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. Participants may consider a merge to the category nominated directly below should a rename of it take place. ℯxplicit 01:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename and repopulate, German tribes redirects to Stem duchies and indeed the stem duchies were the relevant entities in the later part of the Middle Ages, rather than tribes. So the category should contain Duchy of Bavaria and similar articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, the main purpose of the category is its containing the categories for individual tribes, such as Category:Saxons, Category:Franks, etc.; these are not "duchies" but actual tribes, the stem duchies are just a derived concept that is also relevant. --dab(𒁳) 05:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it is about tribes in general, then they belong in Category:Ancient Germanic peoples, see nomination below. There is no distinction between tribes and peoples in this context. However if it is about the specific content of the article German tribes then it is about stem duchies. It's either one or the other. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. A redirect does not imply synonymy. "German tribes" is a {{R with possibilities}}, or at least it could redirect to either Germanic peoples or to Stem duchies. Yes, Category:German tribes should probably be a subcategory of Category:Ancient Germanic peoples. "German" != "Germanic", so it's a true subcategory, not a synonym. The problem with the "Ancient Germanic peoples" category is the ancient. I take this as opposed to "medieval" (and not just as opposed to "modern"). I.e. ancient Germanic peoples are pre-6th century, while our "German tribes" are mostly post-5th century. The classifier "ancient" is not useful here, and I would support renaming "Ancient Germanic peoples" into just "Germanic peoples" to avoid the futile issue of "when does antiquity end, precisely, in Europe". --dab(𒁳) 06:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a true subcategory, you wouldn't merge it any more than, say, you would merge Category:Sotho-Tswana peoples in South Africa into Category:Bantu peoples. "Would anything worthwhile remain" if Sotho-Tswana were merged into Bantu? Well, you would lose the classification hierarchy of Sotho-Tswana forming a true subgroup of Bantu. Idk why this is even brought up here, this is just how categorisation works. --dab(𒁳) 06:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section is about 18th-19th century German historiography, please read. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The category contains peoples, not regions. Please inspect. Oculi (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- While I am not an expert, I suspect that merging to Category:Ancient Germanic peoples may be better. "Stem duchies" is a transliteration of the German term, but I am not sure that it is good English. Perhaps, "Early German duchies" with a detailed headnote describing its scope, as those existing before a certain date. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I say above, the problem is with the "Ancient". The Saxons are on record in the 8th century, which is clearly early medieval and not "ancient". Rename the Germanic category to just "Germanic peoples", and you can make "German tribes" a subcategory of "Germanic peoples", no problem. --dab(𒁳) 06:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that the Saxons didn't just pop up like a new flower in the 8th century; they probably existed in the ancient period as a tribe, even if they had not taken up their final abode. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2017 (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. A rename of the target category can be discussed in a future nomination. ℯxplicit 01:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge, we can neither make a clear distinction between tribes and peoples nor (in this case) between Antiquity and Middle Ages, since the Germanic tribes and peoples were most active during the Migration Period (late Antiquity/early Middle Ages). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
support, agree that the distinction is not useful. --dab(𒁳) 05:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Who could draw a line? They may not have come to the attention of Italians until the Medieval period but they were a people from the Ancient period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- An ancient/medieval split is not useful here. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accuracy always gets my vote over snappy titles. Go for it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom. This would be a non-issue if we hadn't categorised a whole bunch of modern 'peoples' like the English, Austrians, Dutch, Germans and others as "Germanic peoples" when really they are just modern nationalities whose languages were orginally influenced by Germanic languages. If we stuck to the definition of "Germanic" as implying those tribes of ancient/medieval northern and western Europe speaking Germanic languages, we could simplify this area of categorization as they have done on German Wikipedia under Germanen and Germanische .... Bermicourt (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2017 (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:1700s establishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain[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 as nominated. ℯxplicit 01:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They are essentially the same thing. --Nevé–selbert 17:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
support --dab(𒁳) 05:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge The establishments relate to the state, not to the island. States establish, islands do not establish. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The state was officially known simply as Great Britain.--Nevé–selbert 17:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (not reverse merge) -- The difference between the island and the state are too slight for a useful distinction. Categories are better having as short a name as possible, to avoid clutter. And a reverse merge would require us to keep the target as a parent for events on 1700-07. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. There never was a "Kingdom of" GB. CravinChillies 11:41, 2 September 2017 (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: Seems like this is a can of worms. Good faith, but a WP:BLP/WP:NOTDEFINING can of worms. There were three entries, and the one I spot-checked was supported by a passing mention in an WP:ES-noted ref (meets WP:V but no relevant content in article and seemingly not apparently relevant to the person overall). Compare to Category:LGBT people, which limits its scope to those whose orientation is an integral aspect of the person. DMacks (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
support. I don't think anyone will be able to prevent the "sexual identities" culture war some people insist they want to fight in Wikipedia category space, but this is a textbook case of WP:NOTDEFINING. --dab(𒁳) 06:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete a category which if properly populated would contain 90–95% of all biographies in WP enough said. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The proper scope is going to be hard to decipher. The above, like much other rhetoric, ignores people who can be classed truthfully as asexual. Things get dicey in trying to interpret how to use this category. there are lots of people who can be proven to at some level belong in this category, who also at some level fit under LGBT (in theory, everyone in the B category fits). Its very existence goes against at least the spirit of the Ethnicity, Religion, Gender and sexuality guidelines of Wikipedia. I am not convinced that the LGBT category is always used as described above, and am also unconvinced it has always been applied with enough attention to quality scholarship as opposed to polemics with presentist bias, but This oppens up a whole mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC
Delete Would be extremely difficult to verify with sources and the task of potentially filling up the category would be herculean if not Sisyphean. And also rather pointless compared to a category on the far smaller population of people who aren't heterosexual.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It is a far too common characteristic to merit having a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's entirely pointless to categorize people on a trait that 90 per cent or more of all people share, plus we've deleted this more than once in the past for the same reasons and so it's technically speediable. And anyway, what a curiously random choice of people to actually categorize as such — not that I'm disputing their heterosexuality or anything, but who on earth thinks of just these two people first when pondering heterosexuality, and nobody else beyond that? Bearcat (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2017 (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: Delete and upmerge. Category:Polynesian mythology is already a natural home for aspects of Polynesian mythology than span individual Polynesian cultures. BDD (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
support. --dab(𒁳) 06:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We should discourage unnecessary fragmentation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2017 (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:delete. Consensus here is that there is an insufficient amount of articles directly in relation to the subject to justify its existence. ℯxplicit 01:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON, there are an insufficient number of directly related articles for an eponymous category. The only two directly related articles are Herbert Macaulay and Last Will and Testament of Herbert Macaulay and the latter lacks independent sources and claims to notability. The other articles are organizations the subject helped found or contributed to, which should be removed. TM 11:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I just added a new related article to the category. Irrespective of that, you might want to state reasons why other-related articles in the category are non-notable. As per including organizations founded by Herbert Macaulay; your rationale also applies to Category:Nnamdi Azikiwe, not highlighting numerous similar categories in Wikipedia containing related organizations founded by the owners of the categories named after them. Why single this one out? - Eruditescholar (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping something. No one is "singling this one out" any more than any else on Wikipedia is singled out. It's a discussion, not a witch hunt.--TM 16:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For Now I only count two articles that belong here: Herbert Macaulay and Last Will and Testament of Herbert Macaulay. The rest is a mix of a relative, a company he owned for awhile, and some political movements he was part of. Macaulay was certainly prominent so no objection to recreating if this category can get up to 5 or so articles defined by HM. There are no shortage of other problematic categories but this is the one before us today. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TM. Citing another example related to this discussion has got nothing to do with "witch hunting" I've reserved my comments regarding some of your flawed edits on other articles until now; Unknowingly, your phrase further exposes the real motive behind your nomination of this category for deletion, not necessarily to improve the article but to get back at me as a result of past conflicts on edit warring. All the articles related to this category were not created by me and there are likley more waiting to be created which will also qualify for inclusion in this same category. Eruditescholar (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I made some mistakes with some article edits, just put a note on my talk page about it and I'm happy to work with you to make them better.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eruditescholar, please read WP:AGF and refrain from making personal attacks against me or anyone else.--TM 17:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TM. My comments are not personal attacks against you. They are my observations about your editing and resulting impacts. Eruditescholar (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
