Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 5 September 7 >

September 6[edit]

Category:Newspapers and magazines with Irish 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_14#Entities_with_Celtic_names with the rest of the hierarchy added. – Fayenatic London 10:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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:Medical schools in India[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. Timrollpickering 12:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Medical college"/"Dental college" is the local term, as seen in most of the contents. WP:C2C per sub-cats could be claimed, and WP:C2D, but a full discussion is desirable to sustain an exception within Category:Medical schools by country. These cases are similar to the recent discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_28#Category:Medical_schools_in_Pakistan. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 6 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:Films about Roman Catholicism[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) 14:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: Parent category Category:Catholic media. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 05:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to expend any branches within the "Category:Catholicism" top category tree. Any "Category:Roman Catholicism foo" is though pertaining tothe Category:Catholic Church top category, and should be located under that category tree. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which usual Wikipedia-relevant rules of logic, please? Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholic redirect to Catholic Church. Category:Roman Catholicism redirects to Category:Catholic Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The rules of logic predate wikipedia by millennia. Oculi (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For intelligability reasons, would you mind referring to a Wikipedia article, category or policy to illustrate what you mean by logic? I'm asking since few people deliberately endorses illogic, but by consequence that means that personal interpretation of logic may vary. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Logic would be a logical place to start. Oculi (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These terms may be Wikipedia redirect (and rightfully so), it does not mean that they are synonymous. Look in your usual dictionary and see if the "Catholicism" entry redirects to the "Catholic Church" entry. Place Clichy (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they are indeed redirects on Wikipedia - both in the article space as well as category realm - would be it be too arrogant per WP:BURDEN to ask for more than a hip reference to logic? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the above objections that content is not about the Catholic Church as an organisation. Also, I see that all content is about Roman Catholic topics, rather than Eastern Catholic topics, so keeping "Roman" makes sense, although I would not be against a renaming proposal to Documentary films about Catholicism. Place Clichy (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I definately doubt there is relevance enough for a separated category branch tree for Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Churches subjects here. Catholic comprises them both and should suffice. That said, as a secondary best, I would support alt "Catholicism" per suggestion of Marcocapelle above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of original discussion on Speedy page
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The first category was only tagged with an indirect link to this discussion via the Speedy page until today. It seemed best to relist this discussion again after adding {{cfr}}. For the record, I am also pasting (above) a copy of the discussion from the Speedy page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 10:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt rename to Category:Documentary films about Catholicism Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suffers the ordinary problems of all "films about X" categories: (a) how much about X must a film be to be categorized, and (b) what reliable sources tell us that the film is at least that much? In addition, as the discussion above evidences what there is extreme disagreement about what the "X" is here. About the faith? the organization? the physical buildings? the people who work there, e.g., priests? I can think of many films that feature something to do with [Roman] Catholicism but merely having something having to do with X is certainly not about X. Consider are Nunsploitation films about the church?; what about The Sound of Music (film), there's a nun, a mother superiod, a church wedding?; what about Keeping the Faith, a comedy with a priest and a rabbi? Now that you know what you think about each of these film's conclusions: check the category to see if they are or are not there, or in a subcategory, to make sure that you're opinion is objectively verified.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename as making it needlessly specific. "Roman Catholicism" is broader than just the Catholic Church. StAnselm (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Roman Catholicism, redirecting to Catholic Church, doesn't seem to support your assertion. Do you have any other arguments than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:06, 16 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:Classical Israel[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) 14:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are strongly overlapping categories. Note that I wouldn't have a problem with renaming the targets to Category:Classical Palestine (region) and Category:Medieval Palestine (region) but that would still require a different nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - may i ask why is the geographic preference of Palestine (region) over Land of Israel or Southern Levant for the matter? Anyway, the category "Classic <modern country>" and "Medieval <modern country>" refers to past developments in territories of modern states as well as contemporary entities (as opposed to "Year in <contemporary country>" which cannot be anachronistic). You would need a much wider discussion over whether it refers to modern or contemporary entities or both at this category page Category:Middle Ages by country or at the European template Template:Middle Ages by region.GreyShark (dibra) 06:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects to where i may ask? You just said that most categories are contemporary, so it automatically excludes Palestine, which was absent as a country back then.GreyShark (dibra) 19:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what is the point to direct to Palestine, if there was no Palestine back then? We do have Medieval categories for many modern Mideast countries (category:Medieval Syria,category:Medieval Iraq,category:Medieval Jordan, category:Medieval Lebanon). When you want to be consistent - be consistent and use contemporary Medieval empires and kingdoms for all those categories. Otherwise, for this matter, category:Medieval Israel and category:Medieval Palestine go in parallel as they are in modern geography, as much as Lebanon, Jordan and Syria have separate categories.GreyShark (dibra) 05:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main point is merging pairs of categories with a largely overlapping scope. Palestine did exist as a historical region (and in the early Middle Ages even as the name of Byzantine provinces). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember there have been discussions about in what periods the dominant name of the historical region was Palestine or Holy Land. I am very willing to believe it was Holy Land in the Crusaders era, but Palestine was picked up again before the British arrived. I've never seen Israel being used for the whole region except with regard to Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) ending 930 BC. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in Crusader times it was called Outremer, including the Kingdom of Jerusalem and other Crusader countries of Transjordan, Tripoli, etc. Specifically, it was mostly the Kingdom of Jerusalem at the time and it has a category for that category:kingdom of Jerusalem.GreyShark (dibra) 21:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer Category:Syria Palaestina for the classical item. This should be defined in a headnote as covering the period from 64 BC (Pompey's conquest) to AD 390 and can thus parent articles on Judaea, Arabia (as a Roman province), etc. It will be followed by a Byzantine category, which should end with a Category:Medieval Palestine or perhaps better Category:Medieval Syria, starting with the Muslim conquest in 634. The use of Israel is an anachronism. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion was perhaps too bold. Herod (or most of the Herods) were client kings under the Romans, not fully independent. Perhaps we also need Category:Roman Judea. With fairly frequent changes in political arrangements, we are liable to get a host of small categories, which do not help navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I am aware of, the word "classical" normally refers only to the classical Greek and Roman civilizations. That implies the scope of Category:Classical Israel and Category:Classical Palestine is the region while it is under Hellenistic and Roman influence. This does not mean I would be against creation of Category:Second Temple Judaism but it's just a completely different topic. In this case we have two categories for one region in one period, so merging (and keeping redirects) is the obvious step forward. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First that is not the same region. modern Israel, modern State of Palestine, geographical Land of Israel and geographical Palestine (region) are somewhat overlapping but generally differing.GreyShark (dibra) 13:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that User:Fayenatic london has commented in this other discussion about the use of a "classical" category. In parallel I wonder if we need Category:Classical Israel and Category:Classical Palestine at all, or could we better disperse the content among Category:Ancient Jewish Greek history‎ and Category:Israel in the Roman era? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might be, another option is to make both category redirects - category:Classical Israel to category:Hasmonean Kingdom and category:Classical Palestine to category:Syria Palaestina.GreyShark (dibra) 13:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was the Hasmonean Kingdom of Israel during the period 140-37 BCE. Herodian Kingdom typically named Judea was also sometimes using the name Israel, though the Hasmonean case is the strongest i guess.GreyShark (dibra) 06:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week oppose - while I agree with Greyshark09 that there is nothing wrong in using modern country names for history categories as geographical designation, the term "Israel" would be reserved for territory either belonging to the modern State of Israel or the ancient Kingdom of Israel which existed from 1050 to 722 BC, both covering a smaller area than any geographical acceptation for the term "Palestine". Whereas Greyshark09 mentioned employing "a lot of Palestinian nationalism" above, it would certainly need a lot of Israeli nationalism to use "Israel" as a neutral widely recognised time-less geographical designation for the entire region of the Levant. My preferred solution at this step would be a Classical Israel category for topics specifically refering to ancient Hebrew and Judean history in the Levant, itself a sub-category of Classical Palestine. The fact that Classical Israel was created but not included in preexisting Classical Palestine shows a concerning POV. I'm undecided about Medieval Israel, but Kingdom of Jerusalem for instance should no doubt be parented to History of Israel by period one way or another. Place Clichy (talk) 16:03, 11 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 the Girls' Day School Trust[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. Timrollpickering 12:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge', unneeded category layer with only one article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 6 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:North American democratic socialists[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 00:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A very poorly-defined term (to the point of inclusions in the category being arbitrary), and it's unclear that the articles in sub-categories are accurately classified here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think it should be deleted, I've actually been trying to go through and improve it by adding individuals that are either self-identified democratic socialists or have been described by reliable sources as such and removing ones that don't fit. I agree that a lot of the sub-categories (members of specific political parties) aren't that accurate, aside from the one for the Democratic Socialists of America for obvious reasons. As an example, I'd say it's safe to categorize Jeremy Corbyn as a democratic socialist but not Tony Blair, certainly not the entire Labour Party. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (or merge to Category:North American socialists insofar applicable), unless someone can give evidence that there are also North American non-democratic socialists. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There have been plenty of "non-democratic socialists." Democratic socialism is typically opposed to more non-democratic forms of socialism like Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism. Gus Hall was a prominent "non-democratic" socialist voice, for example. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose one only needs to look at the parent category Category:North American socialists find non-democratic socialists. Hmains (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like on Wikipedia Social democracy (i.e. with the exclusion of communism) is being used as the name of the movement that I simply call socialism. This is just a matter of definitions, so I'm withdrawing my previous vote. In this case presumably everybody who is in a socialist subcategory but not in a communist subcategory qualifies as a social democrat. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Use of the category is entirely POV and unsubstantiated in many cases. For example, IOnlyKnowFiveWords added the European version of the category to Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxembourg's pages. The only problem is that both were long dead prior to the terms' first use in the mid-1930s. It is a term that has only come into usage since the advent of the Cold War and should not be used on historical figures, none of whom described themselves as such.--TM 10:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should note further that the addition to this category of people with socialist views who died or were politically inactive long before the advent of the term democratic socialism is highly problematic and, even if this category is kept, the category needs to be removed. Bill Haywood, who was a syndicalist who died in the Soviet Union, was definitely not a democratic socialist. He was expelled from the Socialist Party for advocating direct action. It may be useful to current democratic socialists to re-write history to include most of the US left in their camp, but it needs to be avoided on Wikipedia.--TM 10:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about this statement. If someone was a democratic socialist for most of their life, but then changed their political ideology, surely they'd still belong in the democratic socialist category as well? I'm also not sure why you find it necessary to have a jab at editors as part of this discussion. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Democratic socialism as a concept did not truly exist until the Cold War, so trying to include someone like Rosa Luxembourg or Bill Haywood as a democratic socialist is wishful thinking. It's not rooted in history.--TM 22:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So under socialists we have (1) early socialists (before the advent of the term democratic socialism), (2) social democrats and (3) communists? I'm just trying to understand what the scope of the category is supposed to be. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'social democrat' has changed over time. Eugene Debs, for example, was a revolutionary socialist and a founder of the Social Democratic Party in the 1890s. After WW1, social democracy differentiated itself from revolutionary socialism. Democratic socialism is a term rooted in Cold War left-wing anti-communism. So, to answer your question, it depends upon the era.--TM 22:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, all socialists who were active after WWI and who were not communists, would qualify for this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. There are numerous types of socialists who are neither communists nor democratic socialists. The phrase itself was not even invented until long after World War I. We should not engage in revisionism. Victor Berger and Eugene V. Debs, as but two examples, never considered themselves democratic socialists.--TM 09:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose So long as there are reliable sources this is a useful category, and the claim that it can't be applied to people such as W. E. B. Du Bois simply because it's a recent phrase is just wrong. Many of our categories apply to articles where the concept didn't exist when the subject no longer exists, for instance many former countries and empires. It was removed from W. E. B. Du Bois but I've restored it as a source has been found[1] which lists him along with many others. The author of that source is Lawrence S. Wittner. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 13 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_6&oldid=871687989"