Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 3
September 5 >

September 4[edit]

Category:Corophiidea[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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:42, 4 September 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 Two Sicilies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 12#The Two Sicilies

Category:Divided regions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 12#Category:Divided regions

Category:Post-Soviet alliances[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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category represents a geographical grouping. The adjective “post-Soviet” is not defining of the alliances that include states in this territory. Compare the recent move of the list formerly titled “Post-Soviet conflicts” at Talk:List of conflicts in territory of the former Soviet Union#Requested move 18 August 2023.
For example, former Soviet republics Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are in NATO, but NATO should not be defined as a “post-Soviet alliance.”  —Michael Z. 15:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems WP:NONDEFINING to me. NLeeuw (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw, can we infer that the proposed move could be an improvement, or that the category probably shouldn’t exist?  —Michael Z. 17:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the category shouldn't exist. It's a WP:NONDEFINING WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Apparently some think tank in Central Europe counts as an "alliance" now? Category:National anthems of the Commonwealth of Unrecognized States doesn't seem much of an "alliance" either; it's more a home-made Euler diagram than a category. Why isn't Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in it if anything post-Soviet goes? Although your proposal is a slight improvement, it doesn't solve these fundamental issues. NLeeuw (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with you. “Post-Soviet,” when not referring to the immediate history of Soviet dissolution, really denotes a collection of diverse former colonial states and not for an area that has meaning in broader history, like Eastern Europe, Central Asia, etcetera.  —Michael Z. 18:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted. "Post-Soviet" is a very legitimate and useful term to be using in articles; I've used it many times. But for categorisation, I'm afraid it's not a very useful one. NLeeuw (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am curious to establish how it is useful. The only dictionary with the term, the OED, says it means “after the Soviet collapse,” with no restrictive or context label (also historically, “after the USSR’s founding”). So it is very vague: we could accurately say Wikipedia is a post-Soviet project without adding anything useful. And as I mentioned elsewhere, AP Stylebook recommends against labelling countries with it.[1]
    I can see it being useful in very specific sentences, like comparing something immediately before and after the collapse, but not so much in general naming of things.  —Michael Z. 14:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NLeeuw. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nederlandse Leeuw. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: blurry concept. Content directly related to the dissolution of the SU should be found at Category:Dissolution of the Soviet Union, and not everything that happens 30 years later in former Soviet territory deserves to be called post-Soviet. We don't use words like post-Austria-Hungary, post-Ottoman or post-British to describe everything happening on the former territories of these empires long after their dissolution. Place Clichy (talk) 08:00, 11 September 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.

Category:Illyrian movement[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: No consensus Any purging can be done through the normal editorial process if necessary. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: listify and delete, the articles (except the eponymous article) are not about the 19th-century Illyrian movement but about the "roots" of it, much earlier in history. By all means add links to these articles in the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge Illyrian armorials and Fojnica Armorial, but otherwise Keep (first choice). I don't mind the fact that Croatia Rediviva predates the Illyrian movement itself if it has had major influence on it as the article says. Lots of people only become famous after their work is rediscovered in later times, and is sometimes understood in a different way than the author originally intended. Similarly the rediscovery of Tacitus' Germania in the 15th century has been held partially responsible for the rise of Pan-Germanism. Germania (book)#Reception says inter alia: Beginning in 16th-century German humanism, German interest in Germanic antiquity remained acute throughout the period of Romanticism and nationalism. A scientific angle was introduced with the development of Germanic philology by Jacob Grimm. Because of its influence on the ideologies of Pan-Germanism and Nordicism, Jewish-Italian historian Arnaldo Momigliano in 1956 described Germania and the Iliad as "among the most dangerous books ever written". Christopher Krebs, a professor at Stanford University, claims in a 2012 study that Germania played a major role in the formation of the core concepts of Nazi ideology. (...) Obviously this is not what Tacitus intended or could have predicted when he wrote that book 1500 years or so earlier, but lots of people did run with it in that manner much later in history.
On the other hand, Germania (book) is not (currently) in Category:Pan-Germanism, and maybe it shouldn't, as pan-Germanism may be WP:NONDEFINING for the book, even if the book arguably was WP:DEFINING for the rise of pan-Germanism many centuries later? If so, then my second choice is also Purge Croatia Rediviva, and Upmerge Category:Illyrian movement to Category:Pan-Slavism. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, rather than being deleted it should be merged to Category:Pan-Slavism, I have adapted the nomination accordingly. If two articles are purged, only two are left, so merging would be better than keeping. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, we talked about this in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_6#Category:Use_of_the_term_Illyrian_in_modern_history already. Can we try actually categorizing some of these topics which are evidently categorized together in reliable sources, as opposed to going overboard with removing categorization? --Joy (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I would leave this untouched - these two movements have some things in common but Illyrian movement actually concerns something much narrower, a "pan-South Slavism" sort of speak. Or in other words, Illyrian movement has everything in common with Yugoslavism, and not that much at all with Pan-Slavism. I fully agree with Joy's arguments too.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:54, 7 September 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.

Greek Orthodoxy[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: keep. Category:Greek Orthodoxy like Category:Russian Orthodoxy is the valid category tree, no support for merging. Categories in the Arab world will be renamed to the Middle East. (non-admin closure) Kpratter (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, Greek Orthodoxy is ambiguous because it may refer to Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole, just the Church of Greece or to the part of the Eastern Orthodox Church with Greek as liturgical language. In practice this has led to an unnecessary fork where church buildings in every country are consistently in the Eastern Orthodox tree but members of the church in every country are spread between Eastern Orthodox and Greek Orthodox tree. For example in Lebanon there is both Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Lebanon and Category:Greek Orthodox Christians from Lebanon. This nomination (if adopted) will be followed up with other nominations for the Greek Orthodox tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on Marcocapelle's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marco. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Greek Orthodoxy in actually not ambiguous at all, except maybe for people who do not know what it is but then that's why Wikipedia exists (to make knowledge available for people looking for it). This is especially necessary in the category realm, as is Category:Russian Orthodoxy. I recon that article Greek Orthodox Church it not very clear, however one of the problems of this article is precisely its name: Greek Orthodoxy is not a church. The notion exists because of the way Orthodoxy is organized, in multiple independent churches. A number of these churches (but not all) share the use of the Greek language and a many traditions that set them apart from other Orthodox traditions such ad Russian, Bulgarian or Serbian Orthodoxy, in dress, liturgy, hierarchy etc. See for instance how articles klobuk, mandya or metropolitan bishop routinely mention differences for Greek, Russian and/or Slavic traditions. Greek Orthodoxy refers to either this common tradition, or these churches collectively. Of course, it exists for much longer than the modern independent country of Greece, or the national Church of Greece which was created as a direct result of this independence in the 1830s and is a really, really small component of Greek Orthodoxy. To provide just another example, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, one of the largest and best know Orthodox organizations in the Americas (and maybe the World), is Greek Orthodox because it coexists with e.g. Russian and Bulgarian Orthodox jurisdictions in the same geography, but is actually unrelated to Greece as a country or a national church: its parent is the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, based in present-day Turkey. The suggestion that Greek Orthodoxy could be confused with either the national Church of Greece or Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole is just not credible when you look into it. Place Clichy (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy In that case it can be renamed for greater clarity. The contents of the categories are evidence enough that the name is not clear enough. (This is to say, I support the nom.) Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you suggest could be renamed? Article Greek Orthodox Church is at the appropriate location because it explains the several different meanings of that term, including the rather obsolete historical usage. However, the term Greek Orthodoxy itself is not ambiguous. If you actually look at the article, it states that: the appellation "Greek" was abandoned by the Slavic and other Eastern Orthodox churches as part of their peoples' national awakenings, beginning as early as the 10th century A.D. Thus, by the early 21st century, generally only those churches most closely tied to Greek or Byzantine culture and ethnicity were called "Greek Orthodox" in common parlance. Greek Orthodoxy has also been defined as a religious tradition rooted in preserving the Greek identity.
    An improvement I would suggest is to precise the description of the categories, maybe with the definition given in the article from the Cambridge Dictionary of Christianty: "any of several independent churches within the worldwide communion of (Eastern) Orthodox Christianity that retain the use of the Greek language in formal ecclesiastical settings."
    Some terms are a bit confusing (e.g. there's a country where the 'public schools' are actually private schools) but one cannot seriously agree that these categories are ambiguous with the Church of Greece. Place Clichy (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. rename per @Qwerfjkl, other people have made the mistake, so it's clearly not clear enough right now.Mason (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussed proposal is about an upmerge, not a renaming, though. I don't really see how that would make things clearer. I suggest to explain the scope in the description of the categories, with the wording I suggested. Place Clichy (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy I apologise for more late reply, I've been taking a brief break from CfD.
    Anyway, you are correct; I misread the nomination. I withdraw my !vote, I'm not knowledgeable enough in this area to comment on the merits of the nomination. Qwerfjkltalk 20:34, 23 September 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.

Category:Portmanteaus[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME/Not defining. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, at least purge Danish withdrawal from the European Union etc. While Dexit is a portmanteau, the full article title isn't. This probably serves better as a list than as a category: the articles are not interrelated at all, only the article titles are. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entries in this category do not share any name, so it seems like the category is proposed to be deleted for the wrong reason. —Kri (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of, WP:SHAREDNAME is to avoid that we are categorizing based on the proporties of the article titles rather than of the article content. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I guess we can remove the category, or merge it into list of portmanteaus should there be any category members that are not already part of that list. —Kri (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have added all entries that are not already in list of portmanteaus in a note on its talk page. That list is probably what I inteded the category to be from the first place anyway. —Kri (talk) 14:24, 12 September 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.

Category:Havard University fellows[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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: oops, spelling Mason (talk) 12:25, 4 September 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.

Category:Women in war 1945–2000[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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC) rename. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was just split per my nomination here, but I should have chosen 1999 as the end date to match two lead articles. – Fayenatic London 06:50, 4 September 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.

Category:African American churches in North Carolina[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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, even while WP:MOS changed, it does not make sense to have a single category with a deviant format. This was opposed at speedy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Smasongarrison, Hyphenation Expert, and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I originally nominated the change, as I had made the original category. My intent had been for it to match the other hyphenated categories. Mason (talk) 12:17, 4 September 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.

Category:Catholic draughtsmen[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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A (currently) small category with no obvious utility. Unlike, say, painters, the faith of a drafter is not relevant to their work. Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the category; these are not drafters, but artists who have left significant numbers of drawings. In fact all but one of the present group were painters. If populated properly it would be enormous, but probably not worth the trouble. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I fully understand it; they are artists (painters and engravers) who happened to draw. Their faith-intersect-works can be handled by Category:Catholic engravers‎ and Category:Catholic etchers‎. Abductive (reasoning) 22:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so - how then to interpret "Unlike, say, painters, the faith of a drafter is not relevant to their work"? Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the drawings are not their work. They are preparatory, like an architect's blueprints. Each of the members of the category is in at least one other "Catholic foo" category. Abductive (reasoning) 04:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is far from true - finished drawings were made for sale or gifts as such from at least Michelangelo on, and I still don't see how the logic would work. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Michelangelo, the Catholic draftsman? Abductive (reasoning) 09:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I don't like these Italian Catholic artists categories at all, but if for painting why not for drawing? Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 10 September 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.

Category:Books by Bruno Bettelheim[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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small cat Mason (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a single book in a category is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 4 September 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.

Category:Books by Anita Bryant[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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small cat no potential for growth Mason (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a single book in a category is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm Anita Bryant has in fact written/co-written/had ghost-written 9 books (and is still alive). So why "no potential for growth". Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that it's likely that any of those other books will be made into their own pages. Mason (talk) 23:21, 10 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_4&oldid=1179344557"