Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13[edit]

Category:People of medieval Belgium[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. There is a consensus against outright deletion. Several editors express interest in alternate proposals (e.g. some sort of a merge), but there is no consensus for any specific action at this time. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Belgium didnt exist until 1825. These categories needs to be dispersed. Rathfelder (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Women of medieval Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Female saints of medieval Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Medieval Belgian saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Medieval Belgian nobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Oppose straight deletion, if not kept the categories should be merged somewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I entirely agree that we need to think carefully about these, but if we say, as seems generally agreed, that these categories are about nationality, not about location, then we need to sort these anachronisms - of which there are many - Belgium being less complicated than many. Or, for some of them, we might say that this is not about contemporary nationality. I cant see, for example, that saints are really defined by their nationality. Its more about where they are venerated. So we could merge the medieval saints into Category:Belgian saints. Rathfelder (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The targets should be "Burgundian Netherlands" during the Burgundian ascendancy; otherwise Holy Roman Empire. We should not have categories for multiple titles of the Dukes of Burgundy. The saints should be of Burgundian Netherlands at the periods when that was a meaningful polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Belgium did not exist during the middle ages and we should not false categorize people by a place that did not exist until centuries after they lived.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Belgium is a placename for Gallia Belgica, not a 19th century innovation. The main article already specifies it was in use for centuries before 1825: "Belgium" and "Flanders" were the first two common names used for the Burgundian Netherlands which was the predecessor of the Austrian Netherlands, the predecessor of modern Belgium."[1] Dimadick (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2022 (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:Nobility of the United Kingdom[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 21#Category:Nobility of the United Kingdom

Category:Educational psychology instruments[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. I note that since 2016 there has been an alternative set category, Category:Educational evaluation methods. – Fayenatic London 10:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope is almost impossible to disentangle due to the amount of crossover. Note, instrument here refers to a scientific instrument, a tool for measuring a variable. Xurizuri (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - upmerging a set category into a topic category with 196 top-level pages seems a strange idea. "This category includes articles about questionnaires, tests, and other instruments related to educational psychology" seems clear enough. Oculi (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite that apparent clarity, only 1 of the 5 articles even approaches the definition of an instrument, through being a article about a type of instrument. The category may be defined as a set, but it isn't acting as one. Per my initial reasoning, it also isn't viable as an actual set category. --Xurizuri (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now, the category currently does not contain any articles that belong in a set category. Admittedly, the content of the parent category looks messy, some further diffusion or purging would probably be helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2022 (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:East Frisians[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. – Fayenatic London 09:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They seem to be the same thing. Category:People from former German states are all in the "from" form. Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge. They are not the same thing. East Frisians are an ethnic minority group living mainly, but not exclusively in East Frisia, whereas "people from East Frisia" may be of any ethnicity but just happen to be born or live in that region. Bermicourt (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Bermicourt the ethnicity of East Frisians is not the same as the region.--Mvqr (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think this distinction is apparent to many editors. Nothing about ethnicity in some of these articles. Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better headnotes needed -- The distinction suggested in the two opposing comments may be a valid one, but the distinction needs to be clearly expressed in headnotes in both categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Our article on East Frisinas starts out by stating this is a term for the inhabitants of East Frisia. This is akin to us having a category Hawaiians and insisting that the category only apply to people who are Hawai'ian by ethnic orgin, and insisting that people will easily figure out that this is a clearly different category than Category:People from Hawai'i, while at the same time having the article on "Hawaiians" opening by stating the term refers to inhabitants of the state of Hawai'i. Something has to change here, either the category names, or the content of our article on East Frisians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, East Frisians as an ethnicity are just recognizable if they speak the Frisian language, but the biographies in the category often do not mention which language these people spoke. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2022 (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.
  1. ^ Van Der Essen, Leon (1925), "Notre nom national", Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, 4 (1): 121–131, doi:10.3406/rbph.1925.6335
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_13&oldid=1075002779"