Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30[edit]

Category:People who changed their name[edit]

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic and trivial. I don't really see how this is useful, we could add a lot of articles to this category and it would just become cluttered. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion. Agree with nominator's reasoning. SJK (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I could see an Wikipedia category for the redirects of former names, but grouping the actual articles would include many celebrities, popes, immigrants through Ellis Island and women who get married. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion. Category is also prone to abuse for BLPs. Pburka (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, leaving a cat-redirect to Category:Redirects from former names. Name changes are too common to merit a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could include most Roman and early Byzantine emperors and many Romans who changed their names following adoption from another family. For example, Scipio Aemilianus was born as Aemilius Paullus, changed his name to Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus following his adoption, and his full name by the end of his life was Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantinus. Nero was born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus and following adoption his name was changed to Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus. Diocletian was born Diocles and changed his name to Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus when he rose to the throne. Zeno was born Tarasis Kodisa Rousombladadiotes, called by the patronymic Tarasicodissa, and changed his name to Flavius Zeno for political reasons. Justinian I was born Petrus Sabbatius but changed his name to Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus following his adoption. The empress Euphemia was born Lupicina and changed her name to something more respectable (the original name was associated with prostitution). The empress Ino Anastasia was born with the pagan name Ino and changed her name to the Christian sounding Aelia Anastasia for religious reasons. The empress Tzitzak was born with this name to a non-Christian family and changed her name to Irene following her baptism. How is this defining for any of them? Dimadick (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this category, if fully populated, would be extremely huge; and even if we split it by period/country, it would probably be nearly useless. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion Bound to be a cluttered mess.LM2000 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2016 (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:American history journals[edit]

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 as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous category title, as attested by the American history redirect, which points to history of the United States with a disambiguation hatnote: "not to confused with history of the Americas". fgnievinski (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected. 4 or 5 articles with subcategories and room to grow seems viable. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current name is confusing. It could also mean "history journals" published in the United States, regardless of their area of interest. Dimadick (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to "History of he Americas journals", oppose split, as the category is not so large that it needs splitting. --Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination for disambiguation. There seems to be enough content for both split categories to exist, per discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The long-standing use of "American" in Wikipedia is to refer to the United States. We cannot get a proper consensus to overturn this standard by a small scale discussion of a small category, so this category should conform to the usage of American in the rest of Wikipedia, which is to refer to the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2016 (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:History of the Roman Empire[edit]

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 here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no current Roman Empire. There is only the historical Roman Empire. It is therefore superfluous to speak of "History of"; every article about the Empire is about its history. See below also. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can merge either way, so of course we can discuss the merits of either of the two names. This however doesn't change a bit about the fact that about everything in the Roman Empire category refers to that former country's history. Of course the same holds for other former countries as well, and in a slightly different way it also holds for current countries. This massive category overlap produces a huge amount of problems, which we have to address either way. Any alternative suggestion that does away with this category overlap situation is welcome. --PanchoS (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- This is a merge nom not a deletion nom. All the subcategories will survive as subcategories of the target. There is in fact very little direct content in the subject category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • non responsive answer I discussed the impact of merging, as nominated: 'keep as is' in this case means 'do not merge'. Those negative impacts remain. Hmains (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is per the explanation by Hmains. This seems to remove the categories involved from valid categories on former states. Dimadick (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmains is right that (by default) the parenting to the other tree gets lost. We can fix that however, if the closing admin of the discussion would be so kind to move the parents of Category:History of the Roman Empire to Category:Roman Empire before deleting Category:History of the Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A sloppy fix to a problem that is only created by the proposed merge. There is not reason for the merge in the first place. The parent categories contain 'history of' subcats and articles; there is no reason to change this category and thus make it an outlier in its parents. Hmains (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see it as a sloppy fix at all, rather an elegant solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2016 (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:History of the Roman Empire by period[edit]

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. MER-C 12:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no current Roman Empire. There is only the historical Roman Empire. It is therefore superfluous to speak of "History of"; every article about the Empire is about its history. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2016 (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:Television series by Force Four Entertainment[edit]

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: do no merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Entertainment One now owns Force Four, Shows from other eOne companies are in the eOne category but not Force Four, So we are putting 2 categorys under one.47.54.189.22 (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2016 (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:All possibly unfree Wikipedia files[edit]

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. MER-C 12:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since WP:PUF is now closed and this category empty, it can probably be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 30 April 2016 (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:Pufc cleanup error[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:PUF is now closed and this category empty, so it can probably be deleted as unnecessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category depends on the {{pufc}} template, which shouldn't be used since PUF has been closed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2016 (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.

Primary[edit]

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, merging the contents as suggested by User:CreativeName1. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as a follow-up of this earlier discussion about "primary sources" etc. The previous discussion had been initiated to discuss "source" but most of the reactions were rather directed against the arbitrary classification of "primary", "secondary" and "tertiary". That same argument may also apply to the categories nominated here. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for Primary Historical Works/Delete All Others I don't know how much the primary historical one will aid navigation, but is it at least accurate and probably defining. Secondary and Tertiary sources are usually blended in historical works and too common to be noteworthy. The philosophy breakdown is just inaccurate: lectures are primary and blogs are secondary? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for All. Primary, secondary and tertiary sources / works are scientific and encyclopaedial terms. A simple google-research:
Stefanomione (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This merely supports RevelationDirects' comment, as too common to be noteworthy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google search results can be a convincing argument if someone is claiming there is no room for growth or that a topic is not notable or is not a recognized term. At least for me, those aren't my concerns here though. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to primary/secondary/tetriary works categories. I can see why categorizing works into p/s/t would be useful, but doing this by genra is problematic. At the very list I will nominate Category:Historical works for merger in a moment as part of a cleanup of categories that are forks and use the term historical improperly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the other discussion and per nom -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the first to Category:Primary historical sources. These are either original documents or published editions (or calendars) of them. Merge secondary and tertiary somewhere, probably Category:Historical works. These are the result of historians writing about what happened. There is a distinction between 2ary and 3ary: 2ary will mainly be articles and monographs resulting from research in primary sources. Tertiary works are commonly text books, mainly derived from secondary (and other tertiary) works, but I do not think this is a clear enough boundary to merit a category. My experience is that the further a work is from the primary source the more likely the author is to have generalised from the evidence that the source supported to produce statements that are in general inaccurate. I am not qualified to talk about philosophy, but would guess they can all be merged to Category:Philosophical works. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Primary philosophical works
Category:Secondary philosophical works
Category:Tertiary philosophical works
into Category:Philosophical works, respectively Category:Works about philosophy
and
Category:Secondary historical works
Category:Tertiary historical works
into Category:Historical works, respectively Category:Works about history
CN1 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making a good point (at least with the historical works) that we cannot simply delete the nominated categories, because it would leave the subcats orphaned. So delete should be read as merge back from where it came from. With the philosophical works this is not a problem, because all subcats are in another philosophy category already (mostly in Category:Philosophical literature and in Category:Works about philosophy). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A historical work is primary or secondary depending on the uses one puts it to. A journal of an American Civil War soldier is a primary source on the civil war, but a secondary source where the writer tells a tale of his father's actions in the Mexican-American War.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all cause primary, secondary and tertiary sources/works are scientific and encyclopaedial terms (possibly rename) - Weapon X (talk, contribs) Germany 10:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question here is not whether they are scientific and encyclopaedial terms, the question is whether the terms can be used for objective categorization, without any OR involved, and without dependency on circumstantial use (as Johnpacklambert added). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2016 (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.

Years in the Electorate of Hesse[edit]

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/delete/keep as per PanchoS. There is consensus for cleaning up this category tree in some way, but no clear preference for the more significant deleteions proposed by Marcocapelle. Rather than relisting this, an additional nomination can be used if you wish to delete the decades articles as well. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge three categories per WP:SMALLCAT and delete the container categories that become empty after this merge. The amount of categories here is more than the double of the amount of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt upmerge:
  • Support deleting
  • Oppose deleting:
Rationale: There should clearly be enough content to categorize by decade, unless further subcategorized by establishments etc. At the same time, the Electorate of Hesse only existed in the 19th century, so there's no point in differentiating by century. --PanchoS (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The establishments by year are divided by all countries in existence. For >1800 I do not see the rationale of deleting. As usual the part of small cat that reads "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization" has been ignored. Tim! (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tim!: No, it has not been ignored. Noone proposed deleting individual subcategories that form part of a a large structure, and I would always oppose this. Instead, the whole large structure is being questioned as producing too many WP:SUBCATs and not being viable at this point. --PanchoS (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally support -- The Electorate existed 1803-1866. The problem is not that the categories are over-large, but that they are too small with little scope for expansion. This is rather typical of this kind of annual category. I am inclined to support PanchoS's solution. Since the state only existed in the 19th century Category:19th-century establishments in the Electorate of Hesse‎ can be renamed or merged to Category:Establishments in the Electorate of Hesse‎, which can remain with a 19thC parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The country clearly existed. No one has given good reason not to subdivide to the country level for a year like 1861. The issue is that Category:1861 establishments is too large to not divide by country. There is no reason to ignore the country boundaries that existed in 1861 and arbitrarily draw the category with an eye on the modern situation. By the way, what category should something by placed in that was established in Sevestopol in 1861 according to the keep with the present crowd? What about MKonigsburg, now Kalingrad? What about Haifa? What about Jerusalem?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support cleaning this up. This is probably too many categories for a very limited time period and a limited number of articles. I would support upmerging to the Germany categories because this was part of the area generally referred to as "Germany" at the time, and it was in territory that is currently within Germany. The history of this place is reasonably straightforward, making it an easy case that doesn't encounter any of the problems that might be if this was Haifa or Jerusalem or Kaliningrad. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support German Wikipedia has far more articles on the Electorate of Hesse and none of these categories. This suggests that even as we expand the number of articles on the subject we will not find any actual need for these categories. Furius (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2016 (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 mentioned by Herodotus[edit]

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:People mentioned by Herodotus, but the overall sense I get is that users want it listified first. It would be great if those users who called for listifying could assist in doing so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

::* Move Category:Kings of Egypt in Herodotus to Category:Herodotus

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCASSOC
Herodotus was a Greek historian who collected large amounts of material from earlier historians and other sources. We don't have his sources so some people in this category, like Spargapises, are known primarily through Herodotus while others, like Darius the Great, are widely attested in ancient sources. {If this passes, I'll nominate the subcategory separately because it requires selective upmerging.) Associating historical figures by their inclusion in a specific history book isn't defining which is why we don't have a "mentioned by" category tree. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Catalographer as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Biography. – RevelationDirect (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background This category was renamed from "Characters" to "People" in a 2015 nomination because Herodotus is non-fictional. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. This belong as a list not a category. As noted, we wouldn't have a category for "People in Ken Burns documentaries" or the equivalent for historians today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we do have categories of inanimate objects appearing by reporter/describer (as opposed to discoverer). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Query Why is Kings a move and not a delete? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: Herodotus' writings on Egypt blend mythology and history so, rather than a straight delete, some of the individual articles in the subcategory will need to be upmerged to Category:Kings of Egypt in Greek mythology. If this passes, I'll follow up with a more granular nomination for the subcategory. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Listify, rather than delete -- However, many of these are people known only from Herodotus or perhaps one other historian. Herodotus was the father of historians, so that a category such as this might be warranted, but we should probably not allow this to be extended much further. Caesar's Gallic Wars might be a similar case. If it were not for Caesar, we would know little of his conquest of Gaul. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge category Category:People mentioned by Herodotus as non-defining for most of them. Keep Category:Kings of Egypt in Herodotus as his depiction of Egyptian royals is neither purely historical, nor traditional mythological. Herodotus is a primary source for most of them, with no earlier Greek sources mentioning them. Dimadick (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how is this any different from the various stars by catalog in which they appear that were kept? Herodotus catalogs and describes people, Flamsteed catalogs and describes stars. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_25#Category:Flamsteed_objects. This should be handled consistently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That earlier nomination was kept because it was felt the stars are defined by the Flamsteed designation in a true catalog while Herodotus mentions these people within a historical narrative. I'm not sure if that's the same or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction With the Egyptian sub-category, I intended to say we should keep it for now but re-parent it so it isn't orphaned. The way I nominated it though, the actual proposal was to merge it with Category:Herodotus which was not my intention. Sorry for the confusion. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2016 (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/2016_April_30&oldid=1138409521"