Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< December 5 December 7 >

December 6

Category:People of the Mongol Empire

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (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:Explorers of the United States

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2012 (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 from Meixian

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:People from Mei County, Guangdong. The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mei County is, correctly, titled as such rather than Meixian (because "Xian" merely means "County"). (This is distinct from the situation where cities or counties in China are named -zhou, because "Zhou," as an administrative unit, no longer exists as such as in Chinese administrative divisions.) Rename. (A potential alternative if people think it would make more sense would be "People from Mei.") --Nlu (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2012 (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:Heritage Foundation

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. It satisfies speedy criteria
C2D. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: The page is The Heritage Foundation, so why isn't the category? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2012 (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:Christians of the Byzantine Empire

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:Byzantine Christians.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is little point to this category: "Byzantine" almost automatically means "Christian" of some denomination or other and hence encompasses the vast majority of the articles in Byzantine people and subcategories. About the only Byzantine people who were not Christians were the Byzantine Jews and the last polytheist pagans. Constantine ✍ 19:47, 6 December 2012 (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:Regular Show episodes

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. Now empty. JohnCD (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains pages of no notability. Jprg1966 (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete but Await outcome of the AFDs and PRODs on the episodes. If they are deleted (or redirected to the show article, the category can be deleted as empty (or effectively so). If they are kept, I would suggest that they be listed in a navbox and the category still be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like the three articles that remain are likely to either be deleted or redirected to a general article on the various episodes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2012 (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:Vrhunski sportaši i sportski djelatnici

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; category has remained empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not in English and therefore doesn't belong here. Jprg1966 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2012 (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:Marxist journals

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. As I said in the discussion below, anyone can take an article out of this category if they don't think it belongs, as people have mentioned below about 'self-identifying'. delldot ∇. 05:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category to which this one belonged, "Journals by ideology", was deleted after this CFD. Basically, all arguments for deleting that category also go for this one. Categorizing academic journals by (perceived) ideology is a dicy thing at best and obviously undesirable. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidently you are not following my argument.
    Oculi (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete journals should be categorized by subject matter, not ideology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journals describe themselves based on their ideology and outside authorities also group them in this manner. Why should those real-world factors demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic be ignored because of your arbitrary preference? Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one has created or proposed creation of categories for "entertaining journals", "fair journals" or "unbiased journals", nor does there appear to be any third parties that categorize publications as "entertaining", "fair" or "unbiased", while here in reality the journals describe themselves based on their ideology AND outside authorities also group them in this manner. Why should those real-world factors demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic be ignored? Why should the manufactures example of a Bizarro World Marxist sports journal and other nonsensical hypotheticals be used as justifications for deletion of an actual category that groups journals by a strong defining characteristic that exists in the real world? Alansohn (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have long established categories for some of the examples you give of things we don't do. See Category:Christian magazines, Category:Atheism publications. I note that these contain publications ABOUT the topic, not that just happen to be written by people in a group. There is a distinction to be made here about whether a journal is about Marxism or just happens to be published by a Marxist group or have a Marxist slant. --Qetuth (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, and journals about Marxism are categorizable;; journals about any-old-thing from a Maxist slant are not. What we have here is "not". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the journals themselves as well as third parties categorize them in this manner, Wikipedia should use that information as a means of categorization rather than stamp our feet and insist that it just can't be done. Putting the word "not" in quotations doesn't make the argument any more than your own personal opinion, which does not appear to outweigh the real-world facts. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Marxism journals per my comments and the reasoning behind JPLs vote. --Qetuth (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly rename, but I think marxist is better as the common term, and making clear it includes journals giving a Marxist perspective about whatever, not just about Marxism/ The inclusion in this is usually clear enough. Whether a journal is avowedly marxist is fairly objective, Conservative and liberal are irrelevant comparisons, as they are broad and multi-meaning. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with DGG, this is an objective term. Dimadick (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename Category:Marxism journals or keep. Marxism is an ideology; Marxist is an adjective for its proponent. The difference between the two possible names may be whether they are discussing marxism or propagating it. I susect there are some political newssheets that might go into this or a sibling category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only for those journals which 'self-identify' as Marxist. If it doesn't have Marxist on the label, then it doesn't belong here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as defining characteristic. Marxist is not always a pejorative term, particularly in cases of self-identification. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All publications listed define themselves as Marxist.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Objective name. "Marxism journals" would work equally well. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: In an earlier CfD, my request to rename "Journals by ideology" to "Academic journals by ideology" was rejected in favor of deletion, because a majority of participants in that discussion found it undesirable to categorize journals by ideology. Because of that, the category "Marxist journals" has no plausible parent category left. --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2012 (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:Feminist journals

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. This does not preclude removal of any article from the category that someone feels does not belong there (e.g. journals that do not 'self-identify' as feminist, as someone mentioned below). delldot ∇. 05:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category to which this one belonged, "Journals by ideology", was deleted after this CFD. Basically, all arguments for deleting that category also go for this one. Categorizing academic journals by (perceived) ideology is a dicy thing at best and obviously undesirable. Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is not categorization based on what Wikipedia editors "perceive" the ideology is of these publications, this is the expressly stated ideology and purpose of these journals. The category includes
    Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy. Agenda describes itself here "as a feminist media organisation in Africa, [that] aims to achieve the goal of eradicating gender inequality and empowering women. Accordingly, Agenda is committed to giving women a forum, a voice and skills to articulate their needs and interests to transform unequal gender relations." Per the journal's website, "Camera Obscura provides a forum for scholarship and debate on feminism, culture, and media studies." The other two seem to be no-braniers, but see the sites of Feminist Africa and Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, where each publication explicitly discusses its feminist ideology as part of the basic approach of the publication, if there is any doubt. This is exactly what categories are for; Not categorizing in this manner is dicey and undesirable. Alansohn (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • ... furthermore, the Association of College and Research Libraries, has assembled a category of its own (see here) that includes all of these publications on its "Core List of Journals for Women and Gender Studies", which covers publications written "from a feminist perspective within the humanities, sciences and social sciences." Based on self-description and categorization by experts on the subject, this would appear to be a textbook means of categorization within Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – much as for Marxist above.
    Oculi (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment See my comment above. My apologies for having two different CfDs here, I just didn't know how to do a multiple one... --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete journals should be categorized by subject matter, not ideology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journals describe themselves based on their ideology and outside authorities also group them in this manner. Why should those real-world factors demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic be ignored because of your arbitrary preference? Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one has created or proposed creation of categories for "entertaining journals", "fair journals" or "unbiased journals", nor does there appear to be any third parties that categorize publications as "entertaining", "fair" or "unbiased", while here in reality the journals describe themselves based on their ideology AND outside authorities also group them in this manner. Why should those real-world factors demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic be ignored? Why should the manufactures example of a Bizarro World Marxist sports journal and other nonsensical hypotheticals be used as justifications for deletion of an actual category that groups journals by a strong defining characteristic that exists in the real world? Alansohn (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As Alansohn's links show, this is a valid defining characteristic. And I also argue that 'feminism' IS the content matter, not just the ideaology. That this category was previously in a category you didn't like, or created by someone you don't like the work of, does not change this. --Qetuth (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Feminism journals - changing vote per my comments in above nomination - Makes clearer this category is for journals about feminism, not journals written by feminists. -- Qetuth (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an objective term, and does not reflect the bias of the editors. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename as Qetuth. Personally I dislike the use of nouns as if they were adjectives, so that I would prefer "keep". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only for those journals which self-identify as Feminist. This includes journals that advocate out-of mainstream views, so no purging the category of 'bad feminists'. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keeping this and the above category is a recipe for creating a lot of heated edit wars... --Randykitty (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as defining characteristic. Feminist is not always a pejorative term, particularly in cases of self-identification. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. Feminism is an academic subfield to which these journals self-identify. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Objective term. Maybe a rename to "Women's Studies Journals"? Carrite (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: 1/ There is a Category:Women's studies journals. 2/ "Feminism" is not an academic field, it is an ideology. In an earlier CfD, my request to rename "Journals by ideology" to "Academic journals by ideology" was rejected in favor of deletion, because a majority of participants in that discussion found it undesirable to categorize journals by ideology. Because of that, the category "feminist journals" has no plausible parent category left. --Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2012 (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:Songs written by Tim Buppert

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent article Tim Buppert was deleted. Contains only two songs anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:00, 6 December 2012 (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:Organizations based in Rajasthan

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 to Category:Organisations based in Rajasthan. I will leave a category redirect on the nominated category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Surplus category. This category appears as a sub category under Category:Organisations based in Rajasthan. It was presumably created when the originator could not find their preferred spelling of organisation. Malcolma (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2012 (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:Norwegian noble persons

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Is there any reason that the "noble persons" cannot simply be placed in the "nobility" category? Right now some are in both categories. There is no overall scheme of Category:Noble persons, and the term seems synonymous with Category:Nobility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2012 (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 of the Mughal Empire

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:People of the Mughal Empire to Category:Mughal Empire people
  • Nominator's rationale the general practice is to tack people onto the country name when an adjectival form does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the Category:People of former countries, there are 104 entries of which 5 are not really poeple type articles. Of the remainder, over 39% use the form "People of Foo". So while "Foo people" might be the majority, one could hardly say that it constitutes "general pracrtice". And what's wrong with countires or empires that don't have a convenient adjectival form? Is that such a big sin? In the cases of empires, it reads very awkwardly. I think that "People of Foo" should be accepted as a legitimate alternative form that may in fact be preferable in some cases. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The suggested name is the general standard, and has the benefit of being shorter. I can see no reason to have different standards for current vs. former countries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Good Ol’factory. -
    Talkback) 22:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rename as per nom and Good Ol'Factory Mayumashu (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2012 (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:Mughal historians

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:Historians in the Mughal Empire. There were 3 supporters of the "from" version, but no objections to the "in" version, and I know that the last people to comment did have reasoned objections to the "from" version. So my thinking is that the thing most people are likely to be ok with is the "in" version. delldot ∇. 05:17, 2 January 2013 (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 of the Republic of Venice

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (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/2012_December_6&oldid=1144945264"