Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< May 13 May 15 >

May 14

Category:History books about the Balkan Wars

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 - amd yes, there is a need to upmerge this single article into Category:History books about wars. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one article "Serbia and Albania". No need to upmerge, the one article is already correctly classified in Category:History books about Serbia and Category:History books about Albania. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2015 (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:Grand Crosses of the Order of Saints Cyril and Methodius (1909–44)

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. MER-C 06:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:NONDEF. There are only heads of state in this category to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That someone has received an award may be evidence of their notability, but their notability still derives from something more tangible (being a royal, a diplomat, a military commander, an actor...) and that's a better categorization scheme. DexDor (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With Miklós Horthy, that's totally ridicilous indeed. Thanks for mentioning this example. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Awards granted only to heads of state are the extreme example of why we should avoid most award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2015 (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 timelines

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 June 18, as another editor had removed the CFD template from the page. – Fayenatic London 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:OVERLAPCAT, its content is already in Category:Romanian history timelines‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2015 (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:Montenegrin metropolitans

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. MER-C 06:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge, there is no need to subcategorize bishops by their nationality if their nationality coincides with the location of their diocese. An earlier discussion resulted in 'no consensus', the issue of that discussion has meanwhile been resolved. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- By far the best way to categorise bishops is according to the lcoation of their see, not their nationality, thoughn this will commonly be the same. In some cases, it may be useful to have a fooian bishops, reflecting nationality of origin, where they are missionary bishops with sees other than in their home country: Irish Catholic bishops abroad and Anglican bishops in Africa and India spring to mind, but we should only do that where there are enough articles to make a worthwhile category; and that will not apply in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Peterkingiron rationale Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2015 (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:Anatolian Christian Universalists

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. MER-C 06:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and hardly any room for expansion because Universalism only grew after Anatolia had been occupied by the Ottomans. No need to upmerge because the one article is already in Category:4th-century Christian Universalists as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2015 (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:Women 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: keep. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per this earlier started discussion about Male historians which is still open. The discussion in the Male historians nomination is strongly interlinked with this category so it would be most helpful to add your comments about Women historians in the earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Let's be clear; for most professional categories (not sport etc) we should have a main non-diffusing category, like Category:Historians, or one diffused by nationality or sub-specialism. If people want to add a female category (not diffused from the main one), that's fine. But that does not mean an equivalent male category is needed or justified. That's how we avoid this little nerdy corner of Wikipedia causing headlines all over the world. There is academic study and scholarship of many subjects with a womens' perspective, without equivalent study of the male one. That's the world we live in. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably keep -- In some cases women approach the subject from the perspective of their gender. HOwever this should be close to match the outcome on the male category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my vote regarding Category:Male historians. However, if the consensus on that is to merge, then I will change my vote here...I don't feel one is right but the other isn't. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- Back in the real world, I worry a lot about how to attract and encourage women into professions. I know very well why it needs to be done. However, Wikipedia isn't the real world. Our objective here is to document and provide information. We should be careful not to create our own "information" which doesn't actually exist in the real world. Neither should we attempt to solve all of society's problems. It is my position that all of EGRS categorisations should be supported by reliable sources. If a person is identified as "woman historian" in a reliable source then, by all means, create a category and put that person in that category. If you say one is a "woman historian" just by virtue of being a woman and a historian, then we are trying to create information that doesn't actually exist. So, my preference is to delete the present ill-defined "Women historians" category, and let a new one be created if and when it becomes necessary by virtue of reliable sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to this article in The Australian, this could actually be a thing. Not sure that Wikipedia really needs to have gendered subcategories for every topic, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The votes to keep are based on the rationale of the perspective of the historian. But how do we know if the perspective of a particular woman historian deviates from the perspective of a particular male historian just because of gender? Especially so if it concerns non-gender-specific historical topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perspective is a complete red herring here. These are by gender categories. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources have indicated that "women historians" are a concept they find notable, and there are real-world groups that fit into this category. That's why we make categories in the first place. I don't much care about academic politics, and I'm content to remain ignorant on the nature of the dispute. My job is to locate reliable sources, and that's what I've done. An academic paper on women historians would seem to indicate that this category is warranted. If you think this academic paper is irrelevant, I would welcome your input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our wise editors have already observed on
WP:NONDEF that users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Unfortunately, that is what you are doing. If there is a paper on women historians (meaning the subject is notable), it doesn't automatically become a defining characteristic. Moreover, the paper you have cited, which is mostly a book review, is making the point that the kind of ghettoization that we are doing here may be inappropriate. It is pointing out that the women writing history brought a variety of influences to their work, not just womanhood. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, that's a good point about the paper. I didn't realize that it was mostly a book review, as I had merely skimmed over it enough to validate that it was relevant. Still, that leaves the fact that someone wrote a book about the topic, which then attracted a bit of attention. That's a bit less prestigious than my original claim of an academic paper on the topic, but I think there's enough attention on this topic to at least make a case for it. Yes, "defining characteristics" are what we're after here, but how else can you describe multiple professional associations dedicated to this characteristic? The people involved have themselves implicitly said that it is a defining characteristic, and reliable sources have agreed. I guess that's what I'm trying to say here, though I admit I haven't done a very good job of expressing myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed enough attention given to women professionals of all kinds because they are still a minority in most disciplines. If we say, we should also give similar attention for the same reason, I would say we are trying to bring real world into Wikipedia world. We are not a public policy organisation, or a managerial organisation or anything like that. So, it is not our job to do this. The existence of women's professional organisations merely gives us license to categorize all such organisations, but not necessarily their members into separate categories. If I am a member of the Southeast Regional Natural History association, that doesn't mean I have now gotten into a separate category called "Southeast Regional Natural Historians." If there is a book about women historians which identifies particular individuals as having "women historian" as a defining characteristic, then we have a license to place those people in a women historians category. But the existence of the book doesn't prove that every woman who is a historian has acquired a new defining characteristic. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at very least Listify if deleted women's history is a clearly defined topic of study that warrants such a category. I think the straight up deletion of this category would not be useful, and certainly maintenance of this kind of information in a list would be preferable at a minimum. SFB 17:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We cover women writers in their own categories. Historians should be no exception. Dimadick (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is clearly
    WP:OSE. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No it is not, since Category:Historians is a sub-category of Category:Writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NinjaRobotPirate. As this is a non-diffusing subcategory of
    WP:Cat/gender. gobonobo + c 00:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep The intersection of being a woman and being a historian is considered notable, and there is enough information on such to create an article Women historians that would be much more than just a list. It clearly meets the requirements for the existence of such a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be born in mind that some would argue that deleting this category would make Wikipedia sexist. There is a strain of argument that deleting such categories shows animus towards the specific group covered by these categories. I think both that, and the argument that somehow the presence of these categories create any real world problems are both false. If it somehow discourages women to become historians to acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of academic historians in 1900 were men, than any attempts to enter the profession of the historian and deal with the thoughts and writings of the past will discourage women from entering it. It will not be Wikipedia that creates this situation, but factors well outside Wikipedia. On the whole I think such claims are just plain false. I would also point out that the organizations mentioned above are for women who are historians, not for historians who focus on the study of women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnpacklambert. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2015 (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:Christian pilgrim saints

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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, only one article containing a saint whose pilgrimage is hardly a defining characteristic. Theoretically I can imagine this category could be further populated instead of deleted, but there are a lot of saints categories already, so let's just delete this one as it doesn't seem of interest to a lot of editors anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose While the category does have limited entries at present, as you indicate there is potential for growth, as this was a significant step in Christendom for centuries. Let's see what your suggestion might stir up. Daniel the Monk (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Doesn't matter how many there might be, it's not a defining characteristic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We currently have Category:Pilgrimages and its subcategories. Which focus on pilgrimage routes and destination but not cover pilgrims themselves. Perhaps we should see if there are other bios where pilgrimages play a major part in life? Dimadick (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I wouldn't expect too much of it, but if you do find pilgrim saints like that, who could populate this category, please categorize them and inform us here about the result of your search. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's been 2 1/2 months this proposal was made and there has been only one other saint who has been added to this
    small category. While being a pilgrim was a defining aspect of Saint Roch and Benedict Joseph Labre's lives, I don't think that is sufficient justification to keep this category. Liz Read! Talk! 10:22, 31 July 2015 (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:Biblical Roman Catholic saints

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:Christian saints from the New Testament. MER-C 06:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename. There is no indication that these saints are exclusively venerated by the Roman Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2015 (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:Equal-to-apostles

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. MER-C 06:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per
Twelve Apostles. I don't think that an honorific title like this is a defining characteristic. Listification has already taken place in the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2015 (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:Multiple-use names

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed. After I created this I found that 'Category:Anonymity pseudonyms' already exists and does the same job. filceolaire (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2015 (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:Universal Humanism

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: upmerge. – Fayenatic London 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no main article and it seems like the inclusion criteria are almost random. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 14 May 2015 (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:Roman roads in the Balkans

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. MER-C 06:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCLOCATION. The current Category:Roman roads tree is already a confusing mish-mash of subcategories by 1) modern national boundaries, 2) ancient Roman provincial ones and, possibly, 3) continents. This category adds a fourth layer by region, and a region that was defined much later by the Ottomans at that. This added layer would be more likely to hinder navigation than aid it. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: Notified Catalographer as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2015 (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/2015_May_14&oldid=1090453423"