Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 6

< December 5December 7 >

December 6

Category:People of the Mongol Empire

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (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:Explorers of the United States

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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2012 (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:People from Meixian

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:People from Mei County, Guangdong. The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:People from Meixian to Category:People from Mei County
Nominator's rationale: Mei County is, correctly, titled as such rather than Meixian (because "Xian" merely means "County"). (This is distinct from the situation where cities or counties in China are named -zhou, because "Zhou," as an administrative unit, no longer exists as such as in Chinese administrative divisions.) Rename. (A potential alternative if people think it would make more sense would be "People from Mei.") --Nlu (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2012 (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:Heritage Foundation

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. It satisfies speedy criteria C2D. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The page is The Heritage Foundation, so why isn't the category? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2012 (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:Christians of the Byzantine Empire

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:Byzantine Christians.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is little point to this category: "Byzantine" almost automatically means "Christian" of some denomination or other and hence encompasses the vast majority of the articles in Byzantine people and subcategories. About the only Byzantine people who were not Christians were the Byzantine Jews and the last polytheist pagans. Constantine ✍ 19:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Almost. But not quite. Also, it is restricted to people as opposed to the institutions, structures, buildings or art that may be Christian. For that reason alone it is worth keeping. The main Category:Byzantine Empire is replete with Christian type sub-cats, so some higher order categorisation is especially useful in this cat. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Byzantine Christians, to follow the pattern of Category:Byzantine people and Category:Byzantine Jews. To assume that there were never any Muslim subjects of the Byzantine Empire is just not correct. Anyway we have Category:Israeli Jews, so it is clear that we agree to subdivide religion categories by nationality, no matter how heavy an overlap the categgory may present. Anyway this is the natural parents of say Category:Byzantine bishops.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer to both above. I never said anything about buildings etc. so I don't know where that came from. The fact is that the "Byzantine" identity was a "Christian" identity first and foremost. Byzantium contained little in terms of religious minorities since by 395 when the Empire was split Christianity overwhelmingly dominated the empire and this continued in increased form (Jews excepted) especially after the territorial losses of the 7th century. There was a host of rival Christian sects alongside official Orthodoxy, and of course there were Muslim and pagan subjects, but the latter had a negligible and thoroughly marginalised presence, because if you wanted a state office, you had to be or become Christian. In other words, about 99,99% of "Byzantine" people we are ever going to have an article about, even if we include people known only from their seals or mentioned once in chronicles, are going to be Christian. I can send you volumes on prosopography and you are free to check how many Jews or Muslims you will come across among thousands of names. Comparing with Israel with its third of Arab Muslims, including Knesset members, isn't really an apt comparison, nor is the argument "we agree to subdivide religion categories by nationality" correct because it uses the modern concepts of citizenship and nationality for a wholly different set of circumstances. For instance, we have a Category:People of medieval France, would we really need a "Christians of medieval France" one as well? It goes without saying that there were Jews in medieval France, and possibly a few Muslims in the south, but it also goes without saying that "medieval French person" overwhelmingly equals "Christian". Having a category like this would be correct for pedantry's sake, but for little else. Constantine ✍ 21:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename to Category:Byzantine Christians. I don't really have a strong view on deletion vs. keeping; it's the old Category:Irish Roman Catholics issue—if we have (A) and (B), and 99% of people who are in (A) are also in (B), do we need a category for "As who are Bs"? We probably don't need them, but we certainly do have them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Laurel Lodged. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename As it stands, this is a container category for church people in the Byzantine empire, not just any Christian of the period. As the nomination says, most anyone in the empire can be presumed to be Christian. The category is meaningful and useful as to what it contains (that is, as a church historical category for a certain place and period), but that's not what it says it is. I'm not sure what a good name for it is, but this isn't it. I would also point out that some of the members don't properly belong, such as Category:Patriarchs of Constantinople. Mangoe (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Johnpacklambert's suggestion. Useful parent category. Dimadick (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I cannot see what is wrong with the present title. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Solution in search of a problem. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2012 (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:Regular Show episodes

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. Now empty. JohnCD (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains pages of no notability. Jprg1966 (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete but Await outcome of the AFDs and PRODs on the episodes. If they are deleted (or redirected to the show article, the category can be deleted as empty (or effectively so). If they are kept, I would suggest that they be listed in a navbox and the category still be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like the three articles that remain are likely to either be deleted or redirected to a general article on the various episodes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2012 (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:Vrhunski sportaši i sportski djelatnici

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; category has remained empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not in English and therefore doesn't belong here. Jprg1966 (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2012 (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:Marxist journals

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: keep. As I said in the discussion below, anyone can take an article out of this category if they don't think it belongs, as people have mentioned below about 'self-identifying'. delldot ∇. 05:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category to which this one belonged, "Journals by ideology", was deleted after this CFD. Basically, all arguments for deleting that category also go for this one. Categorizing academic journals by (perceived) ideology is a dicy thing at best and obviously undesirable. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how would creating a category "ideological journals" not equate violating the previous CfD decision to delete "journals by ideology"? If we are going to keep feminist and Marxist journals as separate categories, then the correct name for the category just above would be "Academic journals by ideology", per the naming conventions used in the rest of the category tree. I also find "ideological journals" exceedingly vague. @Alansohn: please note that the "shotgun" nomination for "journals by ideology" was not a delete nomination, but a nomination to rename to "academic journals by ideology", exactly because I anticipated the resistance to deleting Marxist journals and feminist journals. It was the debate participants that did not support a rename but !voted for deletion. But we can't have it both. If we delete "Journals by ideology" because "we don't classify journals by ideology", then I don't see how we can have "Marxist" or "feminist" journals. --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I do (you mean the "x by y" part, I guess). But I see no way around having a cat "academic journals by ideology", if we are going to have categories that categorize journals by ideology. "Ideological journals" doesn't work for me and I don't see an easy alternative ("Academic journals with a stated ideology"???) --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journals describe themselves based on their ideology and outside authorities also group them in this manner. Why should those real-world factors demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic be ignored because of your arbitrary preference? Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one has created or proposed creation of categories for "entertaining journals", "fair journals" or "unbiased journals", nor does there appear to be any third parties that categorize publications as "entertaining", "fair" or "unbiased", while here in reality the journals describe themselves based on their ideology AND outside authorities also group them in this manner. Why should those real-world factors demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic be ignored? Why should the manufactures example of a Bizarro World Marxist sports journal and other nonsensical hypotheticals be used as justifications for deletion of an actual category that groups journals by a strong defining characteristic that exists in the real world? Alansohn (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have long established categories for some of the examples you give of things we don't do. See Category:Christian magazines, Category:Atheism publications. I note that these contain publications ABOUT the topic, not that just happen to be written by people in a group. There is a distinction to be made here about whether a journal is about Marxism or just happens to be published by a Marxist group or have a Marxist slant. --Qetuth (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the journals themselves as well as third parties categorize them in this manner, Wikipedia should use that information as a means of categorization rather than stamp our feet and insist that it just can't be done. Putting the word "not" in quotations doesn't make the argument any more than your own personal opinion, which does not appear to outweigh the real-world facts. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2012 (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:Feminist journals

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: keep. This does not preclude removal of any article from the category that someone feels does not belong there (e.g. journals that do not 'self-identify' as feminist, as someone mentioned below). delldot ∇. 05:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category to which this one belonged, "Journals by ideology", was deleted after this CFD. Basically, all arguments for deleting that category also go for this one. Categorizing academic journals by (perceived) ideology is a dicy thing at best and obviously undesirable. Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journals describe themselves based on their ideology and outside authorities also group them in this manner. Why should those real-world factors demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic be ignored because of your arbitrary preference? Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one has created or proposed creation of categories for "entertaining journals", "fair journals" or "unbiased journals", nor does there appear to be any third parties that categorize publications as "entertaining", "fair" or "unbiased", while here in reality the journals describe themselves based on their ideology AND outside authorities also group them in this manner. Why should those real-world factors demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic be ignored? Why should the manufactures example of a Bizarro World Marxist sports journal and other nonsensical hypotheticals be used as justifications for deletion of an actual category that groups journals by a strong defining characteristic that exists in the real world? Alansohn (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As Alansohn's links show, this is a valid defining characteristic. And I also argue that 'feminism' IS the content matter, not just the ideaology. That this category was previously in a category you didn't like, or created by someone you don't like the work of, does not change this. --Qetuth (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Feminism journals - changing vote per my comments in above nomination - Makes clearer this category is for journals about feminism, not journals written by feminists. -- Qetuth (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2012 (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 by Tim Buppert

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent article Tim Buppert was deleted. Contains only two songs anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:00, 6 December 2012 (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:Organizations based in Rajasthan

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:Organisations based in Rajasthan. I will leave a category redirect on the nominated category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Surplus category. This category appears as a sub category under Category:Organisations based in Rajasthan. It was presumably created when the originator could not find their preferred spelling of organisation. Malcolma (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2012 (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:Norwegian noble persons

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Is there any reason that the "noble persons" cannot simply be placed in the "nobility" category? Right now some are in both categories. There is no overall scheme of Category:Noble persons, and the term seems synonymous with Category:Nobility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2012 (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:People of the Mughal Empire

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (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:Mughal historians

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:Historians in the Mughal Empire. There were 3 supporters of the "from" version, but no objections to the "in" version, and I know that the last people to comment did have reasoned objections to the "from" version. So my thinking is that the thing most people are likely to be ok with is the "in" version. delldot ∇. 05:17, 2 January 2013 (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:People of the Republic of Venice

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (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/2012_December_6&oldid=1144945264"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 6, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.