Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 14

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

September 14[edit]

Category:Tajik Arabists[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: speedy rename. WP:C2D per convention of Category:Tajikistani people ... without prejudice to any cleanup of WP:SMALLCATs as suggested by @Dahn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We use the adjective "Tajikistani", not "Tajik", in categories for people from Tajikistan. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Just how many members do we expect this category to have, though? Dahn (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not many. If you think it's deletable as a SMALLCAT, then by all means go right ahead and vote that way — the real issue here is that the creator went on a bender of trying to create a comprehensive "broken down by nationality" tree, creating separate SMALLCATs for every nationality that had even one Arabist to categorize at all, and then doing the same for Orientalists (and, in the process, leaving a vast trail of completely empty categories in their wake as well, though I've already speedied all of the ones that I've found.) If somebody wanted to take on batching them all for a comprehensive deletion discussion, I'd support it — but it would involve more work than I feel motivated to take on for a topic of so little interest to me. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 15 September 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:Tajik orientalists[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: speedy rename. WP:C2D per convention of Category:Tajikistani people by occupation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We use the adjective "Tajikistani", not "Tajik", in categories for people from Tajikistan. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 14 September 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:Georgian philologists[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: speedy rename. WP:C2D per convention of Category:People from Georgia (country) ... and WP:TROUT @Sugrammr for a series of similar out-of-process breaches of the naming conventions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia has a standing consensus that due to the non-trivial possibility of erroneous confusion with the American state of Georgia, for categories relating to the Caucasian country we use the form "X from Georgia (country)" rather than "Georgian X". Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 14 September 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:Romanian and Moldavian chroniclers[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 for now; a split could be proposed in a follow-up nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wallachia and Moldavia were the two traditional countries that merged to form Romania; by and large, inhabitants of both countries were to at least some degree ethnic Romanians, and this goes for the chroniclers included there. While Wallachia did use "Romania" as an alternative name for itself (a tidbit that its presently quite obscure), this category clearly was intended to group writers most often referred to by their citizenship/nationality, defined in non-ethnic terms; we consistently refers to people of those respective citizenships as Wallachians and Moldavians. The category as a whole belongs in a "Romanian historians" tree, indeed, but the name used here is confusing. (Please don't repeat here the mistaken assumption that Moldova and Moldavia are the same. Moldova is the successor state of Bessarabia, which was a province of Moldavia annexed by Russia in 1812. Moldavia continued to exist as a state and was merged into Romania in ca. 1860. All Moldovans are Moldavians, but not all Moldavians are Moldovans). Dahn (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 1 article (Mihail Moxa) is about a Wallachian chronicler, the others are Moldavian. Alternative rename to Category:Moldavian chroniclers and move Mihail Moxa to Category:Chroniclers and Category:Romanian historians. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nom for the moment. In the longer term, when better populated split into the two preceding polities. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split. There's no indication that the chroniclers saw themselves as part of a common tradition. Reference of Moldavians to Wallachians and viceversa were mostly incidental, with Moldavians actually refering more often to their Hungarian and Polish counterparts.Anonimu (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Split may also work as an option, I guess. But the claim that there is no proof of them having a common tradition is somewhat exaggerated, and not only because the entirety of sources in secondary literature treat them as belonging to a single category. While most early chroniclers did not leave us any clue on the topic, consider that the tradition of writing chronicles continued well in to the 1830s, with most preserve3d writings dating to after 1700. These authors often had a quite clear notion of a single tradition, as for instance with Moldavia's Alecu Beldiman, whose chronicle depicted events in Wallachia, whose language was very much based on the Wallachian standard, and who wrote his chronicle in a house that he bought from a Wallachian boyar active in Moldavia. Dahn (talk) 03:46, 25 September 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:BBC historic farms series[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 category, but convert text at head of category to article BBC historical farm series as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's a lot of "article" already in this category and I think we would benefit from having an umbrella article for this series. Struggling to come up with a name for the article though. The category needs a rename too, to match, and "historic" isn't really appropriate. --woodensuperman 15:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read what this discussion is about? I think you're just stalking my edits and opposing them without bothering to even read them. This is about creating an umbrella article and moving to a more suitable title? Not deletion. --woodensuperman 15:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's about deleting the categorization for this set of articles.
We can (and regularly do) add text to a category page. But we can't categorize into an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read the above again. I'm proposing we convert the text here into an umbrella article and rename the category to something more appropriate to match the new article. --woodensuperman 16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all you're after is to change "historic" to "historical" then that's fine (and perhaps more accurate).
But you're also either advocating converting a category to an article (which implies removing the categorization) or else creating a new and pointless article, in addition, out of almost nothing. Neither of those are justified. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of deleting the category. But I came to this category when clinking on what I thought was an article link, which fails WP:EGG and the table here is overkill for a category and is more appropriate for an article. To my mind, an umbrella article would be preferable (even as a stub), but rather than take the bold move, and as the current title is inappropriate and would also need a rename, I thought it best to open a dialogue to see what the community consensus is. Apologies if you were confused by this. --woodensuperman 17:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is very definitely an attempt to use the category page as a misplaced article substitute, which is not what category pages are for. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (re)move text from category page (e.g. to a draft article page). However, apart from this text, I think the category as such is valid and does not require deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It's hardly acres of prose. We have clearly established precedent for descriptive, defining and clarifying paras on categories. The table is in the nature of an index. This is far more readable as part of a category page than any separate article would be. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is so much text that initially you don't even notice the articles that are in the category, while these articles of the category are its main purpose. One line to explain the scope of a category should be enough, any further elaboration belongs in an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards oppose: As the creator of this category, I considered possibly creating an article instead. The downside of that option was that I wasn't an authority on the entirety of these shows, and I thought more might exist or even be produced. Linking an existing page or a new page to the category for easy connection to its peers, rather than edit the "collective" article. Some other related shows just do a K(n) graph of "See Also" links amongst the show pages. I dislike that alternative, and a category seems nicer.
    Riventree (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn category text into a (draft) article and remove most from category page, but keep category. Incidentally, the category should be removed from set-in-UK as Secrets of the Castle wasn't. DexDor (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn category text into an article and remove most from category page, but keep category, per User:DexDor. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep category, but move text to a list article. Having a list in a category is inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 23 September 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.

Entities with Celtic names[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: several related categories have been added to this nomination – see below, after the Relist banner.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by WP:SHAREDNAME. We categorize newspapers on characteristics like their publication location or the nature of their content, not on how they happen to be named. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Against Perfectly legitimate category. Similar articles in parent category. Will these be deleted as well ? No rationale at all. Djln Djln (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the whole tree is going to be nominated, I will support. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with above. The entire tree needs discussion. Lorstaking (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category (and delete the rest of Category:Entities with Celtic names e.g. in a subsequent CFD) per nom. It is often useful to do a small CFD and see how that goes before going to the effort of tagging a wider group of categories and constructing a large CFD nom (and some people may still argue that the chosen group is too large/small). DexDor (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suggest as a useful way forward that if this nomination seems to be gaining support, then it should be re-listed with the rest of the Category:Entities with Celtic names hierarchy added. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like a proper explanation of why these categories are been targeted for deletion. They have existed for a while now and they are perfectly appropriate in my opinion. I think a wider consensus, especially from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland needs be sought before any drastic decision is made. Irish language names and titles are widely used in Irish English to the point were the English language version is not used at all. A simple vote by editors who know little or nothing about the issue would be totally inappropriate. Djln Djln (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have anything to do with the Irish language in particular, it would equally apply to any other language. We categorise things by what they are, not how they are named. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorizing by name leads to various complications/anomalies (e.g. many organisations have several names such as Irish Wikipedia / Vicipéid na Gaeilge, have names blended from several languages such as Saoirse Irish Freedom, have changed name etc) and is simply unnecessary as the articles are also categorized in a way that's consistent with the rest of wp categorization - Category:Irish-language newspapers, Category:Political newspapers published in Ireland etc. DexDor (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the greatest of respect, the above explanations are about as clear as mud, little more than jibberish and waffle. No proper reason for deleting this categories has been provided. Djln Djln (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that, for example, "Avoid categorising ... by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself" and "We categorise things by what they are, not how they are named" are not clear? DexDor (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have categories for media by language; but media by the language of the title is nothing but WP:SHAREDNAME. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Carlossuarez46. The language of the name is not defining. We don't have a category of Food with French names, even though there is a lot of it. Rathfelder (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding the rest of the hierarchy to the nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 10:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at a sample of the articles in these categories and not found any that should be in a w&p category. DexDor (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose -- I am slightly troubled by this nom. Scottish Gaelic names will normally only occur in Scotland and Irish language names only in Ireland. It may well be useful to WP users to identify the language of a name as indicating its origin, particularly as those languages are rarely taught away from areas where they are indigenous. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw Páirc na hÉireann is in England. The place to identify the language of the name of an organisation is in the article text (e.g. see Luas). DexDor (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, as far as I can see none of the articles is particularly about Irish or Scottish words and phrases so this is just a matter of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all With Fayenatic's advice, the need for them falls away. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:28, 15 September 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:People associated with flags[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; merge contents as nominated. The contents are such that they clearly should go in Category:Flags. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:OCASSOC and WP:SMALLCAT. Besides the articles in the category are not even about individual people. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 14 September 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:Ottoman Palestine[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, in fact per WP:C2C, on the one hand adding "period in" to have same format as the sibling categories in Category:History of the Ottoman Empire in Asia, on the other hand adding "(region)" because it is in the tree of Category:History of Palestine (region). I have not listed it in CFDS because nominations regarding Middle Eastern topics are less likely to be thought uncontroversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I do not have a substantive problem with the alternative, but all siblings in the Ottoman tree have a different format. If desired, it would be more sensible to nominate all these Ottoman categories simultaneously. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - the Category:History of the Ottoman Empire in Asia is a mix of contemporary entities, modern anachronistic state categories and regions. Is there a community consensus of what should it be considering the recent rename of category:Ottoman Syria? Until we decide the scope of this container category, i see no point in specific renames.GreyShark (dibra) 10:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Ottoman Syria was an exception, as a contemporary historical region. In contrast, most other categories are about the Ottoman history of modern entities and have the form "Ottoman period in". Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman Galilee was one of the official Ottoman names for the Safed Sanjak and consequent Acre Sanjak - i don't mind to split category:Ottoman Galilee into category:Safed Sanjak and category:Acre Sanjak accordingly, but that is probably not too benefitial. Regarding Ottoman Palestine, in Ottoman era, the region was referred as several sanjaks commonly named Southern Syria, unified in late 19th century under Mutassarifate of Jerusalem. Since we already have Southern Syria article, the category should be named accordingly, with a note that in Europe southern Syria was often named Ottoman Palestine, though this was not a local naming.GreyShark (dibra) 09:10, 21 September 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_September_14&oldid=1073191848"