Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 6
= July 6 =
==[[:Category:Colonels]]==
==[[:Category:South-East Asian historians]] to [[:Category:Historians of Southeast Asia]]==
==[[:Category:Philosophers by language]]==
===[[:Category:German-language philosophers]]===
These were created just the other day and are barely populated. The existing categories by country, by era, by subject are and by tradition are perfectly adequate, generating a large number of cateogories in some cases, especially when one takes into account that some philosophers are quite a few non-philosophy categories as well, so these ones are category clutter. The justifications put forward in defence of them are just as marginal as the case for classifying people by language as a general practice. Chicheley 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both Chicheley 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. While it makes sense to also subdivide by language in the case of writers (including songwriters) and orators (including singers) I can't see where it would make sense for other professions such as philosophers. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. Osomec 02:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. See following discussion, copied from Category Talk: German Philosophers:
The Jews on this list should be removed... They are not considered Germans
* Says you! They, most likely, considered themselves Germans.
Yikes. This does bring up one question I've had, namely: who is a "German" "philosopher"? Wouldn't it be easier, more pragmatic, and more inclusive to have a list (or category) of people who wrote German-language philosophy? For example, Salomon Maimon wrote very important German-language philosophy around 1800. (Kant said he was one of the only people who understood him.) But Maimon would by no means have identified himself as German: he was a Lithouanian Jew, and German was not his first language. But according to the title of this category (German philosophers), one would have to exclude this important German-language philosopher on ethnic grounds. I will hereby call for discussion on this, but I move that the category be renamed. I might actually suggest the following, as less cumbersome than "Writers of German-language philosophy"... How about "German-language philosophers"? I think that would be useful for categorizing, but also not exclusionary in unsavory ways. Universitytruth 20:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Another rather significant test case is Immanuel Kant. If you define German philosopher as 'a philosopher from Germany,' then you have to exclude Kant. Who in their right mind would want to do that? The town where he was born, then called Koenigsberg, was part of East Prussia, which was part of the Holy Roman Empire. It was not part of Germany then. Today, the city is called Kaliningrad and is part of Russia. So is Kant a Russian philosopher? No. One could call him a Prussian philosopher, but that doesn't help either. You see? My point is that the most pragmatic thing to do is to sort German philosophy by the language in which it was written. Then there is no problem including Kant. There is also then no problem including Salomon Maimon, a Lithuanian Jew who was not ethnically German, not a German citizen, but wrote important philosophy in the German language.
It seems to me that what most people care about is important philosophy written in German, as opposed to written by philosophers with German blood or with a German passport. Since Germany has only existed since 1871, and has only existed with its current borders since 1991, sorting according to nation will *create* category problems. That's what I'm trying to avoid. I'd be interested in hearing responses from Chicheley, Caerwine, and Osomec. If anyone has alternate suggestions that can deal with the concerns I raise, I'm open to discussing them. Thanks! Universitytruth 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is of course the problem with what to do with changing borders over time. Actually for Kant, it would be easy to say that he was a German philosopher had he lived in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, but East Prussia which remained outside the of borders of the Holy Roman Empire, tho it had gained independence from Poland by then. In the absence of a Prussian philosopher category, German is the best fit, tho truly I do think we need the whole series of Prussian categories. On the other hand, Salomon Maimon is not a problem since he did his philosophizing in Berlin, so he clearly falls under the moniker of German. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it is simpler to follow English usage and consider the state of Brandenburg/Prussia always part of Germany, as it began, and unquestionably became again in 1815. The thought of categorizing Heine in {{cl|Prussian poets}} is just wrong. Septentrionalis 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Resignation (in the stoic sense).Isee my suggestion is not popular, andam willing to concede this point. I would like to ask, though, if it would be appopriate to add a sentence or two to the page of the {{cl|German philosophers}} clarifying that geography plus language, rather than passport-holding, is the sorting mechanism? (By the way, Voltaire was in Berlin for a while himself. Not a German philosopher, though.) Cheers, Universitytruth 23:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)- That's what the statements on cat pages are for; I'd support this. Septentrionalis 00:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- It really isn't necessary because I am convinced that almost everyone takes it for granted. There is no such statement on :Category:German people itself. Universitytruth just has an unusual mindset. Sumahoy 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. Wikipedia uses a pragmatic approach, and we should stick with it. Universitytruth focuses on academic niceties but the purpose of the category system is to provide easy navigability. Sumahoy 01:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep both The category is not German philosophers, but German-language philosophers. I see nothing wrong with categorizing philosophers by the languages in which they wrote. This seems more useful than categorizing them by their nationality. -- Samuel Wantman 09:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Although I have already conceded the point (a day before Sumahoy felt it necessary to speculate on my mindset), I would like to thank Septentrionalis for seconding the suggestion to make a short statement on the cat page, which I have since done. I am actually profoundly interested in the pragmatics of searching and categorizing. It seems to me that most people wanting to learn about philosophy would want to know whether something is written in Latin, French, or German, rather than what sort of blood coursed through the veins of Baumgarten or Leibniz. That is, in the case of philosophers, there is I think at least as much interest in the texts they wrote as there is in their persons. I was trying to make a positive suggestion to help people sort through texts. Meanwhile, I think that a qualifying statement on the cat page for German philosophers can address the concerns I raised. Thanks to all for substantive discussion on this point. Cheers, Universitytruth 17:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep both - per SamuelWantman. I do not believe Universitytruth is making too fine technical distinction here. German-language philosophers probably influenced other German-language philosophers more than they have influenced French-speaking ones, for instance. Similarly, philosophers from colonial situations or from nations generally considered "provincial" often did not write in their native language. Tran Duc Thao is an excellent example - who would have heard of him in the West if he had written in Vietnamese? Is it any surprise that he had currency in France (whose language he wrote in) more than in Germany or England? The Finnish-Swede Georg Henrik von Wright published in four different languages, reflecting his academic tenure (England), nationality (Finnish), native tongue (Swedish) and philosophical tradition (German - he was an expert in Wittgenstein). I think Tran Duc Thao clearly demonstrates a need for these language categories, while von Wright illustrates a potential problem (loads of categories for a handful of philosophers) but still demonstrates their potential usefulness (there clearly are traditions that "stay in the language" more than in the nationality). TheGrappler 21:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think both sides make a fairly good argument and both solutions presented are reasonnable provided they are handled correctly. In particular I find it very important to note that a creation of a German-language category should not be used as the perfect excuse for removing Jewish philosophers from the German philosopher category! Pascal.Tesson 21:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I quite agree. But the fact that a dual categorization system might encourage abuse of another categorization system shouldn't really be deciding factor in deciding whether this system stands or falls on its own merits. TheGrappler 02:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree as well. My interest in creating the language-based category was to be as inclusive as possible, though I recognize that Alexander Baumgarten would not be in the German-language philosophers category, though he would be in the German philosophers category. But that's fine, I think. Obviously, many philosophers would exist in both categories. But since language and nationality don't always overlap, I think the existence of this second category will help wikipedia to be more inclusive, and to do so rationally. I can also assure you that I'll keep my eye on the German philosophers category... (Have retracted my retraction based on recent comments by Samuel Wantman, TheGrappler, and Pascal.Tesson.) Universitytruth 04:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- New Comment. One advantage to keeping this new cat is that we could have the Austrian, German, and Swiss philosophers listed in the same category! Universitytruth 05:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- This just in from the German wikipedia. Note that the article German literature redirects to German-language literature, which begins with this sentence: "Der Begriff deutschsprachige Literatur, aus geschichtlichen Gründen manchmal auch deutsche Literatur, bezeichnet alle literarischen Werke, die in deutscher Sprache verfasst wurden." Translation: "The concept of German-language literature, for historical reasons sometimes also German literature, refers to all literary works composed in the German language." If this is how the German wikipedia site regards things, why wouldn't we attempt to learn from them? Any thoughts on this? Best, Universitytruth 19:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Sorry, I'm conflating discussions about literature and philosophy. Still, I think the point could be well taken. Will investigate German wikipedia now to see what it does with German vs. German-language philosophers/philosophy. Universitytruth 19:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. It's a semi-confused state on the German wikipedia page. The lists there do include "German-language philosophers" and "English-language philosophers," but then other lists are happily nationalistic with their "French philosophers" and so forth. And the list of "German-language philosophers" includes Leibniz and Baumgarten, who may have been German language speakers when they bought bread at the baker's, but who wrote philosophy only in French and Latin. I am more and more convinced that by having separate categories (nationality, region, language) to sort, we can create categories and lists that let people find what they are actually looking for. So if someone is looking for influential Germans in philosophy, one list (and category) can take them to Leibniz (languages of his philosophical works: French and Latin), Baumgarten (language of his philosophical works: Latin) and Kant (languages of his philosophical works: Latin and German). But if someone is looking to read influential philosophy written in German, then a different list (and category) can take them to Maimon (nationality: Lithuanian), Kant (nationality: East Prussian), and Wittgenstein (nationality: Austrian), all of whom wrote in German. Universitytruth 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keepish, there is a relevant difference between German ethnic identification and German language, obviously. I posit that both are relevant to this encyclopedia. German (ethnic) philosophers have written in French as well because it was often seen as a more important language for philosophy. I do see the point from the German Wikipedia that German philosophy does tend to also refer to the language... So, I'm not particular about the nomenclature of our categorization. If German philosophy is a linguistic distinction then we can do Ethnic German philosophers for philosophers who are typically considered to be ethnically German. Either way... but it is a valuable distinction and one that should be made explicit. It's also more important for contemporary philosophy than it was for modern philosophy because many Germans write in English. gren グレン 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the ethnic identifications of philosophers obviously would be foolish to use as categorization when there are philosophers who existed before there was such an ethnic ID or national identity. Homagetocatalonia 14:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
==[[:Category:Lyric legend]] and [[:Category:Lyric fairy tale]]==
==[[:Category:IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue stations]]==
==[[:Category:Current British colonies]] ==
==[[:Category:Convention centers in Canada]] to [[:Category:Convention centres in Canada]]==
==[[:Category:Ancient Constructions of Sri Lanka]] and [[:Category:Ancient constructions of Sri Lanka]]==
==[[:Category:Young Entrepreneurs]] to [[:Category:Child entrepreneurs]]==
==Defunct New York City Subway categories==
===Categories for defunct New York City Subway services===
- :Category:Defunct BMT services
- :Category:Defunct BMT-IND services
- :Category:Defunct IRT services
- Delete all. Same situation as at #Categories for defunct New York City Subway lines. Categories replaced with :Category:Defunct New York City Subway services. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete/merge to :Category:Defunct New York City Subway services per nom. David Kernow 10:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
===Categories for defunct New York City Subway lines===
- :Category:Defunct BMT lines
- :Category:Defunct IND lines
- :Category:Defunct IRT lines
- Delete all. These categories were formerly used to categorize defunct New York City Subway lines. The three categories simply segregated the three divisions (BMT, IND, and IRT); each had no more than four articles. I have recategorized all member articles into :Category:Defunct New York City Subway lines; and thus these now-useless categories should be deleted. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per Larry V. Alphachimp talk 14:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Marc Shepherd 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. The larger category is more useful since the article titles have BMT, IND and IRT in them. --Usgnus 06:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per above. David Kernow 10:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.