Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 10

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Megan Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Articles in this eponymous category include the main article, spouse, and a redirect for a character played in a film. Unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The category also includes the list on her awards and nominations. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was added after the nomination was made but not sure how this warrants an eponymous category. This would suggest anyone with a "list of awards" should also have an eponymous category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely understand, and I am not supporting the category. I just wanted to update the rationale, since the awards/nominations list was most likely included after you put this up. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2019 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wicket-keepers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As per the discussion here, this categorisation isn't needed, as it's not a defining characteristic like being a batsman or bowler. So this category and all its subcategories should be deleted (apologies I don't know how to bulk tag them all) Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - bowlers and batsmen were deleted at cfd in 2006. The same arguments apply to wicket-keepers (who certainly bat, if not necessarily well). Oculi (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. It's certainly overcategorization, I'm amazed it outlasted the other deleted categories by 13 years! StickyWicket (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'll tag the sub-cats for deletion later today too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: - I've tagged all the sub-cats and added them to this nomination. If you spot any I've missed, please let me know. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:03, 11 January 2019 (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.

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:14th-century humanists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Humanists by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: 14th-century humanists is another anachronism, like Category:Abbasid humanists nominated below. Once again there is no indication in the article Al-Ṣafadī to indicate why Sugrammr has categorised him as a humanist. "Humanists by century" currently contains only that category, so would become empty when that is deleted. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: these categories, and Category:Abbasid humanists, as well as Category:14th-century academics which was nominated on yesterday's log page, were all created by Sugrammr (talk · contribs). I am inclined to suggest a topic ban on this user, that he be banned from creating categories, although he would be welcome to submit suggestions to the AfC process. I had previously requested this editor to work that way, here on his user talk page, evidently to no avail. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles I added or edited, on prominent C19 orientalists and scholars of the early centuries of Islam, mainly come from a number of voluminous biographical dictionaries and histories of that period. The wealth of Arabic literature awaiting translation, into modern European languages is a daunting prospect. The categories here 'at issue', I created in anticipation of "filling" them myself, or at least beginning the sisyphean task. I had hoped to get further faster. On humanist categories here is a quote from Reynold Alleyne Nicholson in his Literary History Of The Arabs, p.343

"The Basra school of grammarians... is older than the rival school of Kufa and surpassed it in fame. Its most prominent representatives were Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala' (d. 770 a.d.)...; Khalil b. Ahmad, inventor of the Arabic system of metres and author of the first Arabic lexicon (the Kitabu^l-^Ayn...; the Persian Sibawayhi, whose Grammar...is universally celebrated; the great Humanists al-Asma'i and Abu 'Ubayda who flourished under Harun al-Rashid; al-Mubarrad, ...best known work, the Kamil^ has been edited by Professor William Wright; ..al-Sukkari, a renowned collector and critic of old Arabian poetry ; and Ibn Durayd (d. 934 a.d.), a distinguished philologist, genealogist, and poet, who received a pension from the Caliph Muqtadir in recognition of his services on behalf of science..." [1]

This is my area of interest and I try to contribute to the universal project of shared wisdom. Sugrammr (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is interesting stuff. But then how does Reynold Alleyne Nicholson substantiate that al-Asma'i and Abu 'Ubayda distributed humanist ideas? Because in the wikipedia articles, for what it is worth, there is nothing about their assumed humanism. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Unless the Wikipedia articles demonstrate, with citations from WP:Reliable sources, that humanism is WP:DEFINING for individuals, then their articles should not be in the category. Sugrammr, you have suggested other 14th-century humanists in the discussion below, #Category:Abbasid humanists. Petrarch seems beyond argument, but he alone would make a WP:SMALLCAT. Dante Alighieri's article does not mention his "humanism", although I note that there are potential sources for that.[2][3] – Fayenatic London 13:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think we also have to heistate about the use of this term in a long historical setting. In the Renaisance timesw humanist was a term for a type of schoolar, whose work was related to the humnanities, it does not mean the same thing as later when it referred to people who basically rejected belief in God.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2019 (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.

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Abbasid humanists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nothing in the articles Abu Ubaidah (scholar), Al-Asmaʿi or Qudama ibn Ja'far indicates why Sugrammr (talk · contribs) categorised them as humanists. The term was only coined in the 19th century, 300 years after the end of the Abbasid caliphate, so the category name is an anachronism. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Petrarch and Dante, two great figures of pre-Renaissance 'humanist' Europe, also lived hundreds of years before the term was first used, hardly supports your argument. Please leave religion out of this. You write on your page you do not bring your religion into your admin work. It seems to me that you do.Sugrammr (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't mentioned religion here, so presumably you are referring to my tagging the category talk page.[4] I added WP Islam following the parent Category:Abbasid Caliphate, and WP Skepticism because of the present-day meaning of Humanism.

In the discussion above, #Category:14th-century humanists, you have offered a citation from Nicholson [5] for labelling two of these three as humanists. Nicholson evidently meant that as a compliment, but there is still no indication in the articles as to why he used that word for these individuals. It therefore does not appear to be WP:DEFINING. That is probably a stronger ground to go ahead with this nomination for deletion. – Fayenatic London 10:24, 11 January 2019 (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.

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Category:Reformed State churches in Switzerland. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Reformed State churches in Switzerland to Category:Reformed Churches by canton in Switzerland

Nominator's rationale: rename: (a) rename churches to Churches because these are church organisations with Church as part of their proper name; (b) rename State to canton, since canton (country subdivision) is accepted Wikipedia terminology for subdivisions of Switzerland. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT The contents don't really break down by canton. No one canton would have enough for a sub-category. So I propose Category:Reformed Churches in Switzerland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not against the alternative per se, but it looks like every canton has its own Reformed Church. Hence the category breaks down by canton articles rather than by canton subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2019 (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.

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: reverse merge. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Eastern Catholicism in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth to Category:Uniate Church in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, it seems very unlikely that we will ever have articles about Eastern Catholicism in the PLC beyond what it is already in the Uniate Church category. Note, if the categories are merged, that the parenting also should be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge As far as I can tell, "uniate" is a close-to-pejorative term invented by the Orthodox Church. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't aware of that. Reverse merge is equally fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2019 (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.