The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. MER-C 12:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all -- These taxa of country categories are a variety of Performaance by performer WP:OC#PREF CATEGORY, the performacne being occurence. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. MER-C 13:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Informa has merged the journals published under its Informa Healthcare imprint to its publishing division, Taylor & Francis. See announcement here. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this moment. Informa still uses both the Routledge and the Taylor & Francis imprints separately and the same goes for Wilters Kluwer's imprints. But the Informa Healthcare imprint seems to have been completely abandoned and the journals are being moved to the T&F platform with T&F indicated as publisher (not Routledge or Informa Healthcare). I stumbled upon this because an editor, Isaacjones99 (an employee of the publisher perhaps, given their singular attention to these journals only), is changing articles for Informa journals and replacing Informa with T&F. --Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Then I support the original proposal. Thanks for the clarification. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree This proposal makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.--Shisha-Tom (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support alternative proposal per Johnbod. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: A category for ancient Jewish women, while the men are listed within specific centuries under Category:Ancient Jews, seems inappropriate. The women in this category would be moved into the appropriate century of Category:Ancient Jews. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the people will be moved to the appropriate century category of Category:Ancient Jews, I support this proposal. Debresser (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, while these women should also be listed in the centuries, there is no harm nor a violation of guidelines in having a separate women category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a source for that or has a Wikipedian arbitrarily chosen it? Are you seriously arguing that Julius Caesar died nearly 500 years after the end of the "ancient" period? --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religious/ethnic/racial category + sex category is not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I checked a number of articles and they are a divers bunch, but all Jewish and all women. In an era when women were rarely notable, those who were notable are all the more significant. The nom's objection seems to be that the male category ought (for consistency) to be Category:Ancient Jewish men, but renaming Category:Ancient Jews would not necessarily be simple, due to a need to purge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless we get a NPOV answer to my question, I suggest we nominate every Category prefixed "Ancient", deferring only to centuries or millenia. --Dweller (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an issue especially when most of these articles are biblical figures. There may even been reasonable debate over the actual historicity of some of them; I seem to recall that Mary's mother is never named in the Bible and St. Anne was kind of an outside-the-Bible tradition. Since we cannot even be assured that folks like Deborah, Queen of Sheba, St Anne even existed putting some centuries on them seems even more difficult. For example, when did St Anne die? prior to or after 1 BC (different centuries), was she born as early as 101 BC? unlikely, but no reliable sources exist on that - and the Bible relates that people did tend to live to great ages (Methuselah and his lot) and were fertile in their old age (Sarah comes to mind), so who knows? Another reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Groan, no! 500 AD is a decent cut-off. Centuries are a nightmare. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to Carlossuarez46 is simple. There is no RS on her dates, so that she cannot be categorised by century. 500 AD (CE) is a cut off between ancient and medieval, but should only be treated as approximate. A person staddling that date should not be in both categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing at all "inappropriate" in contexts like this having a non-diffusing category for women, without a male equivalent. We need to get this general principle established. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons for specific women categories makes sense. Ancient is an accepted term with a broad scholarly consensus, it is not Wikipedia specific, and so not an arbitrary cut off.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage the execution of this text but I find putting this text on the category page quite a bit redundant. A text like that could be put on almost any category page because it just concerns a general categorization principle. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2015 (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.
