Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 13 June 15 >

June 14[edit]

Category:Willa Ford albums[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The result of the discussion was: Nomination withdrawn. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category seems completely unnecessary as Ford has only released one album, and there does not appear to be any strong indications that she will release more in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the blurb at Category:Albums by artist - "Albums by the artists that recorded them. Please note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is correct, then I will withdraw the nomination. It just seems rather silly to have a category for a single article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, this can be withdrawn. I am not sure how it is done so I would greatly appreciate it if someone can do that for me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 14 June 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:Political correctness-related controversies[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: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear criteria for inclusion. Has accrued some both obviously unrelated, or tenuously associated, events (from acts of terrorism, to music videos, names of sporting teams etc which all have more appropriate categories). Most included just seem to be times when something controversial has happened involving race, sex or religion, and just then been bucketed in. Others are claimed by someone involved to be about Political Correctness, but the actual controversy is about something unrelated (such as violence, suppression of freedoms etc relating to wider political issues). It seems some are just examples of something considered "Politically incorrect". Briefly discussed here [1] prior to nomination. Koncorde (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Purge to just those articles that are specifically about a controversy/ies and are specifically (and clearly) about political correctness (if there are any) and add text to that effect. DexDor (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Inclusion will always be subjective and, even in the best cases, tends to rely on prioritizing some opinion-pieces over others. Since the term itself is generally pejorative (at least when applied in the sense it's being used in this category), and almost always sourced to people criticizing aspects of the controversy in question, this classification will always be controversial, making it a bad fit for a category per WP:CATV. --Aquillion (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree completely with Koncorde's analysis that this is a muddle of subjectively linked articles, which as Aquillion says are likely to remain so for lack of a permanent objective inclusion criteria. Pincrete (talk) 08:42, 19 June 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:Grotius scholars[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: delete. ℯxplicit 02:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete or (option B) merge to Category:Hugo Grotius, these are scholars of international relations, already categorized as such. The definingness of Hugo Grotius for them is quite questionable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 14 June 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:Historians of the Low Countries[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. ℯxplicit 02:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete with no objection to recreate once there are a sufficient number of articles about historians of the Low Countries as such. Currently all historians are either historians of Belgium or historians of the Netherlands, making this a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think. What you mean is "Currently all historians are either CATEGORIZED AS historians of Belgium or historians of the Netherlands", but this is rather silly in many cases, such as Johan Huizinga, categorized as a historian of the Netherlands, but whose writings were rather more concerned with Flanders. His most famous book The Autumn of the Middle Ages, has little on the north. Pirenne is another medievalist, but something of a special case. All three categories are under-filled, and if populated, having all three would make sense. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod; the centuries of boundary changes in the region (in particular, the non-existence of any specifically Belgian polity before the nineteenth century) makes it rather unhelpful to apply 21st-century boundaries to these historians' specialty subjects. Caesar's Gallic Wars covers northern regions not previously conquered by Rome (which reached the Rhine); if we wanted to put Caesar in this group of categories, it would be much better to put him into this category than into the categories for both 21st-century countries. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the insertion "categorized as" by User:Johnbod. However Johan Huizinga wrote about the Middle Ages (but not specifically of the Low Countries) and he wrote about 17th-century history of the Netherlands so he is rightfully in the Dutch category, while Henri Pirenne is most particularly known for advocating Belgian history as a topic on its own so he is rightfully in the Belgian category. Unless any better examples are provided the nomination still makes sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Huizinga's work later came under criticism, especially for relying too heavily on evidence from the rather exceptional case of the Burgundian court...." Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 23 June 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:Science writers of medieval Islam[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 27#Category:Science writers of medieval Islam. ℯxplicit 02:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only the scientists who wrote became notable. so we don't need two categories. – Fayenatic London 07:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Scientific scholars of medieval Islam". As far as I see, the two articles in it are both about people who mostly wrote things; one of whom was in charge of a library. Compare them to someone like Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, and they would fit the definition of scholars much more than scientists in and of themselves. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Medieval Muslim writers, in agreement with Fayenatic london about merging as such, in agreement with Iazyges that scientists may not be the best category to merge to. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Reverse merge -- Science of this period was actually natural philosophy, which (I think) consisted of observation and reporting of it. Possibly merge both to Category:Scientists Medieval Islamic scientists. I would point out that their religion is significant here, though it might not be in a later era. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about a reverse merge, presumably the category tree of science writers is meant for writers who do not practice science at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 21 June 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:Companies formerly listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 27#Category:Companies formerly listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. ℯxplicit 02:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: this is a very unusual category because it does not contain companies that were delisted, but instead the Amsterdam Stock Exchange itself has become a former institute as it merged into Euronext. I don't think that companies should be categorized by this. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that really a defining characteristic of these companies? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:58, 14 June 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:Medieval Ceramics[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 to Category:Ceramics of medieval Europe. ℯxplicit 02:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Improper capitalization. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Ceramics of medieval Europe (excluding the very marginal St Symeon (Antioch) article). Many classic types of Islamic and Chinese ceramics in particular are from the "medieval" period, but are not here, nor would a category including them be appropriate or useful. All but one of these cover medieval Europe, which is a good grouping. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:22, 14 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_14&oldid=1074283105"