Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 8 October 10 >

October 9[edit]

Category:People related to the Teutonic Order[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: rename. And purge/add articles to Category:People from the State of the Teutonic Order if necessary; clean up category structure and ensure that everything is squared away. Note that Category:Teutonic Knights was a redirect to Category:Teutonic Order until this close, so I read a !vote of "merge" as meaning "rename". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, we ususally don't categorize people as "related to" something, and most people in this category were in fact Teutonic Knights. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The subcategories also include people who lived in areas under the political and military control of the Teutonic Order, such as Dorothea of Montau. Don't forget, the Teutonic Order were the rulers of the State of the Teutonic Order, one of the Crusader States. Their areas are currently divided between Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Sweden. The Duchy of Prussia was established by a renegade member of the Knights in areas formerly controlled by the order. Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge "people related to XXXX" is a bad categorization scheme. How related? Fought against them? Entered into a treaty with them? Had some interaction including mere correspondence with them? There's no definition hence inclusion is purely subjective. Yes there was a state of the Teutonic Order, as there is & was one called "Russia"; using your analogy, would we have a category Category:People related to Russia, for example? Would Napoleon belong - he invaded the place? Would Karl Marx - a book he wrote had a profound effect on the country's history? would Brezhnev - he was a Soviet, not a Russian leader? would Edward Snowden, he's living there now? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "related to" is WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE etc. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, but also merge to Category:People from the State of the Teutonic Order, both only where appropriate. Reorganize the rest of the structure per Marcocapelle's topmost reply. —烏Γ (kaw), 07:10, 11 October 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:Alumni of Leeds Metropolitan University[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: rename Category:Alumni of Leeds Metropolitan University to Category:Alumni of Leeds Beckett University. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rename Alumni of Leeds Beckett University to reflect name change of that institution. MFlet1 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to reflect change of name. With Alumni categories the alumni of a renamed or amalgamated institution are deemed to have attended the successor, even though this produces some odd results, for example in the case of some Oxbridge Colleges that had previously been mere halls. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – an alternative is to keep subcats of the new Category:Alumni of Leeds Beckett University for each incarnation of the institution. This seems greatly preferable to me: otherwise one has in the text 'went to Leeds Polytechnic' with the unsupported (by the article) category 'Leeds Beckett University'. Oculi (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the institution fundamentally changed character, like a seminary expanding into a full college, I'd be open to separate categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename This is the consensus method of dealing with such cases. The way to fix the in-text problem is to add (now Leeds Beckett University) into the text of the article. Also the link will go to the article on the institution under its current name. An article that only mentions the old name of the institution without a link to its current name is a poorly written article anyway. The present institution will view such people as connected to it as alumni just as much as those who attended it when it had its present name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 16 October 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:Thuringian people‎[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as the two categories seem to serve the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per non. Actually one category is for the tribe and the other for individual members, but I find the distinction rather meaningless. Dimadick (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- All the people belong to the Germanic tribe of the migration period. Thuringia is also a part of Germany. I would have expected the subject to refer to Category:People from Thuringia. Do we need to leave the subject as a cat-redirect (or dab-category) to cover that issue? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 10 October 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:Germanic tribes[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: no consensus. — ξxplicit 07:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to parent categories. It doesn't really make sense to subcategorize Category:Ancient Germanic peoples by modern country, as in this case by Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In this case, the term "German tribes" is a historiographic term from the 18th and 19th century to categorize the main tribes of the Carolingian Empire: "Bavarians, Swabians (Alamanni), Franks, Saxons, Frisians and Thuringians. All of these were incorporated in the Carolingian Empire by the late 8th century. Only four of them are represented in the later stem duchies; the former Merovingian duchy of Thuringia was absorbed into Saxony in 908 while the former Frisian kingdom had been conquered into Francia already in 734. The customary or tribal laws of these groups were recorded in the early medieval period (Lex Baiuvariorum, Lex Alamannorum, Lex Salica and Lex Ripuaria, Lex Saxonum, Lex Frisonum and Lex Thuringorum). Franconian, Saxon and Swabian law remained in force and competed with imperial law well into the 13th century." Dimadick (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is: is "German tribes" a defining characteristic of these peoples, or is "Historiography of Germany" a defining characteristic of German tribes? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The tribes and peoples are much they same thing and should perhaps be merged, but Germany in the early Middle Ages should be a parent not a target. I suspect that we are dealing with a linguistic issue: they were Germanic, not Gallic or Slavic in language. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, "Oppose" was perhaps too strong. The content of the subject is specifically peoples of the migration period (or Dark Age) and of the mainland rather than Scandinavia. In contrast the "peoples" target is covering tribes of the C1 BC and C1 AD, as well as Scandinavian peoples and those who migrated from there. There is probably distinghuishing features,but perhaps my opposition was not appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 18 October 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.

Germanic peoples[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: no consensus to delete. Perhaps the alternative renaming proposal could be made in a fresh nomination? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete. Article Germanic peoples ends in the Middle Ages so it is not meaningful to have Germanic subcategories split by modern country. Category:History of the Germanic peoples should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:North Germanic peoples, no opinion about the others. The category is, as I see it, not intended for the modern peoples but the ancient (if the later half of the middle ages can be considered "ancient") peoples, such as Swedes (Germanic tribe), Geats and Danes (Germanic tribe), which I have now added to the category. Thomas.W talk 09:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Germanic peoples" is a category about the speakers of the Germanic languages, one of the more widespread language families on the planet. "Germanic culture" is about the historical cultures of all of them. Germanic diaspora is the parent category for diasporas of Germanic-speaking people. "North Germanic peoples" is about the speakers of the North Germanic languages, the Scandinavian branch of the Germanic family. "People of Germanic descent" is the parent category for descendants of Germanic-speaking people. Dimadick (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I haven't nominated any Germanic language category. It's obvious that Germanic languages still exist, but that doesn't make us (21st-century people) to a member of Germanic peoples. There's plenty of people who speak a Germanic language while not descending from medieval Germanic peoples, e.g. Afro-Americans. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems subjective; why are Category:Asturian people‎ included? Is each Asturian a German at root, not a Celt or a Basque or a Latin? Similarly, someone chose to include Asturians but not French, despite long-term Germanic rule of France (certainly from the Franks and off and on until 1945)? We should not be categorizing BLP's among others this cavalierly and unencyclopedically. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- "Germanic" is a linguistic category linked to ethnic origin. The Asturians are probably included on the basis of a Visogothic heritage. Nevertheless, that needs purging. Africaaners are of Dutch descent and speak a Germanic language. However, their language has been learnt by many others. The Franks were certainly Germanic. I am not sure of the ethnicity of Hugh Capet, the founder of the next dynasty in France, but it would be artificial to regard France as Germanic after he replace the moribund Carolingian dynasty. Similarly, it would be artificial to regard the English as a Germanic people, as middle and modern English is descended from French and Latin as well as Saxon. Category:People of Germanic descent is a container category (and should be tagged as such); it is harmless. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So isn't this getting too subjective then? If English people wouldn't be a Germanic people while English is considered to be a Germanic language, on what basis would that call be made? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose There is no explained reason why these problems would only apply to the Germanic-peoples categories and not other onces such as Category:Romance peoples. We should consider all of these questionable top holder categores at once.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tree of Category:Ethnic groups by language family is too big and (sometimes) too messy to tackle all problems in a single nomination. I'm hoping that by starting with "Germanic" we will have the biggest amount of participation in this first discussion and can take it from here to other languages. By the way, I've also started four C2D speedy rename nominations to reduce the messiness in this tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative. If there is insufficient support for deleting these categories I'm offering a rename instead (still considering that Germanic peoples is anachronistic in relation to modern nationalities, while Germanic languages is not anachronistic):
Hope this helps a bit. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 16 October 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:Arab socialist politicians[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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not all Arab nationalists are Arab socialists, but the reverse is true. Neither category has many articles in it anyway. Charles Essie (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge any non-socialists into the nationalist category. Most of the parties have socialist in their name and the Ba'ath party was Arab socialist too. They may not have many articles but a good many subcats, so that they are potentially useful as container cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (voted above). If people think my comment wrong, they should suggest an alternative structure for these and related categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to oppose, I'm not an expert in this field but by just judging the rationale for merging I would say this is actually a perfect reason for maintaining a parent-child relationship between the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternate merge to Category:Arab nationalists and Category:Arab socialists. —烏Γ (kaw), 07:06, 11 October 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_October_9&oldid=1074815674"