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.
Nominator's rationale: This category currently places many articles that are not about fiction (e.g. St. Elmo's fire, Swallow tattoo, HMS Bounty, Sargasso Sea, List of United States Marine Corps acronyms and expressions) under several fiction categories which is incorrect categorization. It appears that this category is being used as if it was a miscellaneous category (e.g. see Fothering). We don't have a structure of "lore" categories and we don't have a clear definition of what pages belong in a lore category. I propose purging this category of all articles about real ships (HMS Victory etc) as we have other categories (e.g. Category:Individual sailing vessels) for such ships and then upmerging the rest - with a possibility of creating a more tightly defined subcategory of Maritime culture in the future. DexDor(talk)21:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a somewhat subjective but useful grouping. It should be trimmed a bit, perhaps removing all actual individual ships, but I can't see any benefits in merging it. If people want something to do in this area, the category structure for actual (individual) sailing ships seems a complete and utter mess. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What should the inclusion crieria and parent categories (and title?) be? If this category is for fiction then much of the current contents should be removed from the category. If this category is not specifically for fiction then it should be removed from all but one of the parent categories. DexDor(talk)04:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of stuff that emerges from legend or "lore", and is then turned into specific fictional works (articles on which should not be here). What do you think should be removed? The issue of what the parent categories should be is a different one from merging. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this category is for fiction then most (at least 40) of the articles in this category (such as the examples I've referred to above) should be removed from it. The category has no text defining its inclusion criteria and Lore is a dab page so it's mainly the parent categories that define what the inclusion criteria for this category are. DexDor(talk)22:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the parent categories is "folklore" which usually mixes history, myth, legend, and urban legend into a subject matter. Narrowing the scope to exclude clear-cut fiction would seem to be better than upmerging everything. Dimadick (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a rename to "Maritime folklore" (and purge) then? That would make clear which meaning of "lore" is relevant and discourage the addition of things like fothering and navies. However, so few of the articles currently in this category would belong in a folklore category that I think it would be better to either (1) delete/upmerge this category and then create a "Maritime folklore" category or (2) create a "Maritime folklore" subcat, move articles down into it and then delete/upmerge the "Maritime lore" category. DexDor(talk)05:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are disadvantages in doing it that way (e.g. it would mean two edits to many articles) - is there any advantage is there in doing it that way? DexDor(talk)08:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Merge - either rename to Maritime folklore or merge. Though I think I prefer merge, especially since a lot of what is in the current cat should be either purged or diffused to the subcats. I see mostly a lot of ships and seamen and sea creatures and sea locations - most, if not all, of which should be diffused to subcats. - jc3723:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either Nautical folklore or Maritime folklore. Folklore is better defined than "lore" but I don't know whether nautical or maritime is a more appropriate identifier. I would argue against a merger or deletion as Category:Maritime culture is more broadly defined and I think folklore is a valid category for most of the articles it contains. I do think it best to review the articles assigned to this category, along with articles assigned to Maritime culture which are not in a subcategory, as some of the categorization seems haphazard. LizRead!Talk!12:05, 31 July 2015 (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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete Merge the first 19 categories per WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one on or two articles in each category. After merging, the other categories will become empty. This proposal is merging everything into either "general decade" categories and "by topic/location by century" categories and is very similar to this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I suspect that there is going to be more content in subsequent centuries, so that a less radical merge may be desirable for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale: This category leads to WP:Overcategorization. It violates WP:Cat gender because gender does not have a specific relation to the topic. The vast number of entries that have been grouped under this category do not have any reliable sources characterizing them as "male historians." Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the nom is prepared also to nominate Category:Women historians. I suspect that female historians approach theri subject from a slightly differnet perspective than male one. This is more pronounced when it comes to novelists. If we want to do anything it should be merge both to Category:Historians. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete/Merge if needed to Category:Historians per the Sage. Let's be clear; for most professional categories (not sport etc) we should have a main non-diffusing category, like Category:Historians, or one diffused by nationality or sub-specialism. If people want to add a female category (not diffused from the main one), that's fine. But that does not mean an equivalent male category is needed or justified. That's how we avoid this little nerdy corner of Wikipedia causing headlines all over the world. There is academic study and scholarship of many subjects with a womens' perspective, without equivalent study of the male one. That's the world we live in. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question really is, should we categorize the female perspective (that only can be delivered by women) or should we categorize history of women (that can also be delivered by male historians). The former seems very subjective, I would rather favor the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are categorizing historians by female gender. Why you think this is "very subjective" I can't imagine. There's no point in having an unmaintained "male" category which is no use to anyone at all. Feminists of all shades are interested in female categories; no one is interested in male academic categories as such. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subjectivity that I'm referring to is the perspective which is the rationale to keep the female category. How do we know if the perspective of a particular woman historian deviates from the perspective of a particular male historian just because of gender? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, you say "Feminists of all shades are interested in female categories". Those same people are interested in male categories: it is how they establish the dichotomies etc that they perceive to exist. They critique by comparing and contrasting: you cannot have one without the other. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sign of this - there are easier ways to research male hegemony than Wikipedia categories, whose contents are random at best. Bearcat below puts the case I'm making more fully. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The maleness of historians isn't a thing that reliable sources concentrate on per se, so this isn't a category that we should have. The case for a female category might be different, but even if that one does get kept not every "women" category always needs to be balanced directly against a "men" category for the same topic — it depends on whether reliable sources (not just gut hunches) identify maleness qua maleness as having a direct relationship to the topic. For example, "women in politics" is a topic that reliable sources actually study as a thing in its own right — research into the unique issues that women in politics deal with, into whether they're approaching the job in a distinctively female way, whether their increasing numbers are shifting society's cultural and political priorities, etc. — but since the vast majority of politicians throughout history have been men, "men in politics" are just studied as politicians rather than as men per se. So we do have gendered categories for women in politics, which are not balanced against parallel categories for men. (Conversely, we do have both male and female gender categories in the sports area — that's a case where maleness and femaleness are both directly relevant to notability, since both men and women in sports normally compete in a single-gender context.) I would caution also that the contents of this category should not be upmerged to Category:Historians, as virtually all of them are already in a Category:Historians by nationality subcategory — so the upmerge would also result in an unhelpful WP:CATDIFFUSE violation that would create a load of unnecessary work for Wikipedians to clean up. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Historians are not generally viewed as authors, but as academics on the lines of economists, etc. The reality of the history of the profession is that it has been historically dominated by men, and that being a man in the profession is not a defining intersection. This may change at some point, but at present it has still not changed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? UK television is awash with women "telly dons" nowadays. It isn't all Simon Schama etc and hasn't been for a long time: I was taught by as many women as men when I studied history at university back in the early 1980s. Whenever we have a one-sided gendering of categories, we effectively promote ghettoisation - "Ooh, look at her! Fancy her being able to do that!" or "Wow, here's one of us standing up to be counted!". - Sitush (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both men and women categories. I understand the need to categorize sportspeople and performers by category, but most professions by large should show no difference as to gender, particularly in academic fields. Renata (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The editors here seem to be unaware of Men's studies that does examine the relevance of masculinity in history, including those who write history in academia. It seems that some are arguing that male is the default category. Gender identification is warranted because it is a defining characteristic that impacts the work historians do. LizRead!Talk!12:19, 31 July 2015 (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.
Problem with the bot. I'm not sure where to put this comment, but the bot removing this category means that there may sometimes be no record of a person being a historian at all. The bot should at least have replaced Category:Male historians with e.g. Category:Historians. Can someone please check this? --Bermicourt (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Most of these fail WP:SMALLCAT. The County category is an unnecessary level of categorization, and the counties should just go in the parent category. These don't need to be deleted, since there seem to be enough relevant articles to go in the parent. kennethaw88 • talk04:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should we be considering a delete? I looked at a few of these and the articles seem to be also categorized to a city in the region. Since the city category should be included in this region how much content really is needed in Category:Ark-La-Tex? Content in Category:Ark-La-Tex is really difficult to verify unless a reader goes to the the city article to see if it is in the region. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2015 (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.
