Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 17#Grammarians categories

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:People of former Dutch colonies‎ to :Category:People of the Dutch Empire‎

:Nominator's rationale: rename. People of former Dutch colonies is ambiguous, as it might refer e.g. to 21st-people of New York. People of the Dutch Empire is more to the point. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Rename -- This is a container category, largely to house historic categories. :Category:People of Dutch colonies‎ will cover the subject well. There are (I think) still a few Dutch overseas territories, but does that matter? New York is a example, as it only became New York when the British conquered the New Netherlands. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

:* No fundamental objection against alternative rename. However the category is part of the :Category:Dutch Empire tree, so it might be better to propose a rename of this entire tree in a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 :Category:Middle-earth redirects. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Middle-earth food and drink to :Category:Middle-earth food and drink redirects

:Nominator's rationale: The parent category and the contents indicate that this is a category for redirects. Such categories normally contain the word "redirects". Alternatively this could be upmerged to :Category:Middle-earth redirects. DexDor ^(talk) 20:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Upmerge: We don't need a special category for a grand total of four fictional foodstuffs.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, the content of the category is coming from just a single article and I don't think we should have redirect categories for every article. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete/Opposed to Merge or Rename All 4 of these redirects point to 1 article: List of Middle-earth food and drink. I don't object to using redirects in categories, but when they just list the same article over and over again it doesn't aid navigation. See here for a similar category we deleted. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

::As long as we have :Category:Middle-earth redirects then don't these 4 redirects belong in it? In the linked CFD perhaps there wasn't such a parent category. DexDor ^(talk) 05:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

::* Presumably they belong there. Although I wonder with this (and in fact all) maintenance categories, how can we check if it is used for maintenance at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

:::: I'm all in favor of section redirects going in categories where the overall article doesn't belong, but there's a section that does that might become a future article. For instance, I added Illio yearbook to :Category:Yearbooks. And I'm cool with administrative "Redirects with possibilities". But this is grouping redirects under a more generic topic tree (Middle Earth redirects) which has thousands of members when the target of those redirects is already easier to find in the actual Middle Earth tree so I don't understand the navigation benefit. Maybe there's an administrative function I'm missing here? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

::::: Just guessing, maybe some editors pick these redirects in random order (or in alphabetic order) in order to expand it to a full article. Who knows? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters}}

:Nominator's rationale: This is a very similar category to :Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters, which was previously deleted (multiple times I believe, along with variants to its naming). This should be as well. All characters in the cat are comic book characters that make an appearance on the show, with Coulson created for the MCU films, and one wholly original, Jemma Simmons. Here's are two of the previous CfD discussions related to this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_27#Category:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_characters and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_25#Category:Characters_that_appear_in_the_MCU. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Listify per previous consensus decision on similar MCU category.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• To note, there is already two lists that apply to this cat: List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Delete ambiguous naming. "Agent of SHIELD" is used as an undertitle in many comic books, and SHIELD is a fictional organization with agents, so the meaning of this category is not clear. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 pages but not sub-cats of :Category:Grammarians into appropriate sub-cats of :Category:Linguists

:* split :Category:Grammarians by language to :Category:Grammarians by ancient language and :Category:Linguists by language of study.

: Follow-up speedy nominations would be needed to merge/rename :Category:Grammarians by nationality and its subcats to :Category:Linguists by nationality and its subcats, and to rename the modern language sub-cats of :Category:Linguists by language of study to "linguists". For the record, my edits which implemented this are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fayenatic_london&dir=prev&offset=20151111100817&limit=129&target=Fayenatic+london here]. – Fayenatic London 10:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose splitting :Category:Grammarians to :Category:Grammarian linguists and :Category:Pre-modern grammarians

:Nominator's rationale: This category and its subcategories (:Category:Grammarians by nationality, :Category:Grammarians by language, and sub-sub-categories thereof) are conflating at least three things:

• Linguist who specializes in grammar; we can also include linguists' predecessors, the philologists, unless we really want to categorize them separately (the lines blur enough I would not want to try).
• Pre-modern writer of a grammar, i.e. a prescriptive codification of a language (we have articles on various groups of these: Alexandrine grammarians, Biblical grammarians, Sanskrit grammarian, and many individual bios)
• Grammarian (Greco-Roman world) (an educational role).

The problems are twofold:

1. These roles are being mixed in the same category tree.
2. Most of the linguists are not strictly grammarians by exclusive specialty, and should be classified as linguists, but the parent categories for them do not exist (that is, subcategories of :Category:Linguists, arranged by language).

What I think needs to happen is that the vast majority of modern bios in these categories need to be in category structures like: :Category:Linguists of Spanish, etc., with no :Category:Grammarians of Spanish, etc., except where there are sufficient articles about grammar-specialist linguists in the language to justify such a subtopic. {{em|In most cases the existing "Grammarians of {{var|X}}" categories can simply be renamed "Linguists of {{var|X}}",}} with zero to a small handful of articles needs to be recategorized in the process for any of them. For the pre-modern bios, they should be classified by era (ancient/classical, medieval, etc.) under "Pre-modern grammarians", e.g. "Category:Medieval grammarians". We would want to merge :Category:Medieval linguists into it (or just rename the latter to the former), as it is misnomer (linguistics did not exist in that period), and its contents would overlap almost completely. Anyone who qualifies as a Grammarian (Greco-Roman world) but not as a grammarian in the sense of a writer of a pre-modern grammatical treatise, should be classified as an ancient educator, not a grammarian at all.

I'm not listing or tagging every potentially affected category; this is just an initial discussion of how to clean up this collision of distinct topics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Both grammar and philology could be considered subgroups of linguistics (in it's broader, modern sense). (Note: There are colleges and universities which currently give degrees for philology.) So I think our guide should be: :Category:Linguists by field of research. Grammarian needs to be more tightly defined. Per [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grammarian dictionary.com]: a person who claims to establish or is reputed to have established standards of usage in a language. with everyone else merged/renamed to the appropriate linguist cat, though with the ancient Greek exception you note above. - jc37 18:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment For what it is worth we have :Category:Philologists which includes :Category:21st-century philologists and several other centuries as well as 56 by nationality sub-cats. The 21-st century cat is very small, but probably could be expanded considering there are lots of articles in the main cat, and it is quite possible many of the articles in by country cats are not in by century ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Ok, so to help someone close this: Rename/Merge :Category:Grammarians to :Category:Linguists. (Though not the subcats, which are already subcatted in child cats.) Rename/Merge :Category:Grammarians by nationality and its subcats to :Category:Linguists by nationality and its subcats. Rename :Category:Grammarians by language to :Category:Grammarians by ancient language, and purge. (See also: :Category:Linguists by language group of study (which I was tempted to suggest merging to) and :Category:Philologists by subject, both of which are subcats of :Category:Scholars by specialty or field of research. Hope this helps : ) - jc37 11:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Not really eligible for a speedy deletion since the category is not empty, but since there has been no objection after several weeks ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Abstract Figurative}}

:Nominator's rationale: Article associated with this category has been deleted. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• List it for speedy deletion, then.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Swedish banjoists}}

:Nominator's rationale: Category has no page (in fact, adding the deletion template forced me to create the page). Category has only one member, Björn Ulvaeus, for whom being a banjoist doesn't come close to being defining - the only mentions of "banjo" on the page are in the infobox and in this category. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 09:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. If anyone wants to start a sourced list, the contents of the category at deletion was Samuel Beckett, Cynan Jones, James Joyce, Saadat Hasan Manto, and Cormac McCarthy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

----

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Writers who use less punctuation}}

:Nominator's rationale: This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a writer, in the sense that would be necessary to justify a category for it — for example, while any coverage of Cormac McCarthy will virtually always state that he's an {{cl|American novelists}} regardless of its content, his use of punctuation is a characteristic that will certainly get mentioned in sources that are specifically about analyzing his prose style, but is not routinely mentioned as a basic biographical detail in sources that aren't expressly about that specific thing in particular. We should not be categorizing writers by every individual stylistic quirk that might be present in their work, lest we open the door to categories like {{cl|Writers who don't use capitalization}} for e.e. cummings, and {{cl|Writers who tend to overuse em-dashes}} for Timothy Findley. An article about deviation from conventional punctuation in prose writing might be an interesting thing, and these writers could certainly be named in it as notable examples of the phenomenon, but it's not suitable for a category. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:DEFINING and because it's totally subjective and undefinable ("less" than what?).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Rename/Listify Rename the category to :Category:Writers who used alternative dialogue conventions or :Category:Writers who marked dialogue without quotes, which would be more to the point and a better defining characteristic as per WP:DEFINING. Cormac McCarthy is known for a few unusual style choices, foremost being the lack of quotations for dialogue. If you delete this category, then you will be forced to delete :Category:Writers_who_illustrated_their_own_writing and :Category:Kidnapped_writers for failing the same criteria to the same degree! Otherwise the deletion is inconsistent. A list or article on the topic may be better. As far as opening the door for categories on other writers of unusual stylistic bent, most of those don't flout the conventions of written fiction, they simply use or don't use certain features! The exception is "lack of capitalization", for which Cummings is known and could be a category. --Honestly, Bodhi (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Listify While I doubt we can even have a proper category about writers by writing style, there might be enough of them for a sourced list. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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:Dishes by main ingredient to :Category:Prepared foods by main ingredient and also merge :Category:Food by ingredient into that new category. No consensus for now on :Category:Breads by ingredient, :Category:Seeded breads, and :Category:Sesame seed breads, but they can be nominated again, if desired, for a more focused discussion on them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

----

:* Propose Deleting :Category:Food by ingredient

::* Propose Deleting :Category:Breads by ingredient

:::* Propose Deleting :Category:Seeded breads

::::* Propose Dual Upmerging :Category:Sesame seed breads to :Category:Sesame dishes and :Category:Breads

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT

:This tree duplicates the very large and developed Category:Dishes by main ingredient tree. These 4 categories only group 2 articles: Bagel is incorrectly in :Category:Seeded breads (not all bagels have seeds) and Ka'ak is in the bottom category. The pre-existing category tree is better named because the main ingredient is more defining than any minor ingredient in food. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: Notified Lagoset as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support food category. Some food is not a dish, as a bread, sandwich, fruits and so on. Really, dishes are a subcategory of food. On the other hand, as said in the lead section of the article, bagels are often topped with seeds baked on the outer crust, with the traditional ones being poppy, sunflower or sesame seeds. Also in the other article is said that Ka'ak refers to a bread commonly consumed throughout the Near East that is made in a large ring-shape and is covered with sesame seeds.--Lagoset (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Lagoset}} Clarification Can you confirm you support my nomination to delete the categories you created? (Your analysis seems to suggest we disagree and I want to make sure the closing admin considers your view.) RevelationDirect (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

::: Ha,ha,ha, no. :-) But think this talk is very constructive. Good work.--Lagoset (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Merge. Lagoset is correct that "dish" is too narrow; "Food" is a singular we wouldn't use, so just merge them as "Foods by main ingredient". Agreed with nominator that main is the key thing, since it obviates trivial intersections (I've had beer with chili peppers, with chocolate, with spruce, with grapefruit, etc., but we do not want weird intersectional subcats like "Beverages with hot peppers", etc. If we want to keep "foods" in the sense of foodstuffs separate from "dishes" made of foodstuffs, well I give up and go with delete.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

:: {{ping|SMcCandlish}} I tagged :Category:Dishes by main ingredient so your proposal can be considered by the closing admin (and I'm fine with your rename of the top category to Foods by main ingredients). Note that the child catgories (:Category:Eggplant dishes, :Category:Lemon dishes); any thoughts on what they should be named? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

::: "Lemon dishes" category is really "lemon dishes and beverages". But by now, they both can be as they are today. --Lagoset (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Potential Compromise I pity the closing admin that looks at this cordial conversation and tries to figure out what to do so here's some guidance:

:* Merge :Category:Food by ingredient to :Category:Dishes by main ingredient

:* Rename :Category:Dishes by main ingredient to :Category:Foods by main ingredient

:* Leave the other 3 categories for now

:This gives us 1 category tree with a name that makes sense. (Some of us will still have concerns about lemon and seeded subcategories, but they can be dealt with later.) Of course other editors may come along and have other ideas below, but I think this reflects the conversation above. ({{ping|SMcCandlish|Lagoset}}, correct me if I'm wrong.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep :Category:Breads by ingredient, possibly as :Category:Bread by ingredient. The main grain of bread may be wheat, barley, rye, or even bean flour, so that there is probably a case for developing such a category and populating it. No strong view on the rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Merge/Rename/ReOrg per User:RevelationDirect. However, an apple is food. I think what we're looking at is: prepared foods. See also :Template:Lists of prepared foods. So the final cat name would be :Category:Prepared foods by main ingredient. Which allows for cooked and uncooked, baked breads and eggplant dishes, and so on.- jc37 18:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• : Once we get down to one category tree--instead of two rival ones--we can always fine tune the category names. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::No need, when we have this discussion right here. Let me phrase it differently, if this helps clarity: Merge both :Category:Food by ingredient and :Category:Dishes by main ingredient to :Category:Prepared foods by main ingredient per Lists of prepared foods and :Template:Lists of prepared foods. - jc37 08:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::: That works for me. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. — ξ^xplicit 06:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose upmerging :Category:Leaders in various Latter Day Saint denominations to :Category:Latter Day Saint leaders

:Nominator's rationale: Propose upmerging to parent. This is essentially a "remainders" category, which is recommended against in the guidelines. These leaders of the smaller Latter Day Saint groups can simply be housed in {{cat|Latter Day Saint leaders}} or one of its appropriate subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Upmerge per nom. Name is silly anyway; every denomination qualifies under "various", and it can also imply that each individual must have led multiple denominations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment -- I understand the LDS to have splinter denominations, apart from the mainstream one. I think this is trying to bring together the leaders of the splinter groups. If so, it may be better not to merge (which will lose us data) but to split the category by denomination. If that leads to small categories they can then be merged to a denominational one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

:* I don't think we would lose any data by the merge, since :Category:Leaders in various Latter Day Saint denominations is only parented to :Category:Latter Day Saint leaders and there aren't currently any single articles in the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

::*Yeah, that's right--a merge will be fine, as far as I can see. There is already a number of by-group subcategories (eg, {{cat|Community of Christ leaders}} and {{Cat|Mormon fundamentalist leaders}}). So many of the smaller short-lived splinter groups only had one notable leader, so apart from what's already been done it's not really worth splitting them into separate groups. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Merge This is a bit confusing since both "LDS Church" and "Mormon Church" in usage in all publications refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just as much as "Catholic Church" in publications refers to the Roman Catholic Church. I would argue in both category trees we have let pedantry trump the principals of common name. However as it stands now :Category:Latter Day Saint leaders is a non-specific to denomination head category, while :Category:Leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is covering what would be called "Mormon leaders" or "Latter-day Saint leaders" in any reference in any newsmedia and post-first reference in most scholarly works. Thinking about this some more, I think we should more clearly delineate off :Category:Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the fact it doesn't exist may prove problematic) for those not in the Mormon Church, just as we do not try to put American Roman Catholics and American Liberal Catholics in the same category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• There is {{Cat|The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints members}}, though it's really just a container category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

----

: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.