Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 18

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Paintings by Jean-Hippolyte Flandrin to Category:Paintings by Hippolyte Flandrin

Nominator's rationale: The French painter Hippolyte Flandrin is universally known mostly by this shorter form of his name, like can be seen in other languages Wikipedias, most museum websites and art history books. So I think the category should move back to the original form, which was correct.Mistico Dois (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per NOM. Mistico Dois (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't need to support your own nomination.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the article was moved accordingly in May 2022, without discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, that was the problem, without discussion! Unfortunately this happened because the article was then named Jean-Hippolyte Flandrin, before being moved to the current form, Hippolyte Flandrin. As you can see by yourself in all the Wikipedias, starting by the French one, the name of the painter always appears as Hippolyte Fladrin. In the French and Italian language categories about his paintings his name also appears in that form. Unlike other French painters, like Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres and Jean-François Millet, Hippolyte Flandrin is usually known by this shorter form of his name. You can see it, for example in the Louvre website: [1] Mistico Dois (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename — to match main article, and the rest of the world.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:German white supremacists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A while back I objected to the "white nationalist" category on Hitler's article on the basis that it was anachronistic and that the modern conception of white nationalism was derived from Nazism, not the other way around, and although we broadly agreed that we shouldn't categorize him as a white nationalist, terming him as a white supremacist was never fully agreed upon. This one-person category was created as a result of that discussion, despite that there was an objection by User:Paul Siebert that it was also incorrect to call him a white supremacist.

I believe that we should have a discussion once again over whether or not it is a appropriate to call Hitler and Nazis (pre-1945) as white supremacists at all. Yes, Neo-Nazis use the word "white" instead of Aryan and stress the importance that all non-Jewish European races are racially equal, but Nazism itself had a clear racial hierarchy of European races and the concept of Aryanness is similar, but clearly not the same as whiteness. Searching[[2]] both google and scholars for the connection of white supremacy with Nazism yields mostly postwar sources discussing neo-Nazi movements and hate groups in America rather than the actual Nazis themselves. From my interpretation of Wikipedia policy, it is improper synthesis to describe white supremacy as a component of Nazi ideology rather than a closely related phenomenon, and unless if we get sources proving a scholarly consensus that it is, then we should remove it from the Hitler article and delete this category for having no individual entries. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it is not a characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing Hitler or any other Nazis during WWII. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per NOM.Mistico Dois (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — and agree that Adolf Hitler and sub-category articles should be edited accordingly, although that would be a fair amount of work.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2023 (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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Roman-era satirists to Category:Satirists from the Roman Empire Category:Ancient Roman satirists

Nominator's rationale: Previously a subcategory of Category:Roman-era poets, but not all satire is also poetry. Some people need to be in both.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt Category:Ancient Roman satirists, some of them were from the republican era. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Heck, there is only one, not enough for a Roman Republic category. OK, dump them all under Ancient Roman for now.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt "Roman-era" is ugly to British English ears, American and ambiguous, & I will usually support noms to move away from it when alerted to them. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2023 (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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Roman-era poets to Category:Ancient Roman poets

Nominator's rationale: Re-parent to match contents. These are sub-categorized by 1st century, etc.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt Category:Ancient Roman satiristsCategory:Ancient Roman poets, some of them were from the republican era. Also, aligning with parent Category:Ancient Roman writers. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would you put poets into satirists? (Copy and paste error?) What the heck is a roman republic person doing under roman-era? That's hellenistic-era! Better to carefully split the category.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Poets indeed, not satirists. The whole "era" thing is confusing for ancient Romans. The term Hellenistic era is mainly used in the Middle East after the conquests of Alexander the Great. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hellenistic-era ends at Roman Empire, also called Roman-era. Obviously, some editors are confused by "era". Categorize by country, not era. What's semantically confusing is that Ancient Roman is catch-all for millennia prior to European Middle Ages, instead of ancient before Roman Republic (like most other ancient meaning pre-history). Western european-centric ignorant self-indulgence. But that's tradition!
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, but it is very rare to refer to the Roman Republic as "Hellenistic." Scholars use the term for the Middle East, Greece, sometimes Sicily (and Prag and Quinn Hellenistic West 2013 tried to push the definition of the term to encompass Carthage, Spain and non-Roman Italy, but the whole point of that book was that this is not the common meaning of "Hellenistic"). "Roman-era" remains ambiguous, because it really does mean something different, whether you're talking about Italy (500s BC-500s AD), Greece (146 BC-500s? AD), or Egypt (31 BC-641 AD). This is fine for many purposes, but awkward for categorisation, which isn't really designed for ambiguity.

  Category:Ancient Roman poets or Category:Poets from the Roman Empire are both reasonable possibilities, but they are different things from one another - the former excludes non-Romans within the Empire, the latter excludes Republicans.

  I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to categorise by language, which is after all the most defining distinction for scholars of classical literature? Say, Category:Latin poets or Category:Classical Latin poets? The scope of this would be perfectly clear and they could then be integrated into the Category:Classical Latin-language writers tree and it would parallel Category:Ancient Greek poets. I see this has already been done for historians: Category:Latin historians) and not sure whether it is extendable to philosophers, since they weren't always authors, but it might be the best solution there, too. Furius (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Modified nomination accordingly. Adding language would be good, but a separate effort that has already been started. (See Greek-language nomination below.)
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "Roman-era" is ugly to British English ears, American and ambiguous, & I will usually support noms to move away from it when alerted to them. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2023 (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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hotels in Fort Lauderdale, Florida to Category:Buildings and structures in Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT with no objection toward recreation if a substantial number of articles are created. User:Namiba 14:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for Now If/when 5+ articles are created, no objection to recreating. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2023 (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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sugar barons to Category:Businesspeople in the sugar industry

Nominator's rationale: Subjective term which has no correlating article, i.e. sugar baron. User:Namiba 14:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, unclear how this subcategory distinguishes itself from its parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Subjective distinction. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2023 (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: merge.

• Category:Ancient Roman political philosophers to Category:Political philosophers and Category:Roman-era philosophers
• Category:Roman-era philosophers to Category:Ancient Roman philosophers (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Roman-era philosophers to Category:Ancient Roman philosophers

Nominator's rationale: Apparently, editors are not careful enough to remember the history, so dump them all into the umbrella category.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt merge to Category:Ancient Roman philosophers, the difference between the two categories is not clear. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless you are planning on expunging the Roman Empire, there's a huge difference. Ancient Roman is an umbrella category spanning millennia. Longstanding categorization is by country, not dumping everything into umbrella categories. We only do that when the category is too small. (I've just done a deep dive into our renaming from Imperial Roman to Roman Empire and of to from for all these people categories.)
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It is perfectly in line with Category:Ancient Romans by occupation. Ancient Rome took 1000 years to develop and to decline but would that be a problem? Cutting in half between Republic and Empire may be convenient for our categorization but it is not justified by historical circumstances. Ancient Rome was already a large empire (without capital) before there was any emperor and the internal political transition from republic to empire was very gradual. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed nomination to match.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge to Category:Ancient Roman philosophers - this solution covers any confusion on overlapping eras - car chasm (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2023 (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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ancient Roman philosophy studies to Category:Ancient Roman philosophy or Category:Roman-era philosophy

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. The target depends on the discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Ancient Roman philosophy for now — this WP:SMALLCAT consists of one sub-Category:Scholars of ancient Roman philosophy. Unfortunately, the articles there are mixed. Most are Roman Empire, but some are general classicists (Latin and Greek). Those don't belong in Roman-era. Until things are better delineated, best to move them to the matching parent.
  William Allen Simpson (talk)

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Roman-era philosophy to Category:Ancient Roman philosophy

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, largely overlapping categories. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Philosophy in the Roman Empire. "Roman-era" is only "Roman Empire", and we already have a well-developed tree under Category:Roman Empire (Government of, History of, Religion in).
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Ancient Roman philosophy — apparently, editors are not careful enough to remember the history, so dump them all into the umbrella category.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - this makes sense to me, having an umbrella category will hopefully cut down on some miscategorization as well. - car chasm (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Merge "Roman-era" is ugly to British English ears, American and ambiguous, & I will usually support noms to move away from it when alerted to them. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:IIM Alumni to Category:Indian Institutes of Management alumni

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category, one article of which is already in the parent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the other article is now in a subcat of the target. Oculi (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete — probably need to make a careful merge comparison before deleting.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Skydance Media work group articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Skydance Media articles by importance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:High-importance Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Low-importance Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Mid-importance Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:NA-importance Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Top-importance Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Unknown-importance Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Skydance Media articles by quality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:B-Class Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:C-Class Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Category-Class Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Disambig-Class Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Draft-Class Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:File-Class Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:GA-Class Skydance Media rticles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:List-Class Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Project-Class Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Redirect-Class Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Start-Class Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Stub-Class Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Template-Class Skydance Media articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These categories were created for Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Skydance Media work group, but the taskforce had been improperly created without prior discussion (full background here). After two weeks of radio silence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Skydance Task Force, it became clear that there is not enough interest to warrant the creation of such a taskforce, so it was marked as defunct. The above categories never worked and have been empty for weeks, since the proper code were never even added to {{WikiProject Animation}} or {{WikiProject Film}}, and they will remain empty for the forseeable future unless the taskforce is revived (unlikely, given the creator has been indeffed for WP:CIR issues). There is no reason for these categories to continue existing, as they serve no purpose. Not eligible for C1 as they're tagged as do-not-delete. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all not needed, as per nom's comprehensive explanation. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2023 (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.