden in the novel is not the real person). Otherwise, merge to Category:Novels about terrorists as the categories have the same purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cultural depictions of terrorists

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 Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per previous discussion ( Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_8#Category:Cultural_depictions_of_criminals), all categories from cultural description of criminals (frankly, anything) need to be renamed to works about criminals (etc.). In this case, however, we already have a works about category. I suggest merger, and while we are at it, renaming all child categories to works about. Category:Novels about terrorists needs merging to Category:Novels about people convicted on terrorism charges. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Republic of Ireland expatriate association footballers in the United Kingdom

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Guidelines are different for each sport, but consensus for association football is that these trees should not go deeper than Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar. This goes beyond that (plus also really should be split further into the constituent GB nations which are separate in the football world) and despite having existed for 6 years has barely had any effort made to populate it - 17 members when the total of Republic of Ireland footballers is 1,672, of whom probably 1500 played in one of the GB nations. Crowsus ( talk) 03:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Libraries in Savannah, Georgia

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 Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one article. User:Namiba 03:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ancient Roman philosophers

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 both.
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC prior to nom this category only contained Philo and Marcus Aurelius (now removed), current subcategories are Category:Cicero, Category:Ancient Roman political philosophers (which contains only cicero), and Category:Roman-era philosophers. The latter category refers to the Roman era of Ancient Greek philosophy, to which all of the "Ancient Roman philosophers" who could be placed in the nominated parent category already also belong. subcategory for roman-era is in Category:Ancient Greek philosophers by era. - car chasm ( talk) 01:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 03:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Category:Roman-era philosophers can't be a subcategory of Category:Ancient Greek philosophers by era, because not all Roman-era philosophers were Ancient Greeks. I'm not terribly happy with "Roman-era", which is vague (as the page itself says "beginning somewhere between 146 BC and 30 BC" and we end up with Panaetius categorised as both "Hellenistic-era" and "Roman-era"). I don't really see why we would categorise philosophers by century and by "era", but not by whether they were Roman or Greek. Furius ( talk) 02:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Which Roman philosophers are you thinking of who did not do Ancient Greek philosophy? For example, Cicero and Seneca may have both written in Latin, but were both members of Ancient Greek philosophical schools. It's not an ethnic categorization here - quite a lot of ancient Greek philosophers were from other places.
And I'm not sure what the objection is to the fact that some philosophers might be both Hellenistic and Roman-era? - car chasm ( talk) 02:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't think that that's a normal interpretation "Greek philosopher" and I don't believe you'd find many sources identifying Cicero or Seneca as "Greek philosophers." It's like categorising all Kantians as "German philosophers" regardless of where they were from. Maybe one could say that they were engaged in "German philosophy" but they would still be "French" or "Swedish" etc "philosophers." Likewise Cicero and Seneca etc are regularly identified as "Roman philosophers" (ie this is WP:DEFINING), whereas "Roman-era philosophers" is a far less widespread term (I half wonder whether Wikipedia has made it up) and few sources call them "Greek philosophers". It's perfectly reasonable for a user to want to investigate specifically "Roman" philosophers" and without this category, they cannot easily do so. As for identifying someone (many someones) as both Hellenistic and Roman-era, this is bad because these philosopher by era categories are presented as a series and yet have been set up with around a hundred years of unnecessary overlap. The Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods are clearishly defined successive eras; "Roman era" is vague and that makes it bad for categorisation. Furius ( talk) 08:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't think that wikipedia made up the concept, here's a book published by an Academic press, Routledge, on Literature in the Roman period, talking about Cicero and Lucretius, both of who died before the end of the Hellenistic period. Comparing Britannica, Posidonius is considered a "Greek" philosopher and his predecessor Panaetius is called a "Roman" philosopher, although the article on Posidonius calls Panaetius "Greek." So the terms have some degree of interchangeability, and we have reliable sources using them somewhat loosely.
Practically speaking any treatment of these philosophical eras is going to have some overlap. Cicero was one of the last academic skeptics and provides valuable doxography information on the Hellenistic, while any discussion of philosophy in Ancient Rome also clearly includes him. The first century BC has many figures who started new philosophical traditions or were the last of an old one, and not all the new ones were started by people born after the last members of the old. Any source that doesn't brush over the transition by having a "Hellenistic and Roman period" will need to have some philosophers treated in both articles, they are not clearly defined successively and there's no real reason for them to be? These are academic subjects that classical scholars study, the distinct timeline categories based on year of birth are already a separate set of categories. - car chasm ( talk) 21:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The whole thrust of the chapter that you cite is the importance of Cicero's Roman identity, even as he engaged with Greek philosophy and the Britannica article is claiming that Panaetius established "the Roman school of Stoic philosophy". Francis Xavier established Christianity in Japan, but that doesn't make him a Japanese Christian. Scholars also write books [1] [2] and chapters on Roman philosophers as a distinct category from Greek philosophers throughout the "Roman-era". If scholarship finds that distinction defining, then WP's categorisation system should find space for it.
(While there is going to be some overlap between Hellenistic and Roman-era, 116 years is a lot (it's over a third of the whole Hellenistic period) and the date 146 BC has been chosen on the assumption that we're looking at Greeks, because that's the date when they came under Roman control. But I see this is a separable issue from whether Category:Ancient Roman philosophers is retained). Furius ( talk) 23:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The fact that these terms are usually used somewhat loosely implies that this is not a defining characteristic. Cicero is a difficult case specifically because a lot of scholars hesitate to even call him a philosopher. And the sources you link include people like Epictetus, who was a slave and certainly referred to as both Greek and Roman. So having a separate category will cause additional confusion on people like Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Panaetius, and Posidonius, all of who can easily be referred to as both.
The problem is that "Roman" can mean many different things (citizenship, lived in the Roman Empire, lived in the Roman Republic) and Greek can mean even more (language, identity, school of philosophy) - we should stick to scholarship here, and the scholarship is not consistent, so the categories should not be distinct. The fact that Roman may seem to be a defining term for Cicero does not mean it is defining for the vast majority of people who would be in this category.
Also, the category Roman-era philosophers is already listed under Ancient Romans by occupation, and has been since 2005 with no issues or confusion. - car chasm ( talk) 00:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Downmerge to Category:Roman-era philosophers or reverse merge. The two categories are technically not identical but they surely serve the same purpose. Also, agree that parenting to Greek philosophers is counterintuitive though that is a different discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle, what is the reverse merge target? —  Qwerfjkl talk 21:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_17&oldid=1135796234"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 16 January 18 >

January 17

Category:People who detransitioned

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Common name for people who detransitioned. Referenced and used throughout the article itself. This change attempts to make the category name simpler. Brunnaiz ( talk) 22:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose — these are people, not those who advocate or techniques for detransitioning. Should be categorized under Category:Transgender, not Category:Gender transitioning (which is reserved for techniques). Search shows term "detransitioners" is mostly associated with conservative media outlets, while persons seem to call themselves "detrans". Also, some in this small category are "retransitioned" people (see also "ex-ex-gay"). People are fluid.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 04:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, "detransitioner" seems to be a very informal term, possibly with BLP issues. The articles in the category circumvent the issue by using a verb instead of a noun e.g. "announced to detransition". Which is what the current category title does too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose — Per WAS. There's also the implied change in meaning based on the tense difference: detransitioned indicates a completed action, whereas Detransitioners, well, who knows: does it include those who plan to detransition soon but haven't yet? It's imprecise. Mathglot ( talk) 09:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Theatres that have burned down

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 25#Category:Theatres that have burned down

Category:Ottoman Baroque architecture

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 25#Category:Ottoman Baroque architecture

Category:Airports in New Orleans

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one airport physically located in New Orleans. Merge to Category:Airports in the New Orleans metropolitan area, Category:Tourism in New Orleans, and Category:Transportation buildings and structures in New Orleans. – Aidan721 ( talk) 18:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hotels in Port Everglades, Florida

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Port Everglades is small part of Fort Lauderdale, Florida and the category already exists in Category:Hotels in Fort Lauderdale, Florida so merging is not necessary. – Aidan721 ( talk) 17:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shopping centers in Houston

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Established category naming convention. WP:OVERLAPCAT. – Aidan721 ( talk) 16:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Types of software development tools

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No referring pages; category has since been renamed and redirected François Robere ( talk) 13:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Novels about people convicted on terrorism charges

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete or merge, the one article in the category does not seem to be about terrorists (the Osama bin Laden in the novel is not the real person). Otherwise, merge to Category:Novels about terrorists as the categories have the same purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cultural depictions of terrorists

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 Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per previous discussion ( Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_8#Category:Cultural_depictions_of_criminals), all categories from cultural description of criminals (frankly, anything) need to be renamed to works about criminals (etc.). In this case, however, we already have a works about category. I suggest merger, and while we are at it, renaming all child categories to works about. Category:Novels about terrorists needs merging to Category:Novels about people convicted on terrorism charges. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Republic of Ireland expatriate association footballers in the United Kingdom

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Guidelines are different for each sport, but consensus for association football is that these trees should not go deeper than Fooian expatriate sportspeople in Bar. This goes beyond that (plus also really should be split further into the constituent GB nations which are separate in the football world) and despite having existed for 6 years has barely had any effort made to populate it - 17 members when the total of Republic of Ireland footballers is 1,672, of whom probably 1500 played in one of the GB nations. Crowsus ( talk) 03:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Libraries in Savannah, Georgia

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 Timrollpickering ( talk) 12:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one article. User:Namiba 03:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ancient Roman philosophers

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 both.
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC prior to nom this category only contained Philo and Marcus Aurelius (now removed), current subcategories are Category:Cicero, Category:Ancient Roman political philosophers (which contains only cicero), and Category:Roman-era philosophers. The latter category refers to the Roman era of Ancient Greek philosophy, to which all of the "Ancient Roman philosophers" who could be placed in the nominated parent category already also belong. subcategory for roman-era is in Category:Ancient Greek philosophers by era. - car chasm ( talk) 01:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 03:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Category:Roman-era philosophers can't be a subcategory of Category:Ancient Greek philosophers by era, because not all Roman-era philosophers were Ancient Greeks. I'm not terribly happy with "Roman-era", which is vague (as the page itself says "beginning somewhere between 146 BC and 30 BC" and we end up with Panaetius categorised as both "Hellenistic-era" and "Roman-era"). I don't really see why we would categorise philosophers by century and by "era", but not by whether they were Roman or Greek. Furius ( talk) 02:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Which Roman philosophers are you thinking of who did not do Ancient Greek philosophy? For example, Cicero and Seneca may have both written in Latin, but were both members of Ancient Greek philosophical schools. It's not an ethnic categorization here - quite a lot of ancient Greek philosophers were from other places.
And I'm not sure what the objection is to the fact that some philosophers might be both Hellenistic and Roman-era? - car chasm ( talk) 02:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't think that that's a normal interpretation "Greek philosopher" and I don't believe you'd find many sources identifying Cicero or Seneca as "Greek philosophers." It's like categorising all Kantians as "German philosophers" regardless of where they were from. Maybe one could say that they were engaged in "German philosophy" but they would still be "French" or "Swedish" etc "philosophers." Likewise Cicero and Seneca etc are regularly identified as "Roman philosophers" (ie this is WP:DEFINING), whereas "Roman-era philosophers" is a far less widespread term (I half wonder whether Wikipedia has made it up) and few sources call them "Greek philosophers". It's perfectly reasonable for a user to want to investigate specifically "Roman" philosophers" and without this category, they cannot easily do so. As for identifying someone (many someones) as both Hellenistic and Roman-era, this is bad because these philosopher by era categories are presented as a series and yet have been set up with around a hundred years of unnecessary overlap. The Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods are clearishly defined successive eras; "Roman era" is vague and that makes it bad for categorisation. Furius ( talk) 08:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't think that wikipedia made up the concept, here's a book published by an Academic press, Routledge, on Literature in the Roman period, talking about Cicero and Lucretius, both of who died before the end of the Hellenistic period. Comparing Britannica, Posidonius is considered a "Greek" philosopher and his predecessor Panaetius is called a "Roman" philosopher, although the article on Posidonius calls Panaetius "Greek." So the terms have some degree of interchangeability, and we have reliable sources using them somewhat loosely.
Practically speaking any treatment of these philosophical eras is going to have some overlap. Cicero was one of the last academic skeptics and provides valuable doxography information on the Hellenistic, while any discussion of philosophy in Ancient Rome also clearly includes him. The first century BC has many figures who started new philosophical traditions or were the last of an old one, and not all the new ones were started by people born after the last members of the old. Any source that doesn't brush over the transition by having a "Hellenistic and Roman period" will need to have some philosophers treated in both articles, they are not clearly defined successively and there's no real reason for them to be? These are academic subjects that classical scholars study, the distinct timeline categories based on year of birth are already a separate set of categories. - car chasm ( talk) 21:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The whole thrust of the chapter that you cite is the importance of Cicero's Roman identity, even as he engaged with Greek philosophy and the Britannica article is claiming that Panaetius established "the Roman school of Stoic philosophy". Francis Xavier established Christianity in Japan, but that doesn't make him a Japanese Christian. Scholars also write books [1] [2] and chapters on Roman philosophers as a distinct category from Greek philosophers throughout the "Roman-era". If scholarship finds that distinction defining, then WP's categorisation system should find space for it.
(While there is going to be some overlap between Hellenistic and Roman-era, 116 years is a lot (it's over a third of the whole Hellenistic period) and the date 146 BC has been chosen on the assumption that we're looking at Greeks, because that's the date when they came under Roman control. But I see this is a separable issue from whether Category:Ancient Roman philosophers is retained). Furius ( talk) 23:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The fact that these terms are usually used somewhat loosely implies that this is not a defining characteristic. Cicero is a difficult case specifically because a lot of scholars hesitate to even call him a philosopher. And the sources you link include people like Epictetus, who was a slave and certainly referred to as both Greek and Roman. So having a separate category will cause additional confusion on people like Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Panaetius, and Posidonius, all of who can easily be referred to as both.
The problem is that "Roman" can mean many different things (citizenship, lived in the Roman Empire, lived in the Roman Republic) and Greek can mean even more (language, identity, school of philosophy) - we should stick to scholarship here, and the scholarship is not consistent, so the categories should not be distinct. The fact that Roman may seem to be a defining term for Cicero does not mean it is defining for the vast majority of people who would be in this category.
Also, the category Roman-era philosophers is already listed under Ancient Romans by occupation, and has been since 2005 with no issues or confusion. - car chasm ( talk) 00:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Downmerge to Category:Roman-era philosophers or reverse merge. The two categories are technically not identical but they surely serve the same purpose. Also, agree that parenting to Greek philosophers is counterintuitive though that is a different discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle, what is the reverse merge target? —  Qwerfjkl talk 21:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_17&oldid=1135796234"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE