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:6th-century Romans. Everyone agrees that this category is flawed as-is, but there's no consensus to merge into some late Roman category. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 02:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge, although the one article in the category has "usurper" in the title, the categorization as 6th-century Roman usurper seems quite inappropriate after the fall of the (western) Roman Empire. The further category tree (with earlier centuries) contains people attempting to become Rome emperor, which is clearly not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:5th-century Roman usurpers into some kind of late Roman category. The one person and Burdunellus (who died 496) seem to have been opponents of the Visigoths, not of legitimate Western Emperors. For all we know, these two may have been trying to maintain legitimate Roman rule in the face of Barbarian conquest. There were similar people (such as Stilico in northern Gaul and Ambrosis Aurelianus and Vortigern in Britain. The legitimate succession in the Western Empire after about 410 is perhaps debateable anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 3 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.
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 as specified in nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As explained in Merriam Webster and other dictionaries, "educationist" may either refer to a educational theorist or be a synonym of educator. As we have a separate category branch for educators, this one is supposed to refer to educational theorists only, as stated in the inclusion rationale. We therefore clearly need a more unambiguous wording, so this is basically a case of WP:NATURALDIS. --PanchoS (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment Can we actually make a clear distinction between the two classes? Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: I think yes, we can. Educators include teachers and other teaching staff. They usually have a degree from a normal school (or "teachers college"), a degree in the discipline they're teaching (e.g. Romance studies, Physics, Theology) or none at all, depending on the country's legislation. Educational theorists on the other hand will usually have a University degree in Educational theory, Pedagogy, Educational psychology or a neighboring discipline, and may or may not have practical experience in teaching. The usual overlaps exist, but IMHO not much more than with any other two, somehow related categories. --PanchoS (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This category already needs some sorting out, then, as I am pretty sure that Anne Sullivan should be classed as an educator and not a theorist. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, thanks. I recategorized her to the preexisting Category:American educators, and we might have to see through all of them. Only shows how the current naming attracts inconsistent categorizations. --PanchoS (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming - Maximum clarity is crucial in category names. Cgingold (talk) 09:32, 16 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.
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) 06:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If we did have any other articles, the only link would be a shared name, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 3 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.
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. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 23 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.
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:redirected as potentially plausible user error. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Follows pluralization and capitalization styles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 1 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.
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:no consensus. In addition to the initial nomination to rename, deletion was proposed and alternative rename/splits were proposed. A re-nomination that focuses on one of these proposals should be allowed.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmains: Good find and good point, but we don't really have a Category:Civilian leaders structure to fit this in, unlike Category:Military leaders - through note it is the top one using the word leaders, there is no Category:Leaders. The next one up is Category:Positions of authority, and it's a bit of tough call here. I think the Category:Civilian leaders is a valid one that could be created, but I also think that the one I propose - which classifies politicians by period - is valid here. I dislike "and" categories, so I am not suggesting we create "civilian leaders and politicians", but for now I think we should just rename it as I proposed, with no objection to you or someone else creating and populating the civilian leaders category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment Looking at the WW I people category tree, there isn't any corresponding category, though there are a couple of lists serving much the same purpose. Once this discussion is settled it might be a good idea to go the same route for the Great War. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and I don't see any benefit in lumping all people together who happened to be a politician in the 1939-1945 period in a country that was involved in WWII. In the discussion above the scheme of people by period was mentioned, but this scheme is only by century (so that people belong to one or at most two categories), not by periods of less than 10 years. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree that this category is not functional. To me at least, "political leaders" means kings, prime ministers and presidents - the same figures who currently populate the vast majority of the category - I still think that serves a useful function. "Politicians of WWII" is a misnoma - as a contributor on Belgian articles, I can think of two Belgian "political leaders" (PM and king) but at least 50+ relevant "politicians". I think Hmains has a point and "Political leaders of WWII"/"Civilian leaders of WWII" would be acceptable substitutes to me. —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I voted 'delete' earlier, I think that 'keep' is at least a better option than the nominated 'rename'. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or make this category's inclusion criteria stricter - i.e. oppose rename). Categorizing politicians by what war(s) took place whilst they were in power (whatever their connection to the war) is not good categorization. For example, Sobhuza II was King of Swaziland from 1899 to 1982 - his article makes no mention of World War II. If this type of categorization was ever completed then Sobhuza II would be categorized for dozens/hundreds of wars/conflicts that took place during his reign (from the Boer War to the Falklands War). We have lots of other ways to categorize politicians (e.g. country, century). This may be appropriate for a list. DexDor(talk) 07:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is going to be renamed, these names are much better alternatives. Probably the category still needs to be purged in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another example where using "of" would have been important. There's a big difference between Cold War leaders and National leaders of the Cold War. - jc37 22:15, 4 June 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.
