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.
delete This category is an anachronism, since the genre is generally held to have originated around 1600. Note that I have proposed to merge away the sole child category; in any case the merge to Category:Novelists should not be done. Mangoe (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the other discussion can be found here. It does not make a whole lot of sense to discuss this nomination any further until the other discussion is closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is nothing but an obstruction to navigating to a category with two Roman authors in it. While novels in the modern sense are later, there is fiction from a number of periods: the two authors clearly wrote fiction; Beowulf is clearly fiction; so is Gawain and the Green Knight; and a number of medieval Romances. I am loth to see all this merged as nom, but I think we might merge it all into Category:Ancient Roman fiction writers. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 3 April 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.
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: Category consists of one song by another artist for which the subject did a remix. Articles on artist and his solo works were all deleted as non-notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invisible Love. --Finngalltalk 18:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a song by this artist. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:29, 1 April 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.
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 with some added parent categories as indicated in the discussion. There are arguments for and against, but the arguments that these categories significantly overlap were strongest and unrefuted. There is no prejudice against further nominations to clean up the rest of this tree. In fact, further nominations are practically mandatory. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge, the two categories seem to have the same scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, they have different parents; indeed, Classical antiquity is grandparent to the nominated category. The article Classical antiquity says that it refers to the period, i.e. it is a historical era, whereas Greco-Roman world is a classical civilisation, i.e. regions governed by certain powers during that era. – FayenaticLondon 00:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In theory that's correct. But in practice the categories are both about the Greco-Roman world during classical antiquity. We shouldn't add any other regions beside the Greco-Roman world to the classical antiquity category, should we? Marcocapelle (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the nomination is too Greco-Roman centric. There were civilisations in Persia in the classical period. Just because they were a bit beyond the Empire is not grounds for excluding them from the period is it? At one time the Gauls were independent barbarian tribes, at another time they were subjects of the Empire. Yet both touched on the Classical Antiquity period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't Alexander conquer Persia? Didn't the Selucid Empire encompass Persia? At what point do we consider those territories to be not part of the Greco-Roman world? Were there not times when Persia was in the Greco-Roman orbit and times when it was not? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Alexander the Great and the Seleucid Empire are in the tree of Category:Greco-Roman world and Category:Classical antiquity so that's no issue here. The issue is more - I guess - whether we should include American or Chinese history of the 7th century BC to the 5th century AD in the Category:Classical antiquity tree. The nomination implicitly suggests that this should not be done, it suggests that the Classical antiquity = the Greek-Roman Classical antiquity, and in this respect it follows the Classical antiquity article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main Classical Antiquity article defines the scope as "...a broad term for a long period of cultural history centered on the Mediterranean Sea, comprising the interlocking civilizations of ancient Greece and ancient Rome, collectively known as the Greco-Roman world. It is the period in which Greek and Roman society flourished and wielded great influence throughout Europe, North Africa and Southwestern Asia.". So that would include Alexander's realms and exclude China. If the Category:Classical antiquity scope can be defined per above, then I guess it would be OK to proceed with the merger. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all the head categories that you're mentioning. With respect to Category:Classical civilizations, for now I was planning to leave it alone, i.e. keep it as a subcat, in order to make this discussion not too complicated. But as a later step it could also be a good idea to merge it up and then also move Civilizations up as a head category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Could you respond to the above post (if you care to)? You seemed to be reconsidering, but never responded to Marcocapelle's follow-up. I plan to close this soon, and your response would be helpful. ~ RobTalk 01:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I am now willing to support this, provided the head categories are handled as discussed above. – FayenaticLondon 08:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also willing to go through the foreign language Wikipedias where these have been unnecessarily duplicated, and do some bold merge/redirects, in order to merge the Wikidata links [1][2]. – FayenaticLondon 08:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mergeClassical antiquity is an historical era. - Greco-Roman world is a culture/civilisation influenced region which existed during that era. That said, the structures between the two categories, as well as parent and child cats, really could do with some clean-up. - jc37 09:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the goal is to phase out Greco-Roman World (which also eliminates the ENGVAR issue), to the preferred "classical antiquity", I would be fine with that, but then (here's the OTHERSTUFF argument : ) - someone should propose renaming:
There may be more, this was just a quick look : ) - jc37 11:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree your general point, but the details would need to be examined carefully. Some of those would appear to follow, but not others, e.g. not merging Category:Antiquity in popular culture since it also contains Category:Ancient India in popular culture and Category:Films set in ancient Persia which are not Greco-Roman and therefore not "classical antiquity" as I understand it. I suggest that it should retain a "classical antiquity" sub-cat. Others should perhaps be split rather than merged, e.g. the Egypt one by era, since it contains late antiquity as well as classical antiquity. – FayenaticLondon 13:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have a look in detail after this discussion closes. We seem to agree anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't agree if we're retaining the greco-roman civ trees. Which was part of what I was saying. But if we're merging that set of trees, then I could support, but only with no prejudice against further cleanup/re-org, and immediate follow-up noms, etc. at editorial discretion. In other words, I don't want to see this close act as a precedent to tie editor hands or to stifle future discussion. - jc37 11:27, 4 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.
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.
Delete -- If there are any names with both Greek and Roman origin, they can go in both categories. We do not need a third one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 26 March 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:Perpetrators of the November 2015 Paris attacks[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.
Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorisation. Most of the articles in this category are redirects, only two are actually articles. A category for two articles and a handful of redirects is not really helpful, see also Category:Perpetrators of the 2016 Brussels bombings whihc is up for deletion on similar grounds. A category for articles about the event may be defensible, but not for "perpetrators", especially since in most cases there is currently no judicial finding of fact to support the categorisation. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:November 2015 Paris attacks. We may never get a judicial verdict on those who killed themselves (or were killed), but we will no doubt get verdicts on surviving perpetrators in due course. For the moment, putting them in the category for the attack avoids any theoretivcal issues over libel. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 26 March 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:Christianity and the Greco-Roman world[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. – FayenaticLondon 13:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, contains one child category. No need to upmerge to the other parent, since the child category is already in the tree of Category:Greco-Roman world. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. Any ancient Christianity outside the region is the exception. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The Saint Thomas Christians of India were outside the Empire but within the Classical time period. Probably not worthwhile preserving for this sole exception. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination does not exclude having a category for Saint Thomas Christians if desired. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support But no objection to recreating if more articles appear. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 30 April 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.
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 rational Moldavia is an historical region, but the exact use of the term is ambiguous. It would be a lot more clear if we used the term Moldavian Principality. This would stop the placement of living people in the category which makes no sense. It would also make it much clearer wheather people who only became notable for actions in Bessarabia after it was split from the Principality of Moldavia should be included.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of the current sub-cats, especially the Bessarabian German one have people in them who do not make any sense at all. For example Horst Köhler who was born in what is now Poland (than I believe Nazi-occupaied Poland, I do not think it was integrally part of Germany). His parents had left Romania 2 years before his birth as part of Soviet-German population transfers after the Soviet invasion of Romania in 1940. By the time he was 4 his family had moved to Leipzig and they later moved on to West Germany. Such a persom might fit in Category:People of Bessarabian German descent but not in a Bessarbian German category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Moldavia was an independent or quasi-autonomous principality from the Middle Ages until 1859 (personal union with Wallachia) or 1862 (legal union). From that point it became Romania. We aim to use contemporary polities, not anachronistic ones. However we need to distinguish this from people from that part of the later Romania and those from the present Moldova, being the area taken by USSR from Romania during WWII. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in part. I do agree we need disambiguation if the current name is causing confusion. On the other hand, there's been a past WP:RM for the main article which closed with no consensus to move. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would likely preclude the main article from being moved, but that doesn't mean we have to go with no disambiguation if the lack of disambiguation is causing problems. I can't support a move to Category:People of the Moldavian Principality because it doesn't fit the widespread "People from" category scheme, but either Category:People from Moldavia (principality) or Category:People from the Principality of Moldavia would work. I weakly prefer the former because it would show up more easily when people type "People from Moldavia". Also, the existing category should become a disambiguation category rather than a soft redirect for obvious reasons. ~ RobTalk 01:55, 30 May 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.
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:reverse merge where appropriate. – FayenaticLondon 12:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale I am actually about split between either this, or a reverse merge. Only during the time frame of 1812-1917 does having a seperate category for this area make sense. We should limit this category for people who lived in the area and were notable in this time frame. Before 1812 it was an integral part of Moldavia, and so we should categorize the people in that place. After 1917 it becomes part of Romania, and there is no good reason to treat those who only lived there between 1918 and 1940 as different from other Romanians. After 1918 it becomes parts of Ukraine and Moldova, and so people should be placed in those categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not care that much what we call it, but I see no reason to split Bessarabia during the period of being in the Russian Empire into more than one category. Whatever it was called it was the same place with control by the same government from 1812 until 1917 and we should have only one general category for people from there during that time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Bessarabia is just a holding category for people whom sources tell us were from Bessarabia without being more specific. When they do tell us an exact birthplace, the individual in question goes into Category:People by district in Moldova or the relevant categories for Ukraine.
In sum, I believe this should be deleted, but so should all similar categories for the Russian Empire, and that individuals born in Bessarabia between 1812 and 1917 should be placed in categories for modern subdivisions - as indeed they already are in numerous cases. (Random example: Constantin Stere, born in Bessarabia in 1865, is in Category:People from Dondușeni District, even though that district did not exist prior to 1940.) - BiruitorulTalk 19:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair comment. I imagined, for some reason or another, that a deliberate exception was made for the Russian Empire to categorize people by former subdivision, but haven't really checked that. While thinking about it, I can't figure a good reason why there would be an exception for the Russian Empire. Anyway, that's something for a next nomination, I presume. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 6 April 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 13:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale There was no Albania in 1899. There is no limit to what is Albania. The article itself clearly identifies this organization as formed in the Ottoman Empire. Other Albanianist organizations from the general time were formed in what is today Kosovo, Macedonia and most pronounced in Istanbul. Albanian populations also had significant numbers in the north of what is today Greece. This was an integral part of the Ottoman Empire at the time. Speaking of Albania at this time is inherently anachronistic, and either involves artificially imposing borders drawn 13 years later, or making at category with no clear limits of inclusion at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I see no problem with categorizing things in both of these categories. Category:1899 establishments in the Ottoman Empire would hold things established in the political entity at the time, and Category:1899 establishments in Albania would hold things established in the territory that is currently Albania. (The nominated category could even be a subcategory of the proposed target, to avoid double categorization on the articles.) If something happened in territory that is currently in Albania, it is natural for users to look for that information within the Category:History of Albania tree. This is a completely normal way for history to be discussed and written about. Books about the history of Albania do not start in 1925; Albania has long existed, whether or not there was a distinct political entity known as "Albania". Independence is often the final step in a very long struggle of a place that seeks self-determination. In other words, this nomination places a premium on political geography at the expense of ethnic and sociological geography, which is just as significant. This category is also but one of a number of subcategories within Category:19th century in Albania, so I don't think it makes much sense to single this category out. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, almost every modern country has a complete history tree going back almost to prehistory, but in many cases we are able to use modern country categories as container categories only - because there was a contemporary polity of a different name roughly in the same area as the modern country. (Or we use a natural geography name, e.g. Category:1st century BC in Great Britain or a continent name, e.g. Category:4th millennium BC in Europe which are both just as anachronistic names.) Now with Albania we don't have a more contemporary category name for 1899 so then leave it as is. Note that in the course of time I've been changing my mind in this respect, exactly for the reason that Good Olfactory pointed out above, history is not just political history. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 30 March 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.
