Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 10 March 12 >

March 11[edit]

Category:List Of Bilderberg Participants[edit]

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: administrative close: speedily deleted per comments below. As noted, speedy deletion was probably also available under G4. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is not a defining characteristic for the politicians in this category that they have attended a meeting of the Bilderberg Group. If we started categorising politicians by their attendances at conferences, we would have huge category clutter - it is effectively a version of "performer by performance", which is not a basis for categorisation. No need to listify as we have List of Bilderberg participants. If kept, somehow, it needs to be renamed to fix the non-standard title And Use Of Capital Letters. BencherliteTalk 20:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of searching has shown that "Bilderberg Attendees" was deleted back in 2009 and "Bilderberg attendees" was deleted in 2007 (I was the deleting admin in 2007, I note with amusement, 4 days after I became an admin...) BencherliteTalk 20:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted this category as I had concerns about BLP and none of the entries were sourced. --John (talk) 21:13, 11 March 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.

Category:Roman empresses[edit]

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Confusing name and there's a previous concern at Category_talk:Roman_empresses. Per Imperator#Imperatrix, they technically didn't have the title of empress until Byzantine Empire. The real power was concentrated at the hands of an emperor. Brandmeistertalk 15:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no category for Western Roman Empresses and I don't think that there should be one. This category covers both East and West. It's a common categorisation. As such it should embrace the Eastern convention of active, powerful Empresses, who were not mere consorts. WEre they even consorts in the West? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In English usage, the wife of an emperor is an empress, no matter what her official title was in her native language. English-language sources routinely discuss the wives of Augustus, Claudius, Nero, etc. as empresses, and have done for centuries. Requiring the use of the word "consort" simply to mean "wife of someone reigning" is hypercorrect; in English sources the empresses are often described as wives, but seldom if ever consorts; that term as applied to the wife of a monarch as opposed to a woman ruling in her own right is somewhat anachronistic, as the distinction did not exist in Roman times. The word may indeed appear as an alternative to "wife" for simple variety (after all, its basic meaning is "wife"), but never for the technical purpose for which it's used in modern times. So it makes no sense to rename the categories from "Empresses" to "Consorts," which would imply an anachronistic meaning.
It would make more sense to rename them "Wives," but the use of the word "Empress" in this specific context is traditional, and I don't see any compelling reason to deprecate it. The question of whether the Romans themselves used (or at least preferred) the title of Imperatrix is really a red herring, since Imperator, the source of our word "Emperor," wasn't really the distinguishing title of an emperor anyway. That was Augustus, and plenty of Roman empresses were known as Augusta out of respect, despite having no formal titles or powers in the modern sense. P Aculeius (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As far as I recall there were no ruling Empresses, at least not until the Byzantine Empire. The objection can be adequately dealt with by adding explanation on a headnote that they were consorts, not rulers. In the same way most British queens were queens consort, not queens regnant. However since Queen Anne, male consorts have been Prince Consort. Imperator literally measn commander. Imperatrix being its feminine form implies his wife. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 21 March 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.

Category:Anesthesiology and palliative medicine journals[edit]

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the journals in this category are more in the field of pain management than palliative medicine (as many of their articles note), so retitling this category accordingly seems to be a good idea, to more accurately describe the journals therein. Everymorning talk 02:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKeep I'm not really sure, but from our articles it appears that "palliative medicine" is a bit more inclusive than "pain management". If that is the case, I would leave things as they are, otherwise we might need to create another cat for those journals that are on palliative care specifically. At 25 members, I don't think that this cat is too large. --Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. You won't "more accurately describe" the several journals that are about palliative care, & there doesn't seem much need to split. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice.
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:Deaths by cause[edit]

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: Withdrawn - will nominate relevant subcats instead. Mdann52 (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 21#Category:Deaths from heart failure, the idea was floated that all non-natural cause sub-cats should be deleted. Nominating the whole category and subcats as, in the main, a lot of these seem redundant List of subcats affected is at User:Mdann52/Death CfD. --Mdann52 (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the idea was floated that all natural cause sub-cats should be deleted. I can't imagine anyone is wishing to delete all the subcats, so this parent should stay. Oculi (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oculi: I meant to say keep all/delete natural type thing. I've clarified above. Mdann52 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as being defining to the individual. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the parent category per Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdann52: I guess you made a procedural mistake, probably you meant to nominate the child categories (but you didn't). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Reluctant Keep I'm concerned that bio article suffer from "obituary bias" and include anything in those as defining for the entire life, even when they are mundane. That being said, unparenting these questionable categories does nothing to improve the bio articles or to improve navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 11 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_11&oldid=1138408853"