Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< October 8 October 10 >

October 9

Category:People related to the Teutonic Order

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. And purge/add articles to Category:People from the State of the Teutonic Order if necessary; clean up category structure and ensure that everything is squared away. Note that Category:Teutonic Knights was a redirect to Category:Teutonic Order until this close, so I read a !vote of "merge" as meaning "rename". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, we ususally don't categorize people as "related to" something, and most people in this category were in fact Teutonic Knights. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The subcategories also include people who lived in areas under the political and military control of the Teutonic Order, such as Dorothea of Montau. Don't forget, the Teutonic Order were the rulers of the State of the Teutonic Order, one of the Crusader States. Their areas are currently divided between Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Sweden. The Duchy of Prussia was established by a renegade member of the Knights in areas formerly controlled by the order. Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 9 October 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:Alumni of Leeds Metropolitan University

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 Category:Alumni of Leeds Metropolitan University to Category:Alumni of Leeds Beckett University. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rename Alumni of Leeds Beckett University to reflect name change of that institution. MFlet1 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 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:Thuringian people‎

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as the two categories seem to serve the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per non. Actually one category is for the tribe and the other for individual members, but I find the distinction rather meaningless. Dimadick (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- All the people belong to the Germanic tribe of the migration period. Thuringia is also a part of Germany. I would have expected the subject to refer to Category:People from Thuringia. Do we need to leave the subject as a cat-redirect (or dab-category) to cover that issue? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 10 October 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:Germanic tribes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. — ξxplicit 07:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to parent categories. It doesn't really make sense to subcategorize Category:Ancient Germanic peoples by modern country, as in this case by Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In this case, the term "German tribes" is a historiographic term from the 18th and 19th century to categorize the main tribes of the Carolingian Empire: "Bavarians, Swabians (Alamanni), Franks, Saxons, Frisians and Thuringians. All of these were incorporated in the Carolingian Empire by the late 8th century. Only four of them are represented in the later stem duchies; the former Merovingian duchy of Thuringia was absorbed into Saxony in 908 while the former Frisian kingdom had been conquered into Francia already in 734. The customary or tribal laws of these groups were recorded in the early medieval period (Lex Baiuvariorum, Lex Alamannorum, Lex Salica and Lex Ripuaria, Lex Saxonum, Lex Frisonum and Lex Thuringorum). Franconian, Saxon and Swabian law remained in force and competed with imperial law well into the 13th century." Dimadick (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is: is "German tribes" a defining characteristic of these peoples, or is "Historiography of Germany" a defining characteristic of
    German tribes? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • On reflection, "Oppose" was perhaps too strong. The content of the subject is specifically peoples of the migration period (or Dark Age) and of the mainland rather than Scandinavia. In contrast the "peoples" target is covering tribes of the C1 BC and C1 AD, as well as Scandinavian peoples and those who migrated from there. There is probably distinghuishing features,but perhaps my opposition was not appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 18 October 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: no consensus to delete. Perhaps the alternative renaming proposal could be made in a fresh nomination? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete. Article Germanic peoples ends in the Middle Ages so it is not meaningful to have Germanic subcategories split by modern country. Category:History of the Germanic peoples should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I haven't nominated any Germanic language category. It's obvious that Germanic languages still exist, but that doesn't make us (21st-century people) to a member of Germanic peoples. There's plenty of people who speak a Germanic language while not descending from medieval Germanic peoples, e.g. Afro-Americans. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems subjective; why are Category:Asturian people‎ included? Is each Asturian a German at root, not a Celt or a Basque or a Latin? Similarly, someone chose to include Asturians but not French, despite long-term Germanic rule of France (certainly from the Franks and off and on until 1945)? We should not be categorizing BLP's among others this cavalierly and unencyclopedically. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- "Germanic" is a linguistic category linked to ethnic origin. The Asturians are probably included on the basis of a Visogothic heritage. Nevertheless, that needs purging. Africaaners are of Dutch descent and speak a Germanic language. However, their language has been learnt by many others. The Franks were certainly Germanic. I am not sure of the ethnicity of Hugh Capet, the founder of the next dynasty in France, but it would be artificial to regard France as Germanic after he replace the moribund Carolingian dynasty. Similarly, it would be artificial to regard the English as a Germanic people, as middle and modern English is descended from French and Latin as well as Saxon. Category:People of Germanic descent is a container category (and should be tagged as such); it is harmless. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So isn't this getting too subjective then? If English people wouldn't be a Germanic people while English is considered to be a Germanic language, on what basis would that call be made? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose There is no explained reason why these problems would only apply to the Germanic-peoples categories and not other onces such as Category:Romance peoples. We should consider all of these questionable top holder categores at once.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tree of
    speedy rename nominations to reduce the messiness in this tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Alternative. If there is insufficient support for deleting these categories I'm offering a rename instead (still considering that Germanic peoples is anachronistic in relation to modern nationalities, while Germanic languages is not anachronistic):
Hope this helps a bit. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 16 October 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:Arab socialist politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not all Arab nationalists are Arab socialists, but the reverse is true. Neither category has many articles in it anyway. Charles Essie (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge any non-socialists into the nationalist category. Most of the parties have socialist in their name and the Ba'ath party was Arab socialist too. They may not have many articles but a good many subcats, so that they are potentially useful as container cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (voted above). If people think my comment wrong, they should suggest an alternative structure for these and related categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to oppose, I'm not an expert in this field but by just judging the rationale for merging I would say this is actually a perfect reason for maintaining a parent-child relationship between the two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternate merge to Category:Arab nationalists and Category:Arab socialists. —烏Γ (kaw), 07:06, 11 October 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_October_9&oldid=1074815674"