Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 10
August 12 >

August 11[edit]

Category:1st-century BC rulers[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) Qwerfjkltalk 08:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to "6th-century BC rulers" (Upmerged). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer with few subcategories per category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2023 (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:9th-century women rulers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:9th-century women rulers

Category:Romance legendary creatures[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:Romance legendary creatures

Category:International Railways connecting Italy[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) Qwerfjkltalk 08:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The title is inappropriate and it duplicates the existing category Category:Cross-border railway lines in Italy. Mackensen (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2023 (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:Coaching associations based in the United Kingdom[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:Coaching associations based in the United Kingdom

Category:Alumni of Preston Lodge High School[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:Alumni of Preston Lodge High School

Category:8th-century women rulers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:8th-century women rulers

Category:7th-century women rulers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:7th-century women rulers

Category:Antiquarians from the Kingdom of Bohemia[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) Qwerfjkltalk 08:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, only one article in the category. A merge is not needed, the article is already in Category:17th-century Bohemian people and Category:Czech antiquarians. The category may well be recreated if a handful of articles fit the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2023 (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:Indo-European archaeology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:Indo-European archaeology

Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus

Category:Italic history[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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2023 (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:Ancient Italic peoples[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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, both categories have Italic peoples as their main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2023 (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:Italic people[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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING WP:CROSSCAT. The fact that their native language belonged to the Italic languages family is unimportant and fails WP:OCEGRS. All 6 are already included in the relevant subcategories of Category:Ancient Italic peoples, namely Category:Falisci (3), Category:Sabine people (2) and Category:Marsi (1). See long series of precedents such as those mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2023 (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:Empty tomb[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 as per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the articles in this category are not specifically about the empty tomb but more generally about the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The articles are the specific chapters of the Gospels about the empty tomb and the Myrrhbearers who encountered it. Not a general topic about the resurrection of anyone. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not of anyone, but of Jesus. These chapters do not only discuss the empty tomb but also all the appearances until and including the ascension, i.e. they are much broader in coverage. So they should be in the broader category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose A move of empty tomb should preclude any move of this category in order to maintain article-category naming parity. I do think that since it has its own article, the category should likely exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zxcvbnm: the point of the nomination is that the Bible chapters do not belong here. Once they are moved we have a case of WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't the correct thing be to propose deletion then? After all, empty tomb is already in the "Resurrection of Jesus" category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Zxcvbnm: I am proposing merging in the sense that I propose moving all six articles to the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Gospel accounts of the empty tomb, and leave the biblical chapters in it. Merge the rest to Category:Resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament, and purge the chapters from that one. If no consensus to do this, then merge, per nom. - jc37 06:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, and add the target category into Category:Angelic apparitions in the Bible. I see no need or benefit in having a separate category for the empty tomb. The article Empty tomb is already held directly on the other parent categories, and that is sufficient in those cases. – Fayenatic London 07:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then redirect to Category:Cenotaphs, which would be the obvious category for tombs which are empty. I like the idea of Jc37's suggestion of creating an additional subcat, if there are enough applicable pages to justify that. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest disambiguation rather than redirecting. I don't see the need for a subcat for chapters relating the empty tomb accounts, and I don't support Jc37's apparent suggestion to remove John 21 from the target category. – Fayenatic London 23:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The goal wasn't to remove it, but merely to group all the biblical chapters into the same cat and make that a subcat of the target. That said, if you think John 21 should be in both, I don't strongly oppose that. - jc37 03:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nomination. The whole cenotaph thing is a complete red herring because these are not empty tombs; they are memorials not associated with a tomb. Gathland State Park does contain an empty tomb, but then, so are many of the tombs in the Valley of the Kings. I just don't see this as a meaningful category as it reads, and I would agree that the event in the passion/resurrection narratives isn't something that abstracts out into separate articles. It's just one piece of the whole. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2023 (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:Archaeological cultures of Central Asia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 20#Category:Archaeological cultures of Central Asia

Category:Latin-language songs[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:Songs in Latin. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C per parent Category:Latin texts and all siblings within it. Relevant article Latin; it can have other meanings, but Latin (disambiguation) shows the language is the primary topic. No need to add "-language". See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Category:Hindi-language works, showing that the current Latin tree is very inconsistent in adding or omitting "-language" in catnames, e.g. Category:Latin language but main article Latin; Category:Latin-language literature but main article Latin literature; Category:Latin texts instead of Category:Latin works etc. I'm using this as a test case to see what naming convention we would like to follow. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt proposal 1 rationale: WP:C2C per grandchild Category:18th-century hymns in Latin and per most cousins in Category:Texts by language, e.g. Category:Texts in Koine Greek, Category:Texts in Hebrew, Category:Texts in Coptic, Category:Texts in Syriac‎ etc. This option of [works] in [language] has already come up in an earlier discussion about chronicles/manuscripts by language (I think). It would make things a lot clearer than us having to go around checking whether Category:English chronicles (the CfR of which ended in no consensus recently) are written in English, written in England, written about England, written by English authors, etc. It could also cause a massive chain reaction throughout the Category:Works by language parent tree, however, and I am not sure if that is desirable.
Alt proposal 2 rationale: WP:C2C per the rest of the Category:Works by language tree. Regardless of whether main articles Latin and Latin literature use "-language" or not, it's just better to be consistent with all our other current trees. Overhauling the whole parent tree from Category:Fooian-language works to Category:Works in Fooian is a lot less attractive as an option than just renaming Category:Latin works/texts to Category:Latin-language works/texts. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging Hindi-language works CfD participants. @Pppery, Marcocapelle, LaundryPizza03, and Johnbod: For your consideration. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also value the input of Srnec on this matter, who has written extensively about texts in Latin (e.g. much of Recovery of the Holy Land literature), and probably has important insights on categorisation of works and their creators by language (as opposed to their nationality or ethnicity or whatever). such as Occitan troubadours being "French" by "nationality", but their songs being in Occitan. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone's information:
Inconsistency of the Category:Latin language tree and the Category:Texts by language tree (copy)

Category:Latin texts is in Category:Texts by language. However, that is a bit of a strange tree, and one may well ask the question why it exists separately from Category:Works by language; Johnbod is correct that the others all have "-language" in Category:Works by language. The only exceptions are Category:Latin texts (the only one which is also in Category:Texts by language; why isn't it called Category:Latin-language works, Category:Latin works or Category:Works in Latin?), and Category:Works by ancient Latin writers (which might as well just be Category:Ancient Latin works, or Category:Ancient works in Latin, to avoid the impression we mean only works in Old Latin or something, but works written in Latin during antiquity as opposed to after antiquity).

Looking further, the Category:Latin language tree (main article Latin) is very inconsistent, with catnames such as Category:Latin-language writers, Category:Latin-language literature (but main article Latin literature and child Category:Latin books, however grandchild Category:Latin-language Christian hymnals), and Category:Latin-language songs, which in turn is a child of Category:Latin texts. The tree can't make up its mind whether we need to add "-language" or not. I have consistently used just "Latin" for building on the Category:Latin chronicles tree, but there is a lot more to bring into alignment here if we value consistency (WP:C2C).

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for option 1 original nomination, for brevity, but I can also understand the merits of option 2. In any case make it consistent. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean Alt proposal 1 or the original nomination? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good question! I meant the original nomination, which is the most brief, so that has my first preference. Then alt2 for consistency with other languages categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay. I don't have a preference atm, it's genuinely a tough call. I hope lots of people participate in this CfR to establish a strong consensus, but I'm doubting it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, "Latin-language" is pleonastic. Just "Latin" will do. But there are cases where "Latin" might be ambiguous because it is short for something else. This is one of them. Our article on Latin music has nothing at all to do with Latin lyrics. "in Latin" might be best in cases where "Latin" could be taken to stand for "Latin American". The category "Latin-language Christian hymnals" is potentially A category like "Latin Christian hymnals" would be ambiguous in a different way, because "Latin Christian" need not refer to language.
    The only difference I can see between Category:Works by language and Category:Texts by language is that the former is somewhat broader, encompassing non-textual linguistic works (e.g., shows and films, oral traditions). The texts tree should be a part of the works tree. There are relatively few non-textual Latin works. Srnec (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Works in language". So in this case Category:Songs in Latin. This isn't going to be the only one of these we're going to need to do apparently. Category:English-language works exists for example. And by doing this we won't need to wrestle with the ambiguity of Latin as listed here: Latin (disambiguation). - jc37 06:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter is a strong argument I had not thought of yet. So now I am swapping my weak preference around: prefer alt1, then alt2, then original nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really appreciate Srnec's thoughtful explanation, as well as jc37's addition. Seeing Marco also in favour of Alt 1 (Category:Songs in Latin) now, this is now my preference, too. Although it may start off a chain reaction throughout the tree, this is the most unambiguous and future-proof naming convention I can think of. Thanks for your contributions so far. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2023 (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:16th-century Turkic people[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: manual upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 22#Category:15th-century Turkic women (manually upmerged all to Xth-century women on 30 July 2023) and CfD "16th-century Turkic women" (Deleted on 21 July 2023). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Most content will fit more specifically in an Asian people by century category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be opposed to that, but we should manually check whether they really were Asian and not European or African or something.
    E.g. Ibn al-Dawadari was a historian from Mamluk Egypt and was apparently born in Cairo, but is categorised as Category:14th-century Turkic people. As a matter of fact, Category:13th-century Mamluk sultans is a child of both Category:13th-century Turkic people (nominated above) as well as Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa.
    Similarly, Category:Khans of the Golden Horde is in Category:Monarchs in Europe. Ulugh Muhammad was a Tatar (Turkic) khan of the Golden Horde, residing in Sarai (city) on the lower Volga, just within what we today call "Europe".
    All too often the assumption is made that we should associate speakers of certain languages or language families with the continent where their supposed Urheimat is. Not only has the Urheimat often not been found or long been misidentified, it assumes people won't migrate to other continents, which humans have done for millennia, and probably thousands of people are doing every day as we speak.
    Long story short, we would either have to manually check them all, or just upmerge to the Xth-century people category and have people who are really interested in that continental stuff figure it out, one biography by one. I strongly favour the latter approach. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • We agree. Your proposal is to check them all manually, and I support that. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2023 (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:British colonial officials[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:British colonial officials, rename Category:British colonial governors and administrators to Category:British colonial governors. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories cover exactly the same ground. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, judges and military are not governors and administrators. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. By all means move articles down into that sub-category where appropriate, but British colonial attorneys general and British colonial judges do not belong there. – Fayenatic London 10:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Of course colonial attorneys-general and judges were colonial administrators. Remember, these were not elected politicians. Most colonial judges and attorneys-general were career members of the colonial service/civil service. They were entirely administrators. As for military officers, they are not in either category in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was never its purpose. That's why "administrators" is included in the title (thus encompassing all administrative officials, not just those of governor status). The problem with Category:Colonial Service officers is that the Colonial Service only came into existence in 1931. Before that, each colony had its own civil/administrative service and associated services. And India was never administered by the Colonial Service, but retained its own independent services. I don't really care whether the category is named Category:British colonial officials or Category:British colonial governors and administrators, as both are accurate, but there's only a need for one category. Having two is ambiguous and unnecessary. Note that governors of each territory generally have their own subcats in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we do need two categories, but they may be named differently. One would be overarching, across occupations (with e.g. Category:British colonial judges‎ as a subcategory), and one for governors (also to become a subcategory of the overarching one). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2023 (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.

Suspended animation[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/merge/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The films category was just renamed using the word cryonics instead of cryogenics, but Dimadick has justifiably inserted an explanation referring to preservation of human remains, from the definition in Cryonics. The intention of these categories is clearly suspended animation, as the lead article of "Fiction about cryonics" is Suspended animation in fiction. As for "Biostasis", this may have have been chosen as it's the French word for suspended animation, and no separate categories are required for the English-language topic of biostasis. – Fayenatic London 08:09, 11 August 2023 (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:Bohemian writers[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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, as User:Johnbod noted in another discussion, the current name is ambiguous because of Bohemianism. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2023 (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/2023_August_11&oldid=1171553435"