Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 9 March 11 >

March 10[edit]

Category:Ukrainian Cossack officers[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT and as anachronistic labelling. This about 17th- and 18th-century people in the Cossack Hetmanate. All five subcategories are already contained in the tree of Category:Cossack Hetmanate people‎ so we do not need a duplicate category with a 21st-century name. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Category for Cossack Hetmanate people‎ is created for any people who lived or were born in the Cossack Hetmanate. Category for Ukrainian Cossack officers is created for state officials and military officers of the country. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category for Ukrainian Cossack officers is created for state officials and military officers of the country as well as other countries such as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth where such officials and military leaders existed yet the state of Cossack Hetmanate did not exist and Ukrainian Cossacks were based at the Zaporizhian Sich (the Zaporizhia). For example, the senior of Registered Cossacks Petro Konashevych-Sahaidachny was elected also as the Hetman of Zaporizhian Host at Sich. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the nominated category is even an exact duplicate of Category:Officials of the Cossack Hetmanate‎.
Side issue: officials is a better term than officers, because the both categories also contain judges. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Regarding the case of Petro Konashevych-Sahaidachny - he may not fit Category:Cossack Hetmanate people‎ by period, but he is also anachronistic to be named Ukranian.GreyShark (dibra) 13:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you want their past region, the Cossack Hetmanate suffices. If you want current people...well, thanks to Stalin, they basically don't exist. And having past people by current region isn't particularly helpful, especially as today's borders don't necessarily have any relationship to the locations of the Cossacks during the time period in question, especially since they were a good deal less settled (and thus prone to cross today's borders) than the peasants farther north. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes I agree the category should be renamed to Zaporozhian Cossacks the term Ukrainian is an anachronistic nationality during the 17th-century as the native population were referred to as Ruthenians. Shotgun pete (talk) 1:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • See also:
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_11#Category:Ukrainian_Cossack_nobility
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_18#Category:Ukrainian_military_personnel_of_the_Khmelnytsky_Uprising
- Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2018 (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:Cossack raids on Ottoman Empire[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/2018 April 18#Category:Cossack raids on Ottoman Empire. ℯxplicit 02:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, it contained only two articles and I added a third one myself, but chances of further expansion are limited. No need to upmerge, the articles are already in a year category of the Ottoman Empire and in parent Category:17th century in the Zaporozhian Host. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, only 3 articles and limited chances of further expansion ... but these 3 make a neat set, and I think that navigation is helped by having a category for them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:45, 12 April 2018 (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:Cannabis addiction recovery organizations[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. We dont have categories for addiction to any other substances. Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2018 (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:Black Power[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It makes no sense to have a category for a slogan. In point of fact, the contents of this category are clearly about the movement -- and there is already a main-article at Black Power movement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the contents are by no means 'clearly about the movement' as there is for instance a whole subcat Category:Womanism. 'Black Power' is more general, and it is not merely a slogan. Oculi (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. Your take on this really turns things inside out, Oculi. First of all, the phrase "Black Power" really is/was, first and foremost, a slogan. As such (like any good slogan), it sums up and conveys in a couple of words a certain outlook -- an outlook that caught on and took shape as a movement known as the Black Power movement. The phrase "Black Power" was, precisely, the slogan of that movement.
The Black Power article -- which starts out talking about the origin of the slogan -- is, in fact, mostly devoted to a discussion of the "Black Power movement" (the term is used repeatedly throughout the article). Which is hardly surprising, because there is only so much that can be said about the phrase "Black Power" and its uses.
If the phrase was "Black PowerISM", I suppose I might agree with you that it could serve as the heading for the category, because that would denote something much larger than a slogan or an idea. The head category for any subject should always have a name that reflects and encompasses the full breadth of its contents.
In point of fact, ALL of the contents of this category are about things that are connected with the Black Power movement, whereas only a few (at most) are about the idea of Black Power. (And note that another editor found it necessary to add a headnote saying, "Pages related to the Black Power movement are also here." Well, duh!)
Lastly, since you brought up the subcat, Category:Womanism, I took a look at the main article, and discovered that it doesn't even mention the phrase "Black Power" anywhere in the article -- which suggests that its inclusion in this category is questionable, in any event.
Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2018 (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:DiMaggio family[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) 07:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2018 (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:Logical fallacies[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains all fallacies, not only the logical ones. One of its subcategories are Category:Formal fallacies, a synonym for logical fallacies. Previous discussions: Category talk:Logical fallacies#Category:Logical fallacies, Category talk:Logical fallacies#What about a fallacy category? Petr Matas 10:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create new parent category at Category:Fallacies, and weed the non logical ones from the current category. Merge LF and FF categories at Category:Formal fallacies. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I'm understanding you correctly, you want the Fallacies category to list the Formal and Informal subcategories (as well as Inductive), and all the fallacies will be listed in the proper subcategories. If so, I agree with Create new parent and merge.TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • yup - that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (for clarification) @Grutness and TheGreatConsultingDetective: how is the category tree of the alternative proposal going to be different from the original rename proposal? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. I hadn't noticed that Category:Informal fallacies and Category:Inductive fallacies were subcats of Category:Logical fallacies. Basically then the alternative proposal would make the new Category:Fallacies more of a parent-only category, by going through the artivles currently loose in Category:Logical fallacies and placing them in the appropriate subcategory. I realise that not all of them will neatly fit into one of those categories, but most of them should. Grutness...wha? 08:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Grutness: So if you go ahead moving articles to a more specific subcategory, then afterwards this discussion can simply be closed as rename per nomination, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd prefer if someone with more knowledge on the difference between formal and informal fallacies did the moving, but I can try. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done what I can of it (about half) - the rest will need someone with more knowledge of philosophy and logic. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's cleared into the subcats. I just hope I got all the articles right... this can be closed now, if someone would like to do that... Grutness...wha? 03:31, 24 March 2018 (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/2018_March_10&oldid=871691199"