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. ℯxplicit 02:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I find myself remarkably unclear on exactly what distinction is supposed to exist between a "businesswoman" and a "woman in business". I'd also be willing to support a merge the other way, if that's what consensus would prefer -- but I can think of no discernible reason why they would both need to exist as distinct categories. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind either way so long as the content within that catergory remains. --Justforthefun17 (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge redundant categories, only need the one. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The creator (an editor who's since been blocked) weighed in on their talk page to (uncharacteristically) explain their reasoning, stating that since Category:Women in business has had some articles added to it that are organizations or companies or magazines or other non-human topics related to women in business, they created this to segregate the biographical articles about people from the inanimate topics. I don't consider this a compelling rationale — if a category's getting used for things outside its intended scope, the solution to that is to remove the inappropriate articles, not to create a new alternate subcategory for the originally intended topics on a term that's synonymous with the original name — but I felt it important to at least share the explanation. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support generally -- but a reverse merge might be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there may be a case for that, but Category:Women in business tree also has many subcategories for other countries which haven't had a "businesswomen" duplicate created to be included here. So renaming the other way would have to involve a batch renomination of the rest of the tree as well. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article creator: located on their talk page: here. They are blocked and can't post here so they asked for someone to link to their response. WikiVirusC(talk) 20:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the category creator's point that it is confusing to mix a topic category (of articles with "women" in the article title) with a set category (of biographies of female people) but on the other hand the two current category titles are such that nobody would naturally understand the difference between the categories. Perhaps Category:Women's appearance in business may clarify better. Also I strongly doubt whether there is room for any subcategories of the topic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Seperating out biographical from topical categories is a justifiable reason for this set up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the other way. I prefer Businesswomen to Women in business. Hmlarson (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all women in business into businesswomen per keep it simple ;-) gidonb (talk) 02:28, 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: Brand new category which duplicates an existing one for no discernible reason. The naming convention in the Category:Society by country tree is "Demonym society", not "Country-name society" -- and this hasn't been getting used as a replacement for the existing one, either, but is getting added alongside it. There's simply no reason why we need two different categories for the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:The Bahamas. The Bahamas is a small polity and I doubt we need to split "society" from the rest. If not, these should be merged (as nom). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Society by country is a tree where every country gets to have a subcategory, without exception. It would not be helpful or appropriate to treat the Bahamas differently than countries such as Andorra, Anguilla, Antigua, Aruba, Belize, the Faroe Islands, Guam, Liechtenstein, Monaco or San Marino, all of which are of equivalent or smaller size compared to the Bahamas but still have society subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and oppose Peterkingrion's suggested alternative merge. Bahamian society cat has 11 subcategories which would leave the main country category unstructured and messy. Tim! (talk) 18:01, 26 July 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:Eponymous category for a person who doesn't have the volume of spinoff content to warrant one -- all that's here is the eponym and a "Works by" subcategory. As always, every person who exists does not automatically get one of these -- they become appropriate only if and when there's a substantial volume of spinoff content that requires person-related categorization outside of the standard "works by creator" scheme. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The main article is already the main article for the "works by" subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 25 July 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:People from South Charleston, West Virginia[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 (nominated by mistake for merging into itself). BencherliteTalk 21:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has only one entry. Mayors of communities this size are usually not notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest someone with a lot of knowledge of the Charleston area and notables from those parts look through Category:South Charleston High School alumni to see who in it was from that city (as in born and/or raised there). I lived in the area from 1990–2003, but I can't say I have a super-accurate knowledge of which minor celebrities are from which Charleston-area city. I'd say that most (though not all) of the people listed in the SCHS category qualify. (For example, the sources I've seen indicate that Renee Montgomery is actually from St. Albans, and Carl Lee is from Dunbar.)
As I alluded to in my original remarks, South Charleston is a completely separate city from Charleston.
Since 1990, South Charleston High's attendance zone has included the former attendance zone of Dunbar High, which also takes in Institute (home of West Virginia State University).
Personally, I don't put people in a city-based category who were born in said city but, to my knowledge, never lived there—though some people might. For example, Kathy Mattea was born in a hospital in South Charleston, and attended Nitro High, but AFAIK her parents lived in Cross Lanes (an unincorporated community classified by the Census Bureau as a CDP) at the time, and she lived there until leaving to start her music career.
Conclusion: I'd hold off on the delete until the SCHS alumni category is reviewed for acceptable connections to South Charleston. — Dale Arnett (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's what happened. I'll ask an admin to close this and after that happens open one for mayors....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:01, 24 July 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 and merge as nominated. ℯxplicit 02:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is questionable whether a UN GA resolution is law, it then makes more sense to create a tree of Category:Years in the United Nations as a subcat of international relations. O I see, that tree already exists. An important reason that the law categories are highly populated is that the articles haven't been diffused well enough; at first glance when looking at Category:2000 in law I think that half of the articles can be moved to the American subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Double upmerge all years in international law as proposed by Marcocapelle. This is clear over-categorization. gidonb (talk) 02:38, 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. There is consensus that these categories are in violation of WP:PERFCAT. It was noted that Coke Studio acts like a record label as it releases its own music in digital format, but no evidence that these performers were actually signed to a Coke Studio Records, as it appeared they were merely distributors of the live content. ℯxplicit 02:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT, musicians and bands are not categorized by every individual television show they happen to have made an appearance on. A list would be fine if desired -- although each season of the show already has its own standalone article which already lists the artists who performed on it that year, so a comprehensive list may not actually be necessary -- but the category system is restricted to WP:DEFINING attributes and is not just a venue for making lists of everything it might be possible to make a list of. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those artists appearing on Coke Studio (a very notable show) makes the category defining. I do not see how this is any different to categories like Category:American Idol participants. Mar4d (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
American Idol is a competition show, which is itself the source of the categorized artists' notability. Coke Studio is just a performance show which has no bearing on the artists' notability or lack thereof — appearing on it wouldn't make an artist notable in and of itself, if they hadn't already achieved something that would pass NMUSIC independently of that appearance — so a category for the performers would be more akin to categories such as Category:Saturday Night Live musical guests or Category:Austin City Limits performers that we don't have because they violate our rules against performer by performance categories. That's the difference. Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but particularly for Category:Coke Studio (Pakistan) artists because the contents are musicians and singers, not artists. Presumably the performers on Coke Studio (Pakistan) already have some sort of notability, unlike competitors on shows such as American Idol (where it is the show that catapults them to fame). Sionk (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Musicians and singers are defined under artistes; word 'artist' has itself vast meanings. Per 'WP:PERFCAT#Performers by series or performance venue', I don't see anything there which disagrees on lead artistes or itself a musical show, it says to avoid "appearance, permanent or recurring roles, particular performance venue or production, event perfomers, musical guest". But here, Coke Studio is itself a huge musical platform, which not only gives opportunities to leading artistes, but also launches many new faces, in similar to 'American Idol' and differ from 'Actors by series'. Here, they are featured/starring artistes, not appearing artistes. Thanks! M.Billoo 02:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Category:Columbia Records artists. Atleast keep this category on similar to that one. But I don't think deleting this would be good just considering Coke Studio as a TV show. It is aired on TV in episodic form, but also the audio/video tracks are released online just as a record label. Well, I will be agreed on merge of musicians and artists, better if into one and only 'artistes'. M.Billoo 17:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining, I checked a number of articles and for most of them this is a minor aspect of their career. (If kept, merge the artists category into the musicians category.) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This studio affiliation is not defining to the people categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clicking through these people, they seem as if they were already famous and got booked here. That's classic WP:PERFCAT. (It they were unknowns who found fame for the first time here, *that* would be defining.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, aren't Colombia Record artists famous? Or they just got famed through the record label? Coke Studio too is a record label, not only a TV show. Check out its website and other social media platforms. The only difference might be that the CS do not sell songs, those are released and made available free. That's why also has a broadcast syndication. The WP:PERFCAT totally appears non-applicable here, or why don't you delete the Colombia Record artists' category if perfcat is applicable? There are a lot of cats here: Category:Artists by record label, why don't you delete them all? If you have to keep them all, then keep (and merge) this too. Thanks! M.Billoo 11:40, 29 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:no consensus. There is a general leaning to keep the category, but there was a serious lack of support for any alternative names. As such, there was simply no support to perform any action to this category. ℯxplicit 02:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current variant isn't pluralised as is the convention for set categories. There is already a Category:Muses used for the goddesses of the inspiration of literature, science and the arts, so this variant avoids a clash with that cat. Icarusgeek (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that this is a WP:DEFINING attribute at all — the point of categorization here seems to be "anybody who ever creatively inspired somebody else", regardless of whether that's actually their main point of notability or not. Most people filed here are notable first and foremost for their own creative endeavours and only secondarily as the inspiration for somebody else's, and the few who are notable exclusively as somebody else's muse are already adequately catted as Category:Artists' models. And since anybody can designate literally anybody else as their "muse", this is a category that could theoretically come to encompass every single person who ever existed at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category is absolutely necessary. There are notable individuals who have as their defining characteristic that they were a source of creative inspiration for others. Artists models does not adequately encompass the nature of muse-artist relationship. There are very clear incidences of individuals who were creative muses for others so I do not believe this category would sprawl. As with most categories it may require some occasional pruning to keep it focused but the range of names in the category already suggests this is a worthwhile category to keep and maintain. NB: It maybe that the category needs renamed in the plural form however to keep it consistent with other Wiki categories however. I suggest calling this category 'Muses' and the alternate category as 'Greek muses'. Open to other suggestions however.Stinglehammer (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it is specific enough as a category. The role of muse can be backed up by citable evidence. Notable artists ( not just those who use models) refer to their muses as muses and dedicate their work to them , often by name. That is then is recorded in books, writing and commentary about their life and works. If someone studying that artist wants to know more about the muse, they are notable enough for the role they played even if they did or did not produce art of their own, or be famous as a model or marry the artist etc. Melissa Highton (talk)
Comment Perhaps the cat description should be more specific to specify notability (with 'weight of evidence') as muse in order to prevent undesired (too broad) application of the cat. The first few articles listed in the cat do not even mention the word 'muse' within the article as a defining characteristic of the individual. That seems to me to be essential... Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't think the current category description is clear and does risk sprawl. For example the inclusion of Benefits Supervisor Sleeping is not 'a person or personified force who is the source of inspiration for a creative artist' as the current category description states. The fact that the actual subject of the picture Sue Tilley, redirects to the painting doesn't mean that the article warrants inclusion under 'Muses'. Indeed, it raises the question whether anybody with a portrait will be considered a 'muse' for the artist as the article does not show citable evidence that the artist referred to Tilley as a muse. Similarly with Ellen Ternan, there is only an (uncited) statement that "Dickens is thought by many scholars and commentators to have based several of his female characters on Ternan". On this example, any female associated with a famous creative artist will be considered a 'muse'. A suggested category description update: This category is for a person or personified force who is specifically cited by the creative artist as a 'muse' or a notable source of inspiration. This category is not intended to include general influences or subjects of artistic works. Susan.nls (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking out loud: a 'muse', much like a 'hero', is (as opposed to being an occupation) perhaps more analogous (right word?) to an 'object'; i.e., "a person ... to which a specified action or feeling is directed." It does not describe a person's inherent attribute (characteristic), or role or occupation (whereas 'artist model' does). Categorization as such can perhaps run the risk of the "objectification" of an individual—even if considered favorably as a source of inspiration. Is my thinking off base? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Artists' models. Which of them is significant enough for the artist to constitute a muse is a editorial POV issue. a few of the people may need to be purged into a category for those who inspired writers. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per comments above, and in deference to muses. A muse is a real thing, some people become muses for artists and creative people of all kinds. It's not something either the artist or the muse plan, probably somewhere near the brain-chemical relationship bonds which trigger love at first sight. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wikipedia already has a number of quite substantial articles on individuals who were the inspiration (unwitting or otherwise) for notable writers, artists, thinkers and scholars (see (Fanny Brawne, Beatrice Portinari, Vivienne Haigh-Wood Eliot et al.). Category:Muse or Category:Muses (modern) would both work equally well and help to improve these existing articles and add coherence. Category:Artists' models is not appropriate as a substitute as it would only cover inspirational figures who were actually painted - a very small sub-set of muses. Ammienoot (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the primary basis that there is no main article to define the subject (surely it should be plural anyway) and therefore the definition is extremely vague. But secondly it will be easily confused in its current form with the Category:Muse (band) category. Sionk (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a main article which includes modern muses, called Muse. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this category is not deleted, then rename it to Category:Muses (modern) and rename Category:Muses to Category:Muses (mythology). I have added a CfD template to the latter category so that all can be taken care of simultaneously. I am neutral about whether or not to delete or merge the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename without using the word "Muse": the metaphorical application of the word "Muse" (whether or not capitalized) to certain models or inspirations shouldn't be the basis of a category with that title, any more than we would place devious politicians in "Category:Snakes (political)" or people who debased themselves or groveled in "Category:Worms (people)". Generally metaphorical terms for people shouldn't make good category names; maybe there are a few exceptions, at least with qualification ("Divas" or perhaps "Divas (opera)" come to mind, but then we rarely use the term "diva" in its literal sense in English). We don't have a "Category:Goddesses (modern)" including Marilyn Monroe and Uma Thurman, do we? Even though the metaphor is common, it's just not a great name for the category. "Artists' inspirations" or something similar would be more appropriate. P Aculeius (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the word isn't used in modern English. I said it's used metaphorically and a bad choice for a category title. P Aculeius (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the points already made. Lirazelf (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A category for persons who have inspired artists seems specific enough and noteworthy. Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think to draw points together made previously that a workable way forward seems to be to rename to Muses (modern) - with additional guidance in the category description on there needing to be a weight of evidence that persons in that category were indeed notable for being a creative inspiration for an artist - and have the other category renamed as Muses (mythology) to clearly disambiguate it. What say you? Stinglehammer (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - though I realise I'm equally guilty in turning this into a delete/keep discussion, I'd strongly urge the name to be changed to a plural if the category is kept. Are the 'keep' voters supporting the name change, or the status quo? Sionk (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, this was not proposed as a keep/delete discussion, so that option shouldn't even be considered. I'd say 'Muses' seems fine if a rename of 'Muses' to 'Muses (mythology)' occurs, and change that one to a sub-category. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete To be workable as a cateogry, we need to be able to definatively give a yes or not answer to weather someone belongs. This is too ill-defined and amorphouse to ever give such a clear answer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a keep-delete discussion, although some of us, including myself, confused it as such. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any discussion can be turned into one advocating to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move to Category:Muses (modern). The usage of the word "muse" to denote this kind of person is modern, but there are pre-modern people who are now considered to be muses; Fiammetta (14th century) is the earliest example in Category:Muse. Moving to Category:Muses (modern) either changes the scope of the category or creates confusion as to why some definitely not modern figures are in it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question is there an article that the category can follow? gidonb (talk) 02:43, 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. – FayenaticLondon 18:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have no specific alternative proposal, but I think the title of this category should be reconsidered as the current title (to me) fails both WP:DEFINING and WP:NPOV. The criteria for inclusion in such a category seem to me to hinge too much on a double negative. I would personally prefer a positive statement (such as "People who support Muslim-affirming policy", although this is probably less than ideal), or if we must a clearer negative statement like "Opponents of policies discriminating against Muslims" (or even "Opponents of Islamophobia" seems like it would be marginally better). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the below. Clearly fails OPINIONCAT and so I too favor delete on this basis. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems to be WP:OVERCAT and WP:OPINIONCAT to me. Every second politician and leader in the world has "criticised" Islamophobia at some point. I'm guessing that just about every Muslim journalist/writer has also been critical of it. Moreover, many of the articles in the category don't really support this classification and other members like Recep Tayyip Erdogan are rather redundant. It might be best to represent notable critics and criticism in the Islamophobia article itself.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most inclusions are not sourced or are redundant. Writers and scholars in the category can be merged to the category Category:Scholars of Islamophobia. There is no consistency for inclusion in the category at all: I added the category to Vinay Lal [1] and the category was removed again, yet the same editors have insisted that the category belongs to articles where the inclusion is wholly unsourced. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That someone has criticised the views of others on a particular issue is generally not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining and subjective. gidonb (talk) 02:46, 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. – FayenaticLondon 18:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge perhaps selectively to Category:Middle Stone Age. Late Pleistocene may be contemporary, but it is a geological concept, whereas this is concerned with the human past. There appears to be a terminological problem in that Palaeolithic means old stone (age) and Mesolithic means middle. This system works well in Britain (where it was invented), because there was little recognisable human occupation before the end of the last Ice Age and Palaeolithic is divided into upper (perhaps ice age) and lower (pre-ice age); I may not be quite right on my definitions. In Africa, human history goes back much further, beyond the European Lower Palaeolithic, so that evidently different terminology is needed. The target is a category for a long era, much more than the 1000 years implied by the subject category. It could be we need a category series for 10,000 year periods, though it is probably best to stick with classifications used by archaeologists. In any event the target need a detailed headnote, explaining what period it covers, and the subject may need purging of articles that do not fit the target. Category:Late Pleistocene should probably be a parent of the target. I regret I am not an expert; for all I know the target may be mis-named. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to merge a well-defined category into a less defined one? I'm not sure that makes much sense. There was some miscategorization of Paleolithic into this millennium, but I've cleaned that up now. -- Kendrick7talk 02:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've had a quick look through and all the articles are already adequately sorted into chronological categories, so I don't think there's a need to merge. @Peterkingiron: You're correct that the African Middle Stone Age is distinct from the European Mesolithic. It's more analogous to the Middle Palaeolithic (between the Upper and Lower). If you want even more terminological fun you can throw Epipalaeolithic into the mix too. I've seriously seen the phrase "Early Middle Epipalaeolithic" (so Early Middle Final Old Stone Age) in print before. – Joe (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to indicate, I am not an expert. What is clear to me is that the present category must be removed. The question is where its contents should be merged. It may be that there needs to be more than one target. Category:Middle Palaeolithic (renaming Category:Middle Stone Age might be a viable target. If you can propose a viable solution, I will not stand in its way. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Sorry, was just rambling, not really disagreeing. I think Category:Middle Palaeolithic (or just Category:Paleolithic if we don't want to bother making a new subcat) and Category:Middle Stone Age would cover most, although as I said I think the majority of them are already in those categories or other appropriate target categories. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is simply one of many subcategories in Category:Millennia, and I don't see a clear rationale for treating this one differently from all the rest. It's a tad silly to say this specific millennium isn't "defined" just because there isn't a main article; for the sake of WP:NOTDEF, I could certainly create the same redirect as exists for 11th millennium BC which purports to be the main article for Category:11th millennium BC, or even a whole article as exists for Category:10th millennium BC if that's the real issue. I don't much like such reduplicative efforts, but it is the way a lot of categories/articles in WP:WikiProject Years are handled. -- Kendrick7talk 02:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The millennium is defined, but the articles in the category are not specifically about this millennium. They cover a far broader period and hence should be categorized in a category covering that far broader period. E.g. Blombos Cave is in Category:Middle Stone Age and that's the category where it should be. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, as you've reverted the Archaeology and Geology project tags on the talk page (in order to have this category discussion listed on these project pages) I've just added a direct notification on the talk pages of these projects. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I've gone ahead and added the same notice to the WP:Years talk page. -- 08:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
But we do not have any millennia categories, except this, older than 11th millennium BC (about the end of the last ice age). It is thus not one of a regular series. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that there's a rather large gap in categorization here. Stopping at just 21 millenia categories seems somewhat arbitrary though. (I'm not sure why we categorize 7 millennia which haven't even happened yet, but that's another discussion.) I didn't have all that hard of a time filling in this category; I don't know if creating others would be any more or less difficult. -- Kendrick7talk 08:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMHO the BC categories should be restricted to the Holocene:
in the literature it is used that way, nobody writes about BC, when we're talking about 72,000 year old artifacts, rock paintings or volcanic eruptions
common use in the articles I write is to use BC only for the ceramic period (South America) and everything before that is described as BP
especially so far back in time, the time range due to uncertainties in dating methods gets stretched. So an artifact or event dated at 72,500 +/- 600 years would go into 3 categories then? 70th millennium BC and the ones pre- and postdating? Strange and ugly
at these times we're in the paleolithic ages restricted to Africa, Europe and Asia (not Oceania and not the Americas), so would be best placed under "cat:stone age" for human evidences and "cat:late Pleistocene" for volcanic eruptions or tsunamis or so.
Creating or maintaining these pre-Holocene BC cats would be "original research" or at least "invented/original classification" for which there is no basis in the literature. Tisquesusa (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could go a little bit further back than the Holocene, to say 50,000 BP (the limit of reliable radiocarbon dating), but I agree at a certain point it becomes nonsensical because it's impossible to date something to a specific millennium. – Joe (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (voted above) -- The problem with keeping this in a millennium series is that it is not just about the 70th millennium BC, but (probably) about a 10,000 year period. Whether we use BC or BP hardly matters: the dating evidence is too imprecise. It might be possible to have a category series for decamillenia (to coin a word), periods of 10,000 years, in which case this would be renamed and repurposed as 70th to 79th millennia BC (or BP). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a good solution either. Coming back to the example of Blombos Cave, it's referring to a period of no less than 30 millennia. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like a collection of disparate articles with little or nothing in common other than a weak and incidental association with a time period not notably different from similar periods before or after. I do not see any useful purpose in associating these topics in this way. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason why an ethnic group that exists to the present should be here. The second article is on a cave where the works are dated somewhere between 98,000 and 68,000 BC, although the article expresses such as before present, which makes me wonder if the categorized was confused on the different before categories. Do we really want to put an article in 30 millenium categories just because our knowledge of when the artwork there was created is not very precise?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 14 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.
