Login
Login

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 5

< 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)

:* Propose splitting :Category:12th-century women rulers to...

::* :Category:12th-century women regents

::* :Category:12th-century empresses regnant

::* :Category:12th-century queens regnant

::* :Category:12th-century queens consort

::* :Category:12th-century princesses consort

::* :Category:12th-century duchesses consort

::* :Category:12th-century countesses regnant

::* :Category:12th-century countesses consort

::* :Category:12th-century ladies regnant

: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.

{{cot|Proposed split into 9 new categories}}

:; Women regents

:; Empresses consort

:; Queens regnant

:; Queens consort

:; Princess consort

:; Duchesses consort

:; Countesses regnant

:; Countesses consort

:; Ladies regnant

{{cob}}

{{cot|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

{{cob}}

: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)

:

{{resize|91%|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)

  • 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)

:

{{resize|91%|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)

  • Oppose per reasons given under other similar discussions. Marcelus (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • :You can't !vote twice. NLeeuw (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • :How so? The discussion is literally about classification, nothing else. Marcelus (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2023 (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.

== 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 :Category:Chancellors and presidents of New York University. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Presidents of New York University to :Category:Presidents and Chancellors of New York University

: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)

:

{{resize|91%|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)

  • Support per Marcoapelle's suggestion.--User:Namiba 15:38, 6 September 2023 (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.

== 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)

:* Propose upmerging :Category:Germanic history to :Category:Germanic peoples

:Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Essentially same scope, and many of the same subcategories already. Notably, the "main article" Germanic history already redirects to Germanic peoples, so this is almost a WP:C2D. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|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)

----

: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)

:* Propose upmerging :Category:Celtic history to :Category:Celts

:Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT. Essentially the same scope. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

{{cot|Reasoning; you can skip this if you prefer}}

:This last comment by @Jc37 is making me rethink the parentage of the whole tree. One of the key problems is that the Celts as a people or group of peoples ceased to exist in antiquity, and :Category:Celts are therefore categorised as :Category:Ancient peoples of Europe. But as @Marcocapelle correctly pointed out, Celtic languages and 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, :Category:Celtic culture presents a dubious link. The fact that main "article" Celtic culture is a disambiguation page makes it all the more dubious, and seems to confirm my suspicion, namely that it is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT or WP:OCMISC catch-all. (Incidentally, I'm afraid :Category:Celtic topics will also be an 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).

{{cob}}

:::::;Proposed restructuring

:::::The best thing I can come up for now is to make :Category:Ancient Celtic culture the parent of :Category:Celts and :Category:Celtic history (similar to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Ancient_Celtic_culture&oldid=567090146 how it was created 10 years ago]). Everything ancient in :Category:Celtic culture should be moved to :Category:Ancient Celtic culture. Meanwhile, everything to do with Celts (modern) and Celtic Revival, including 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".

::::*;:Category:Celtic culture (disambiguation category; main page = disambiguation page Celtic culture)

:::::* :Category:Celtic languages‎

:::::*:Category:Ancient Celtic culture

:::::** :Category:Celtic archaeological cultures

:::::** :Category:Celtic art‎

:::::** :Category:Bards

:::::** :Category:Celtic Christianity‎

:::::** :Category:Celtic folklore‎

:::::** :Category:Celtic law

:::::** :Category:Pictish culture

:::::** :Category:Ancient Celtic religion‎

:::::** :Category:Ancient Celtic warfare

:::::*:Category:Celtic Revival

:::::** :Category:Celtic films

:::::** :Category:Celtic festivals‎

:::::** :Category:Gaelic culture

:::::** :Category:Celtic music‎

:::::** :Category:Celtic nationalism‎

:::::I think this resolves pretty much all underlying parentage issues. NLeeuw (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

::::::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)

:::::::Because Celts (modern) is in :Category:Celtic Revival. NLeeuw (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  • : 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)
  • ::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)

:

{{resize|91%|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)

  • 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)
  • And to be clear, as far as the original nom, my opinion has not changed - Rename :Category:Celtic history to :Category:History of the Celtic peoples. It's clearer and more precise. - jc37 12:06, 8 September 2023 (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.

== 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)

:* Propose splitting :Category:High schools in New Brunswick to :Category:Anglophone high schools in New Brunswick and :Category:Francophone high schools in New Brunswick

: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)

----

: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)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Conspiracy theorist politicians}}

: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)

  • Delete in the spirit of WP:C1, the category does not contain any articles with "conspiracy theorist" as a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think we should be intersecting conspiracy theorist and occupation. The intersection does not appear WP:DEFINING. And unlike the rest of the subcats of :Category:Conspiracy theorists, which group people by a specific topic of conspiracy theory, this gives no sense of specificity or precision. - jc37 21:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete. We already have :Category:American conspiracy theorists and similar to use where appropriate. The intersection of a conspiracy theorist and the holding of the occupation of politician is not a noteworthy one. Zaathras (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Snow delete because this would link the full spectrum of ideologies under one hardly unifying characteristic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 8 September 2023 (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.

==Category:Songs written for film==

File:Symbol move vote.svg Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 23%23Category: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)

:* Propose merging :Category: Television and Production Exponents Inc. to :Category:TAPE Inc.

: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)

----

: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==

File:Symbol move vote.svg Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 13%23Category: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 :Category:Massey College, Toronto. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

:* Propose Deleting :Category:Massey Lectures

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC and the spirit of WP:C2F, one eponymous page

:The Massey Lectures are given at Massey College which are typically published into books, so there is a well populated :Category:Massey Lectures books subcategory. The only thing directly in this category are the main article and a movie, based on a book, based on a lecture. If that association doesn't sound defining the editors who wrote Payback (2012 film) didn't think so either because the article doesn't even mention the Massey Lectures. (The only real growth potential is to add the speakers, but we've consistently found that categorizing people by individual lecture is WP:PERFCAT.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

:* Upmerging would be ok too, with nearly the same result as deletion in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

:*:Yeah, they're pretty much the same here. Fine with merge. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2023 (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.

== 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)

:* Propose Deleting :Category:Holloway brooch recipients

:Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT, WP:OCAWARD, & 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)

  • againt delation Hello. I'm totally opposed to this proposition : what's the point to mix up "inmates of the prison" (including common law prisonners) and women celebrated by the Women's Social and Political Union, with many references (photographs), a WP article Holloway brooch and books (Elizabeth Crawford for instance : Medals and brooches presented by the WSPU, The Women's Suffrage Movement. A Reference Guide 1866-1928, Londres, Routledge, 2001, p. 306-307. --Pierrette13 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • :No issue for the verifiability with WP:RS. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep, not all arrested suffragettes were in Holloway, not all WSPU members were arrested. So this category is both useful and interesting. Convinced by Pierrette13's plaidoyer.--Cbyd (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BEFORECAT. Due to the need to clarify inclusion - as illustrated above by those wishing to keep - this should be a list rather than a category, per WP:CLN. I would have said Listify, but the list apparently already exists at Holloway brooch#Recipients. - jc37 21:35, 5 September 2023 (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.