Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< November 24 November 26 >

November 25

Category:Irish lords

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 19:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:OVERLAPCAT, these lords are also in the tree of Category:Irish kings. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose No they aren't - take Mahon mac Turlough Mantach Ó Briain and quite a high proportion of the category, which includes BLPs. Nor should they be added there. "King" is difficult to define for Ireland, but we have far too many in Category:Irish kings. Some other solution is needed. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough, with a random sample I only got people in the kings tree but apparently I was just unlucky. Presumably we should then check the lords one by one to see if they are also in the kings tree, and if they are we should determine whether they are better off in the lords category or in the kings tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From category intersection (currently): IK=1009, IL=140, IL&IK=59. DexDor (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite! The overpopulation of the kings is the bigger problem. There were a lot, but not that many. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category is a mess. I am glad the nomination has been withdrawn, but it needs attention. Ireland had a significant number of petty kings, with (until the arrival of the Normans) a High King. The lesser kings ruled a cou8nty or part of one. With the arrival of the English, many of the kingships were reconstituted into earldoms or baronies under English suzerainty. The present tree is a mess: it is a mixture of petty kings (or lords) and courtiers of such kings, for example poets. I would suggest that the category should be purged by moving those who were merely members of kingly households into a separate category; and those who were kings into a "kings" category, and then see what we are left with. It may be that this will empty the category, in which case it can then be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with moving out the kings from here. The kings category also includes many from well after the English conquest made them merely lords (at least in English eyes), up to people of the present day. Ideally we should set a point after which there are no native kings, though I've little idea when that should be - about 1600 at the latest, or the Flight of the Earls. Making there fewer kings and more lords is the way to go imo. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the purging of non kings. However, it's a dangerous task and should only be undertaken on case by case basis. A person might regard himself as a king in his own territory even if that same territory would barely be the same extent as a barony in another country. What matters is if his fellow kings regarded him as a petty king. And where are we to get such evidence? From later English writers who sought to delegitimate all native power structures? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:48, 5 December 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.

Germanic peoples

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. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename. Germanic peoples is an ancient/medieval term but anachronistic in relation to modern nationalities, while Germanic languages is not anachronistic. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiProject Languages has been informed about this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: those are (almost) all terms that make sense if there is a distinctive "people". You don't get to have a diaspora of people who somehow happen to speak loosely related languages, for example (note that the pages and sub-categories in those categories seem to be about modern peoples). So, either those categories are valid, or they should be deleted, and not simply renamed (I additionally find the proposed names quite awkward and "PC-sounding"). LjL (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These categories (and possibly other similar categories) are a mess (e.g. placing people such as Anita Anand in Category:Germanic peoples). I suggest withdrawing this nomination (like LjL I'm not keen on the proposed new names) and instead CFDing one/two of these categories at a time with a view to delete (possibly upmerging some pages/subcats). Another option might be to add appropriate inclusion criteria and then purge of pages/subcats that don't fit. DexDor (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC) revised proposal in comment below. DexDor (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're happy to further elaborate this then I'll be happy to withdraw this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (According to her article) Anita Anand's parentage is Pakistani Hindu. Her article does not say anything that suggests she should be in a category for Germanic people. The relevant part of the category structure is Anita Anand -> Category:English people of Pakistani descent -> ... -> Category:English people -> Category:Germanic peoples.
The problem arises because terms such as "English" can be interpreted in 2 ways - (1) as the location where the person lives/works (or their nationality), or (2) as an ethnicity (see English people). Anand fits the 1st definition, but not the 2nd. IMO Category:English people (which also contains articles such as Japanese community of London) should be changed to make clear it's for people in England (regardless of ethnicity) - this would mean that the "main article" link to English people would be removed and the Germanic/descent parent category tags would be removed (there are 3 other parent categories). The same logic probably applies to the other nationality categories that are currently subcategories of Category:Germanic peoples. Having done that it would then be easier to understand the purpose of Category:Germanic peoples and hence whether any changes should be made to that category. DexDor (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
we dont have to remove anthing from the ethnic group articles JUST USE Category:English people and leave the ethnic group articles because THE ETHNIC GROUP ARTICLES ARE ABOUT THE ETHNIC GROUPS! so please take your dissucssion in English national identity or British citizenship it seems people at this discussion seem to use their own feelings about germanic peoples instead of reliable sources as it is required so please no personal feelings or WW2 related embarrassments of people's identities and people's ancestral heritage. 95.128.118.58 (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't propose to remove anything (not even category tags) from the articles. Do you think the Japanese community of London article belongs in a Germanic category - and if not what would you change to fix that? (Pinging Marcocapelle as my cmt of yesterday was in reply). DexDor (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that main part of the confusion lies in the fact that Category:English people is used for people in England but not necessarily of English ethnicity. The suggestions above would definitely help clarifying the purpose of categories like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:CIVILITY would require? Thank you. We can read you even if your text doesn't try to drown everybody else's. LjL (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
solution we could create Category:Peoples speaking Germanic languages and using in such as your example of Japanese community of London and so on but keep Category:Germanic peoples for ethnic groups and people who are germanic and to solve WP:OVERCAT delete Category:North Germanic peoples, Category:Germanic diaspora and Category:People of Germanic descent 95.128.118.58 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, why don't we just leave them They are valid categories for a real ethno-linguistic group, obviously now getting mixed with many new people without the same ethnic background, but .... whatever? You don't have to find new categories to tinker with every day, you know. I can't see any outcome here that will improve the project. Johnbod (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Germanic has some contextual meaning...Category:Peoples speaking Germanic languages would include virtually any category of fooian Americans, Australians, British, etc., as well as most native American and Australian peoples/First Nations peoples (west of Quebec), the majority of whom speak English according to their articles or those on their now-extinct, or nearly-extinct, languages. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Carlossuarez's argument actually suggests this rename. If a people has adopted a Germanic language we should put them in this category, not exclude them based on antequated racial theories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems people at this discussion seem to use their own feelings about germanic peoples instead of reliable sources as it is required, we should keep Germanic peoples just as we should keep slavic peoples or do these people mean we should also rename slavic peoples to Category:Peoples speaking Slavic languages or romance peoples to Category:Peoples speaking Romance languages since you think ethnic groups dont exist regardless of their ancestral heritage so please no WW2 related embarrassments of people's identities. I mean if there are already categories like "North Germanic languages" and there is no germanic peoples how could it make sense to have Peoples speaking Germanic languages as as a category 95.128.118.58 (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources which speak of modern groups of people as "Germanic", some clearly reliable, others need review:
  • Waldman & Mason, Encyclopedia of European Peoples, (
    Infobase Publishing
    , 2006), p. 296.
  • Minahan, James, One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000), pp. 433, 251, 264 & 222.
  • Minahan, James, Encyclopedia of the stateless nations, vol 2., D—K (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002), pp. 607 & 613.
  • DeWulf, Jeroen, "Flemish" in Cole, Jeffrey E., Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia (
    ABC-CLIO
    , 2011), pp. 110 & 136.
  • Doise, Willem, Groups and Individuals: Explanations in Social Psychology (Cambridge University Press, 1978), p. 207.
  • Fant, Lars Zander & Zander, "Cultural Mythology and Leadership in Sweden" in Kessler & Wong-MingJi, Cultural Mythology and Global Leadership (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009), p. 178.
  • Fant, Lars, "Negotiation discourse and interaction is a cross-cultural perspective" in Ehlich & Wagner, The Discourse of Business Negotiation (
    Walter de Gruyter
    , 1995), p. 180.
  • Kroeber, A. L., Configurations of Culture Growth (University of California Press, 1963), p. 718.
  • Seward & Lal, Cultures of the World: Netherlands (Marshall Cavendish, 2006), p. 58.
  • Duffy, Kevin Who Were the Celts?" (Barnes & Noble Publishing, 1996), p. 132.
  • Pavlović, Zoran Modern World Cultures: Europe(Infobase Publishing, 2006), p. 53.
  • Porter, Theodore M., Karl Pearson: The Scientific Life in a Statistical Age (Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 164. (Describing 19th-century Norwegians).
  • Owen, Francis, The Germanic people: their origin, expansion, and culture (Bookman Associates, 1960), p. 270.
  • McQueen, Alison, The Rise of the Cult of Rembrandt: Reinventing an Old Master in Nineteenth-Century France (Amsterdam University Press, 2003) (Describing 19th-century peoples).
  • Johnson, L. P., "The German Language" in Pasley (ed.), Germany: A Companion to German Studies (Taylor & Francis, 1972), pp. 4 & 5.
  • Wemple, Suzanne Fonay, Frankish Society: Marriage and the Cloister, 500 to 900 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981), p. 12. (Describing 19th-century peoples).
  • Steuer, Heiko, "Das „völkisch“ Germanische in der deutschen Ur- und Frühgeschichtsforschung" in Beck et al.(eds.), Zur Geschichte Der Gleichung "Germanisch—Deutsch" (de Gruyter, 2004), p. 446.
  • Höffe, Otfried, Democracy in an Age of Globalisation (Springer Publishing, 2007), p. 124.
  • Hantke & Schärer-Züblin, "Gene Worlds: an international collaboration" in Farmelo & Carding (eds.), Here and Now: Contemporary Science and Technology in Museums and Science Centres (
    NMSI
    , 1997), p. 264.
  • World and Its Peoples: Scandinavia and Finland (Marshall Cavendish, 2010), p. 1186.
  • Van Der Sijs, Nicoline, Cookies, Coleslaw, and Stoops: The Influence of Dutch on the North American Languages (Amsterdam University Press, 2009), p. 58.
  • Slomp, Hans, Europe, a Political Profile: An American Companion to European Politics, Volume 1 (ABC-CLIO, 2011), p. 461.
--

95.128.118.58 (talk) 13:05, 12 December 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:Nordic languages

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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A
Sami, as this category would suggest. LjL (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The terminology hasn't changed (I guess), but "Nordic language" usually refers to the same thing that "North Germanic languages" refers to, namely certain Germanic languages - but not Finnish or Sami. LjL (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has, but I'm a good deal older than you, I imagine. Finnish was never so grouped. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it still isn't - that's what I'm saying. The category is misleading. LjL (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The category might not make sense, but it was created to make a category for the languages used collectively for the five member countries and its territories to
Nordic council. BALMAINM (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that would sound a lot better, and avoid being taken for a linguistics category. LjL (talk) 22:07, 21 December 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_November_25&oldid=1166570091"