Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 5

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< September 4
September 6 >

September 5

Category:12th-century women rulers

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: Split It's quite clear from both this discussion and others on other days that despite one person (who !voted twice) vociferously disagreeing, they have failed to convince any of the other participants and hence there is a consensus to split this tree. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these medieval women. I'm suggesting a split into no fewer than 9 new categories. Follow-up to Category:5th-century women rulers (Split), 2nd-century BC women rulers (Split), 3rd-century BC women rulers (Split), and 4th-century BC women rulers (Split). The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well; the "7th-century women rulers" CfS, the "8th-century women rulers" CfS, the "9th-century women rulers" CfS, the "10th-century women rulers" CfS, and the "11th-century women rulers" CfS are still ongoing.
Proposed split into 9 new categories
Women regents
Empresses consort
Queens regnant
Queens consort
Princess consort
Duchesses consort
Countesses regnant
Countesses consort
Ladies regnant
Currently non-viable categories and doubtful cases
Princess regnant (2)
  • Constance of Antioch. Recommend: Princess regnant, but princess consort also acceptable
  • Melike Mama Hatun
    . Anatolian beylik. Recommend: Princess regnant, but queen regnant also acceptable
Duchesses regnant (2)
Doubtful cases
For categorisation purposes, I count (pun intended) margravines, landgravines and viscountesses as "countesses". Two women were princess regnant and two were duchess regnant, but that's not enough for a new separate category for the time being. I recommend classifying them as "consort" for now, and also putting the duchesses regnant in Category:Duchesses regnant. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per obvious
    WP:OR such as "Melike Mama Hatun. Anatolian beylik. Recommend: Princess regnant, but queen regnant also acceptable", how can ruler of beylik be called "queen"? Marcelus (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per reasons given under other similar discussions. Marcelus (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't !vote twice. NLeeuw (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per precedent; due to above complaints about the nominator's proposed classification, decisions about classification should be made after the closure of the CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? The discussion is literally about classification, nothing else. Marcelus (talk) 09:18, 15 September 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:Presidents of New York 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 to
(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Category includes people who held both the position of chancellor (until 1952) and president (since 1952). Ergo Sum 22:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per Marcoapelle's suggestion.--User:Namiba 15:38, 6 September 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:Germanic history

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 03:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:C2D. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion above referred to in the comments is now the one directly below it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:19, 5 September 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:Celtic history

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 merge or rename this category in isolation, however there is a consensus for the broader restructure. Take note however, that none of the other categories were tagged. It appears from a quick glance that the restructure consists mostly of actions that could be done boldly, but if that's not the case things may need to be brought to a new CfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:NARROWCAT. Essentially the same scope. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Reasoning; you can skip this if you prefer
This last comment by @
Celtic nationalism do still exist. Therefore, these topics are (perhaps somewhat paradoxically) independent of Celts/Category:Celts
, because they can exist without them. On the other hand, the Celts couldn't have existed without the Celtic languages; they were/are defined by those languages. (Similarly, Celtic nationalism is, if not defined by, dependent on those languages.) So I think we got the parentage wrong. We shouldn't have:
Category:Celts > Category:Celtic culture > Category:Celtic languages.
Just like we shouldn't have:
Category:Germanic peoples > Category:Germanic culture > Category:Germanic languages.
Maybe we should reverse the parentage? I'll come back to this point.
Another question is where to put a category like Category:Celtic nationalism. The Category:Pan-nationalism tree suggests we shouldn't cross-breed it with a language (family) tree, even though as a theoretical concept and movement, language-based nationalisms like this depend on the (purported) existence of a language family. So Category:Celtic languages cannot be its parent/ancestor. (Compare how Category:Pan-Germanism is not a child/descendant of either Category:Germanic languages or Category:Germanic peoples).
In both cases,
WP:OCMISC
catch-all).
Category:Ancient Rome seems to offer a solution, if a somewhat convoluted one, which may or may not work for Celts and Germanic peoples:
The good thing about this tree is that the ancient people is in a separate branch of the tree than its culture and its main language. But, although we've got a Germania and a Category:Germania, I'm not sure we can say the latter should be the parent of Category:Historical Germanic peoples (because "Germania" didn't necessarily encompass their entire habitat, for lack of a better term, as Category:Ancient Rome did as a state for the Category:Ancient Romans), let alone Category:Germanic peoples (which currently actually is its grandparent rather than its child). The worse problem is that we've got no "Ancient Celtica" or something which encompassed the habitat of all ancient Celts (Gallia Celtica is only a small part of it, and the so-called "Celtic nations" are a modern concept which also encompass only a small part of the entire ancient Celtic habitat).
Proposed restructuring
The best thing I can come up for now is to make
Celtic nationalism, should be moved to Category:Celtic Revival. And we should Template:Category see also these two trees to each other, but otherwise I would keep them wholly separate. Lastly, I think Category:Celtic culture should be little more than a disambiguation category between Category:Ancient Celtic culture, Category:Celtic Revival, and Category:Celtic languages‎, the only thing we could put in both trees, but also in neither. The fact that the main page Celtic culture
is a disambiguation page also seems to warrant a "disambiguation category".
I think this resolves pretty much all underlying parentage issues. NLeeuw (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about Modern Celtic instead of Celtic revival? If it is the old type being revived then why have such a distinction? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because Celts (modern) is in Category:Celtic Revival. NLeeuw (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very clever solution! That would resolve the chronological inconsistencies without the need of a Category:Celtic topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure where I should thread in this, but just wanted to note that while the Celtic language is one defining feature of the Celts, it was not the only one. They don't exist as a people due to the languaage in and ofitself, but rather as a people, in which language is one of the culture's features.
    Suggesting that the Celts only exist due to language would be like saying the Gauls only did due to language, or that the Greeks only did due to language, or the Persians, or or or. I think you get the idea. - jc37 20:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I can support the re-structure, but with 2 changes: First that History of X peoples should not be in a tree of Culture of X/X culture. They should be in a history tree. There's a difference between history and culture. Second, that I don't think Category:Gaelic culture is appropriate under Category:Celtic Revival. If anything, it probably should be directly under the parent: Category:Celtic culture. Maybe the issue is having "revival" as the parent. If the parent of one is "Ancient Celtic culture", then one would think that the parent of the other would be "Modern Celtic culture". So maybe rename/split the "Revival" cat, per Celts (modern). - jc37 12:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to be clear, as far as the original nom, my opinion has not changed - Rename
    precise. - jc37 12:06, 8 September 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:High schools in New Brunswick

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: Diffuse There seem to be a lot of different terms being used here to describe the same thing, which makes finding a consensus harder, but in the end everyone agrees that some content but not all content should be moved from this category to new categories, and this one should be kept as a parent. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'd still like to keep the current category, but the list of pages are, in my opinion, a mess right now. Because New Brunswick is officially English and French, it has a multitude of both English (Anglophone) and French (Francophone) high schools, so I'd like to create categories dividing the schools based on their language to better sort them out. B3251 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 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:Conspiracy theorist 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: Already deleted * Pppery * it has begun... 03:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category of politicians who are "conspiracy theorist" is inherently a violation of BLPCAT. "Do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist" Springee (talk) 20:53, 5 September 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:Songs written for film

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 23#Category:Songs written for film

Category: Television and Production Exponents Inc.

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: C2D - duplicate categories, both created today. TAPE Inc. is the main article, and it appears to be the
WP:COMMONNAME. Wikishovel (talk) 14:16, 5 September 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:German queens consort

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 13#Category:German queens consort

Category:Massey Lectures

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
(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:C2F
, one eponymous page
The
WP:PERFCAT.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 5 September 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:Holloway brooch recipients

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:OVERLAPCAT
Suffragettes who were arrested in London were often detained at HM Prison Holloway. The WSPU gave out the Holloway brooch to recognize core members who had sentences there as part of suffrage jewellery. While these women are not defined by an automatic award, they are defined for being suffragette activists and are all already somewhere under the Category:Suffragettes tree. I previously added any category contents that were not already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. (Alternatively, if we think the underlying prison stay is defining, we could rename and broaden the category to Category:Inmates of HM Prison Holloway.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 5 September 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_September_5&oldid=1176760105"