Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 18 September 20 >

September 19[edit]

Category:Croatian principalities[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. ✗plicit 09:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as anachronistic, except the Duchy of Croatia these were principalities outside the duchy/kingdom of Croatia. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this nomination is actually amusing given https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_principalities_in_southern_Dalmatia&diff=706882419&oldid=581573869 So are you now saying that this edit should effectively be reverted, and categories "Medieval Croatia" and "Medieval Serbia" are more proper for that topic? I think the issue is whether we expect people to interpret subcategorization as "this topic is completely subsumed under the parent topic" or "this topic is typically categorized together with the parent topic"? The former would clearly be wrong in these cases, as historical connections between both the Pannonian and southern Dalmatian principalities to either the contemporary core Croatian or core Serbian principalities were not as strong as nationalists would have liked them to be, yet the latter would make some sense, because it's common to see them described in the context of the history of Croatia and Serbia at the time, since it's not typically very clear how these medieval Slavs substantially differed from those other medieval Slavs. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although some Croatian principalities were outside the Duchy of Croatia (but with Pannonian Croatia incorporated into the Kingdom of Croatia since approx. 925), they were inhabited with people who came from White Croatia, who then called themselves either Croats, Slavonians, Dalmatians or Narentines etc. and later formed the modern Croatian nation. Almost none of modern states existed in the 7/8/9th centuries in present-day form, surface area, territory coverage or even name. So the Duchy of Croatia (Littoral), Medieval principalities in southern Dalmatia and Duchy of Pannonian Croatia (an article recently merged or moved into the article Slavs in Lower Pannonia, which is inappropriate, generalized, too wide and even misleading, being a title too wide to describe not a tribe or nation, but a COUNTRY) should all be kept in the existing category. --Silverije 21:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because not all of the principalities are contained within the boundaries of the current state of Croatia (and so are not Croatian) and because some of the principalities, by your own explanation above, consist of people who would not now self-describe as Croatian. So it fails on the test of "is part of the state of Foo" and it fails on the test of "Is part of the nation of Foo". Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, not all of the principalities are contained within the boundaries of the current state of Croatia in their full surface area (some of them only partially), because many of the boundaries changed during past centuries. For instance, a large part of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina was part of the Kingdom of Croatia before Ottoman invasion. I didn't say that "some of the principalities consist of people who would not now self-describe as Croatian" but people who came from White Croatia, who THEN called themselves either Croats, Slavonians, Dalmatians or Narentines etc., later formed the modern Croatian nation. Nothing fails on any of your tests. --Silverije 23:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 22:20, 19 September 2021 (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:French classical violists[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. Withdrawn by Rathfelder (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only classical musicians play violas. Rathfelder (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that there are multiple by-nationality trees extant, if that is the intention then this nomination should be withdrawn pending considerable replanning - simply upmerging a single category based on a false assumption is not a good solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there is a much wider nomination, covering all nationalities. I note that there are American Jazz violists, for example. I suspect there is a problem of definition: the commonest bowed string instrument is a violin, played by violinists. The viola is a larger version; and I would call its exponents viola players. The viol is an early music instrument, which is a predecessor of the others. I very much doubt that many jazz or pop musicians actually play viols, or even violas. This makes me think that there is widespread miscategorisation. The first step would be to rename all to "violinists", and then purge that of those who mainly play the viol or viola. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which would leave those who actually play viola uncategorized. Rather we should remove any who play violin and not viola from these categories, and appropriately categorize them as violinists. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the rationale is manifestly false: see Category:Violists by genre. Oculi (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be a total of no more than 15 non-classical viola player articles. Is it sensible to subdivide them by genre when most of the sub categories onky have one article? I quite agree that this discussion is just touching on a topic, but I'd like to hear more points of view before bringing up a more comprehensive proposal. There are quite a lot of categories in Category:Musicians by nationality and instrument where the only content is the classical sub-category. Rathfelder (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep viola is not exclusive to any genre. Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • THat's true,k but given the very small numbers do we need to divided them by genre?Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rathfelder: I think it is better to withdraw and to re-nominate the whole tree with a better rationale. Fellow discussants are mainly reacting on the assertion that only classical musicians play violas. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I withdraw this proposal. Would someone like to propose something which would help what seems like a bit of a mess at the moment? Rathfelder (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (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:French classical viola d'amore players[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 to Category:French viola d'amore players. redundant category (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There do not appear to be any other sort of viola d'amore players. Rathfelder (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, per above. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is an early music instrument (technically pre-classical). It is unlikely there are any jazz or pop players of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2021 (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:Conferences in Algiers[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 categories with one article. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in each of the categories. A second merge target is not needed because the articles are already in Category:Diplomatic conferences in Algeria, Category:Journalism conferences and Category:Diplomatic conferences in Poland respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kerp Warsaw, which now has five members; merge the other two. – Fayenatic London 07:04, 27 September 2021 (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 stations in the Fargo–Grand Forks market[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 to Category:Television stations in North Dakota. ✗plicit 02:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name; don't want to get in trouble with Nielsen Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:34, 19 September 2021 (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 Greek Antiquity 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: no consensus. ✗plicit 02:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: cf. Category:Ancient Rome by period. Going by the naming convention in Category:Former countries by period, it would be Category:History of ancient Greece by period, but that seems like tautology. MClay1 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hellenistic Greece is part of the scope, Hellenistic Persia is not. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that the fact that someone added a subcat that doesn't fit the proposal isn't a reason to oppose the proposal, unless they think the inclusion of that subcat is important. MClay1 (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:33, 19 September 2021 (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:Far-right politicians in the United States[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. ✗plicit 04:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT What is far right or far left? Categories labeling politicians conservative[1] or liberal[2] have been deleted in the past. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing subjective about far-right politics. Regardless of area of activity, they always are the same collective of anti-communists, authoritarians, ultranationalists, and nativists. Basically the same people vocally supporting genocide as a political goal. Dimadick (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We long ago deleted categories for conservative and liberal politicians, unless the name referred to their party (as in UK). Dimadick refers to articles about political persuasions, not categories, where the inclusion criteria may involve judgment by the editor, i.e. the editor's POV of a person. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Categories for politicians based on political idealogy are a heavily subjective concept that is open to widespread abuse and pov pushingTheFinalMigration (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Procedural oppose, there are also siblings in Category:Far-right politicians by nationality that might should be included in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am changing my earlier comment in a procedural oppose. In a cross-country discussion it may be deemed helpful to collect politicians of parties across different countries with similarities in their political programs and then it does not make sense to delete the American category on its own. However I understand objections against having articles directly in a far-right category and would suggest containerization. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is it worth expanding the nomination to address Category:Far-right politicians by nationality? If not, I don't think there's a consensus to delete at the moment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom because inclusion is bound to be subjective. Not surprising to see Trump in there but is he really that far right? Matter of opinion and therefore POV. Re the points made by Marcocapelle, political situations vary across several countries and I think each one should be considered individually. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am wary of expanding this too far, though logic would require it. I looked at the UK sibling for inspiration. A person could be classified as far right (1) if a member of a far right political party (e.g. British Union of Fascists; National Front) or (2) being self-identifed as a fascist, Nazi, neo-Nazi or such like (provided this is properly sourced - due to BLP issues). The opinion of others ought not to be enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very subjective. Josh Hawley is in here, and the only mention of him being far-right in his article is a Bill Maher joke. Clearly an untenable category. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Far-right politicians by nationality is a well established category scheme. Regarding subjectivity reliable sources exist.--Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2021 (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:Ottoman emigrants to England[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 25#Category:Ottoman emigrants to England

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_19&oldid=1051708406"