Trichome

thcscience_admin

This is a list of all open CfD discussions more than seven days old. It is maintained by a bot.

April 23

Category:Drum Corps Associates corps

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The organization was dissolved and the members moved to the All-Age classification of Drum Corps International. I wish to rename it to Former Drum Corps Associates corps for maintaining the grouping for its historicity. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will be the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 21:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tigers in Meitei culture

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT PepperBeast (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This seems to be about fictional or mythical tigers in Meitei culture, which would not exist if not for the Meitei culture, so this seems to be WP:DEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mohave tribe

[edit]

Nominator's rationle: The Mohave people belong to two tribes, the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. The current name implies that the Mohave people belong to a single tribe. Rename for accuracy. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I guess the proposed move is an improvement, although the fact that people belong to two different federally recognized tribes does not prevent them belonging to a single (non federally recognized) tribe. It is best to forestall readers drawing the inference, even if it is an invalid inference, hence deleting "peopletribe"† from the name is an improvement. OTOH article Mohave is currently a dab, so the shorter name may be ambiguous. I ask whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has (or ought to have) any standard/guideline for category (and corresponding article) names —— e.g. capitalization; legal name vs common name; and group taxonomy labels (e.g. "people" vs "nation" vs "tribe" vs nothing; always vs disambiguation vs never). From browsing, I infer that "Category:Foo people" is the standard for subcats of Category:Native American people by tribe, so Category:Mohave people is about individuals (plural "people") whereas Mohave people is about the group (singular "people"). (The fact that Category:Mohave people is a subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe also seems to imply, contra the nomination, that that the Mohave people are in some sense a tribe.) jnestorius(talk) 23:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • † corrected myself: current name is "Mohave tribe", not "Mohave people" jnestorius(talk) 22:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless whether it is renamed or not, shouldn't we convert the category page to a disambiguation page just like in article space? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius Being a people is not the same as being a tribe. EG, the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes; the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band, and the United Keetoowah Band. Mohave peoplehood doesn't imply being a single tribe. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes No, it says "three Cherokee tribes are federally recognized", not the same thing. It also says 'By the 19th century, White American settlers had classified the Cherokee of the Southeast as one of the "Five Civilized Tribes"'. Five Civilized Tribes says "The term Five Civilized Tribes was applied ... to the five major Native American nations in the Southeast". Category:Cherokee people is a direct subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe. Article Tribe (Native American) says "In the United States, an American Indian tribe, Native American tribe, Alaska Native village, Indigenous tribe or Tribal nation may be any current or historical tribe, band, nation, or community of Native Americans in the United States. ... Many terms used to describe Indigenous peoples of the United States are contested but have legal definitions that are not always understood by the general public." We have a variety of words (tribe, band, nation, community, people, ...) used variously across different articles and categories, sometimes in accordance with a US federal legal definition, sometimes in a different sense used by ethnologists or historians; sometimes meaning an ethnic group, sometimes a subcomponent of an ethnic group split out by geography, administration, or something else. Are you implying that Wikipedia article/category titles should always used words in the sense given to them by U.S. federal law? That is certainly not true in general; it may be the consensus for WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America but I have not seen evidence of that yet. jnestorius(talk) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for simiplicity's sake, although Category:Mojave would be even better. "tribe" lowercased isn't a problem, so not enthusiastic about massive renaming of all Foo tribe categories. Yuchitown (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments in general would be appreciated, but in particular input on whether this should be a {{category disambiguation}} and the precise new name – if it is to be renamed – whether the new name should be "Mohave" or "Mojave".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch cookies

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: overcategorization, attempt to empty the categories cookie and Dutch cuisine. The Banner talk 07:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film controversies in Spain

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: All 4 items are articles about the films themselves. Follow-up to previous CfDs finding that the controversy should be the subject of a stand-alone article, and not just a (sub)section in the article about the film itself.
Precedents:
That also applies here. Should a sufficient number of stand-alone articles about film controversies in Spain be written, this category can be re-created without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. I would note that there are 59 other sibling categories in Category:Film controversies by country, and all of them are populated almost entirely by "the films themselves" rather than "stand-alone" articles about the controversies as separate topics. So I'm unclear on why this would be different than all of the others — either they're all problematic for the same reasons and need to be collectively considered together, or this is as valid as the others, and there's no legitimate reason to single this one out for different treatment than the others.
    As well, most of the "precedents" listed above aren't particularly relevant here — Christmas, adventure and animation didn't get deleted on the grounds that it was fundamentally improper to categorize films as "controversial", they got deleted on the grounds that the intersection of controversy with genre wasn't defining. So I'm not at all wedded to the need for this, but those categories have nothing to do with it because they're not the same issue in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair points. In my defence, I didn't intend to single out Spain and spare all other countries in the world; I was just busy improving the Category:Culture of Spain tree, as you can see.
    Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, feel free to follow-up nominate all other categories populated only by articles about the films and not stand-alone articles on the controversies they created. I did not intend setting a higher standard for Spain; if we conclude this category is improper, or at least improperly populated at the moment, that should evidently apply to all children of Category:Film controversies by country. NLeeuw (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I understand that we cannot single out one country, I would encourage a broader nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Food gods

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT PepperBeast (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging Category:Harvest deities to Category:Agricultural deities, but keep Category:Food deities instead of merging it, I think the Food gods/goddesses are related but not the exact same thing as Agricultural gods/goddesses. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I agree with you, but all the deities I checked that are currently categorized as food gods/goddesses/deities are actually harvest/agriculture gods. PepperBeast (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge for Food deities agree with @AHI-3000, The Hindu goddess Annapurna (goddess) is the goddess of food, but is unrelated to Agriculture. Phosop is the goddess of rice, not agriculture in general. Mellona is the goddess of apples. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per this request at my talk page (previously closed as "merge").
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merging food god(esse)s/deities. Not all food is derived from agriculture, which is why we have Category:Hunting deities -- there are other ways to get food. Hunter-gatherers don't do agriculture. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:USA for Africa songs

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Categories containing only 1 article. Unlikely to be expanded since the group has been inactive for 40 years. Mika1h (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See comment by Pppery.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While not a guideline, there is consensus per WP:ALBUMSTYLE "that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by location. While a few Canadian cities do have "Military personnel from City" categories (but not "Canadian military personnel from City"), there's no comprehensive scheme in place of doing this across the board for all cities — they otherwise exist only for the major megacities with populations of half a million or more, whose base "People from City" categories were overpopulated into the hundreds or thousands and needed diffusion for size control, and not for every city across the board. But with just 67 articles in Category:Canadian military personnel from British Columbia and just six in Category:People from Kelowna, neither of the parent categories are large enough to need this for diffusability. There's no particularly unique relationship between military service and being from Kelowna per se, so this isn't needed for just three people if other Canadian cities in Kelowna's weight class (Lethbridge, Regina, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Gatineau, Sherbrooke, Moncton, etc.) don't have the same. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Kelowna is the third largest locality in BC. Uncontroversial categories exist for the two largest localities (Vancouver and Victoria). It already has three entries which is often considered the criterion for a category, and is likely to gain more in the future as more biographies are created. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the standard minimum size for a category is normally five, not three, and even then size alone doesn't automatically trump other considerations. A category that is failing or violating other rules isn't exempted from those other rules just because you can get its size to five per se.
Secondly, "(Canadian) military personnel" categories don't exist for either Vancouver or Victoria at all yet, so I don't know what you even think you're talking about with that argument.
Thirdly, it's not "ordinal size rank within province" that determines whether such a category is warranted in this tree, but "is the base people-from category large enough to need diffusion or not" — which with just six people in it now and only nine even if these get upmerged to it (well, actually eight, because one of these three people is already in a different occupational subcategory as it is), Kelowna's is not. At present, these categories exist only for big cities where an undifferentiated "People from" category without occupational subcategories would be populated past the 500-article or 1,000-article marks, which is not where Kelowna is sitting, and they do not automatically exist as a matter of course for every small or medium city that had one, two or three military people come from there.
My mistake on thinking there was a category for military personnel from Victoria and Vancouver. It is actually Category:Writers from British Columbia that includes those two cities, and now (since I created it) Kelowna. Which is a good reason to think maybe they should all be in a category, rather than ruling out Kelowna because the other two haven't been created yet.
I could add Trevor Cadieu from Vernon, which is on the same lake as Kelowna and with city limits separated by ~10 km, possibly considered a suburb. Also since this nom, I discovered that George Randolph Pearkes served with the BC Dragoons which is a Kelowna reserve unit (Okanagan Military Museum). I don't want to change the categories of either bio right now in case this is an error and would be perceived as gaming this nom. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found one more notable definitely described as "from Kelowna" by Okanagan Military Museum: Rodney Frederick Leopold Keller. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The smallest other city with a sibling category is both (a) four times Kelowna's size, and (b) about 80 years older than Kelowna, both adding up to the fact it has several hundred more articles in its "People from" tree than Kelowna does, and thus needs to be diffused more than Kelowna's does. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT-related music

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: An odd entry in Category:LGBT arts, because of the "-related" adjective not shared by any parent category (but shared by some subcategories that may need to be renamed as well). Sister categories at that level (in LGBT arts) are just LGBT dance, LGBT literature, LGBT arts organizations, LGBT theatre, and LGBT art‎. No "-related" anywhere there. Another option would be to rename everything to the form of 'X about Y", although I am not sure if "about LGBT" sounds best (ex. "Music about LGBT"?). For now, removing "-related" from that tree might be easiest in terms of standardization. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I guess it is called "-related" because it also contains LGBT musicians and LGBT musical groups subcategories with artists who do not all create LGBT content. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would note that the category is named the way it is because CFD previously renamed it from the proposed new name to the existing one on the grounds that the music itself doesn't have its own innate sexual orientation, but is merely contextually related to the sexual orientations of people. I would further note things like Category:LGBT-related films, Category:LGBT-related television shows and Category:LGBT-related books, which are also categorized as "LGBT-related", and not just as "LGBT", for the same reason, which means there's a mixture of "LGBT" vs. "LGBT-related" among its siblings rather than this being a one-off outlier. It's a complicated question, for sure, but the reason it's named this way is because of a prior CFD discussion on it, so it's not nearly as clearcut as the nominator makes it out to be. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep based on the names of the sibling categories that Bearcat mentions. Mason (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs against capitalism

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Generally, our songs by topic categories are 'about' not 'against'. Ex. Category:Songs about poverty. This is also subcat to Category:Songs about consumerism, not Category:Songs against consumerism... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, it is quite a stretch to say that these songs are about capitalism. I found several that are just critical of modern society in general, some others about the labour movement. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps could be saved after pruning, if anyone can indeed show a song about capitalism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can understand why one ould argue that should be deleted because of the nebulous nature, but it is pretty clear that many of these songs have lyrics that are anti-capitalist. Velociraptor888 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not clear at all. It relies very much on subjective judgement. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: No need for disambiguation. User:Namiba 00:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition to deletion or, alternatively, renaming for the family patriarch and Angolan president José Eduardo dos Santos category:José Eduardo dos Santos. Do you have a preference Marcocapelle?--User:Namiba 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education

[edit]

Convert Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education to article List of Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature and education
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Should probably be listified. PepperBeast (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Lists already exist, starting with List of Padma Shri award recipients (1954–1959). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this awards are defining characteristic of recipients and they are frequently labelled as Padma Awardee in references. Another reason is lists of Padma awardees are not by their fields but by year. Each list contains all awardee of all field in a year. So field-wise categories help to find awardees in perticular field too like above literature and education.-Nizil (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atari 8-bit family games

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Article has recently gone through a name change to Atari 8-bit computers. This category should reflect that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Krótki (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

Category:Fictional characters by political orientation

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: split, this category is confusing in its current implementation, it contains fictional anarchists, monarchists, nationalists and socialists on the one hand (by political orientation, not activists) and environmentalists, advocates of women's rights and pacifists on the other hand (activists, not political orientation). These are very different things. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think this is necessary. And are you really sure that environmentalism and feminism not specific political ideologies/movements? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are primarily social movements and certainly not a political orientation like socialism. In relationship to politics they have only one issue on their agenda and their target audience is the entire political spectrum, not one ideology. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you take a look at Category:People by political orientation, Category:Feminists and Category:Pacifists are listed as subcategories. Anyways it's still not necessary to split up these categories in any way, they're not even too large. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a matter of size, it is a matter of plain wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that's just what you think. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 22:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scholars of Greek language

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C. Uncles/aunts in Category:Linguists by language of study are all named Linguists of Fooian.
Copy of speedy discussion
NLeeuw (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and rename, there are some non-linguists e.g. Byzantinists and New Testament scholars in these categories, but that does not match with the clearly linguistic purpose of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These categories have a different scope than those for linguists, and that scope is indicated by the title. If you change both the title and scope of the categories, you are essentially creating different categories, and doing so would eliminate valid categories that exist for a logical purpose. It would be better to create new categories under the proposed names, limiting inclusion to those entries that are actually linguists, than to convert existing categories into something that they were never intended to be, changing both the names and criteria for inclusion. The proposed change strikes me as saying, "this fire engine is red. It should be green. Also, it should be a pickup truck." I'm not great with analogies. P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is, in your view, the difference between a scholar of language A and a linguist of language A? NLeeuw (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Linguist" is typically used to mean one of two things in English: 1. An interpreter or translator; 2. Someone studying the technical aspects of language using the 'science' of linguistics—a fairly specific and limited field compared with all scholarship involving a language. At one time, the term was used more broadly, perhaps the source of confusion here. But presumably many scholars of Greek are neither linguists in the technical sense nor interpreters in the common sense. The proposal would narrow the scope of the category by excluding all scholars of a language who are not linguists. There seems to be value in being able to categorize scholars of a language irrespective of whether they are linguists, and likewise a category limited to linguists would be useful. The two categories would overlap, but the scholars category would be much broader. They should probably both exist, rather than one replacing the other. P Aculeius (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: just to clarify one thing my previous comment may not have done very well. A linguist, in the technical sense (as opposed to a translator) is a scholar of the technical aspects of language; i.e. (as our article on linguistics suggests) syntax, morphology, semantics, phonetics. Broader scholarship of a language might not focus on any of these aspects, but instead upon the literature and historic uses of a language, its distribution within a community, the social or cultural relationships between speakers of different dialects, or other languages—whether or not related, and other questions that are peripheral to modern linguistics as a science, or even "historical linguistics". Naturally there should be some overlap, especially as the fields and topics are not always sharply defined. But there are many scholars of language who, though notable in their fields, would not generally be considered linguists. Perhaps "linguists of Fooian" might be seen as a subcategory within the broader category, "scholars of Fooian". P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Sibling Category:Grammarians of Arabic has just been Renamed Category:Linguists of Arabic, and sibling Category:Grammarians of Persian has just been Merged into Category:Linguists of Persian. Worth taking into account. NLeeuw (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure that has much bearing on scholars → linguists, since grammar is one of the technical aspects of language that might be included under the heading of "linguistics". However, I note that "grammarians" is a historic term, at least in classical languages, while "linguists" is a modern one, and would seem anachronistic applied to ancient Greek or Roman grammarians (who studied, taught, and wrote on a broader selection of topics than what we usually describe as "grammar" today). I'm not sure whether this would also apply to Arabic or Persian, although certainly ancient or medieval grammarians of these languages would probably not be described as "linguists" in literature on the subject. Modern grammarians of these languages could probably be called "linguists", since their scholarly focus would be narrower, and within the realm of modern linguistics. P Aculeius (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The convention that was established a few years ago was that the "grammarians" categories could be kept for ancient languages. In this case, too, Category:Grammarians of Ancient Greek (which contains ancient people who spoke and wrote in ancient Greek and were important in shaping its grammar, if I understand correctly) will stay a subcategory of Category:Scholars of Ancient Greek, even if it is renamed Category:Linguists of Ancient Greek as proposed. When we say "linguists of Ancient Greek", we are indeed referring to (usually) modern scholars who study the Ancient Greek language in hindsight, rather than people living at the time who shaped it when it flourished in its ancient form. Perhaps @Fayenatic london or @Marcocapelle could explain further? NLeeuw (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @P Aculeius and Nederlandse Leeuw: Category:Humanities academics has subcategories Category:Linguists and Category:Literary scholars. I suppose we can make the same distinction here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are all (or nearly all) of the members of these categories necessarily going to fit distinctly into one or the other of these groups, or in some cases belong to both of them? If so, then perhaps this suggests a solution. But if there are members who don't distinctly fit into either group, then the answer is probably to create the linguists category and populate it with a subgroup of scholars, without altering the existing categories. P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

Category:Languages with Linglist code

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. PepperBeast (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a maintenance category. It's needed to help ensure that our language articles are reliably sourced. — kwami (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just turned it into a maintenance category, but it is not clear that any sort of maintenance is required for articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep as a maintenance category, or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that "Linglist" is a standard parameter in Template:Infobox language that refers to an external site. E.g. Abipón language has linglist=axb.html, which apparently automatically links it to https://web.archive.org/web/20160808200116/http://multitree.org/codes/axb.html. So what seems to be going on is that there is some system which automatically links the Linglist parameter input to an archived url at multitree.org. If there is a bot actively archiving all those URLs to prevent linkrot, that seems to be maintenance, and a category could be helpful for that. But I have no expertise in this field. NLeeuw (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's talk together!) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crafts deities

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Just plain better English. PepperBeast (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I think what is meant here is wikt:craft#noun meaning #7 plural: A branch of skilled work or trade, especially one requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill, but sometimes applied equally to any business, calling or profession; the skilled practice of a practical occupation. So it's a bit like a patron saint of a branch of handicraft professions. I worry that by making it singular, "craft" can be misunderstood for any of its many other meanings, such as "vehicle" (aircraft, spacecraft etc.; I wouldn't be surprised if some religion came up with that if Pope John Paul II in 1997 could retroactively declare Isidore of Seville the "patron saint of the internet"), or as a colloquial conjugation of the verb "to craft", "craft(ed) gods", compare "graven images", human-made "idols" of gods. But I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not sure if this is a significant risk. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of see your point, actually, but 'crafts' is not the solution. I'd be ok with, say, handicraft deities. PepperBeast (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it not? I suppose it reads a lot better with 'the': "the crafts", just like "the arts", "the humanities". Some things are better in plural. Then again, "deities of the crafts" sounds a bit cumbersome. At any rate, would "handicraft deities" be correct for the contents of these categories? NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think handicraft fits pretty well, going by the articles I had a look at. Sorry, I ama native speaker, and I can't tell you why some noun modifiers can be plural and some not, but "crafts Gods" is just not normal English. Probably the same reason we don't have cars mechanics or brains surgeons :-) PepperBeast (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little worried that handicraft has connotations of a hobby or at best "artisanal" activity, distinct from mainstream manufacturing. In a pre-industrial society, activities like weaving and smithing are mainstream, the only ways clothes and metal objects are produced. Does it help that the ancient Greek word is τέχνη, techne, (the root of technical, technology and technique and by no means merely a philosophical concept as our article claims), translated as skill, craftsmanship, art, craft, technique, design and other such, rather than as handicraft? NebY (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, too, but none of those suggestions strikes me as a really superior choice. A few years ago, I would have said artisan was perfect, but it seems to have gone all lumpy socks and unsliceable bread. Artificer seems too stilted. PepperBeast (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pepperbeast Ah! But you do have sales managers, liberal arts professors, arms dealers... ;) But alright, I'll drop my Weak oppose. It's probably okay. NLeeuw (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm fretting about this very small point. "War gods" is clearly better than "wars gods"; the singular stands for the general. But Hephaestus, for example, was a smith god, not a god of all craft/handicraft, so is a member of the set of deities of various crafts.... Aargh. NebY (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find "gods of handicrafts" in the authoritative standard text Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, translated from the German by John Raffan. I often got the impression that Burkert's phrasing was better in German than could be translated but still, it seems "handicrafts" may be the best English term a good translator could find. Reckon I should stop worrying and accept it! It's better than either "craft" or "crafts". NebY (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but what are you proposing as an alt rename then? Handicraft deities or Handicrafts deities?
    And does choosing handicraft mean excluding larger-scale construction works in stoneworking/stonecraft such as bridge-building and, well, "building-building", as well as woodworking / carpentry such as shipbuilding? Because that would mean a significant narrowing of the scope, and I don't think any of us is advocating that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We currently include deities of shipbuilding and bridgebuilding? I'm beginning to think it's too complicated for me to suggest anything. NebY (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I was just being hypothetical, but if we look at some random examples:
    • Arazu a god of construction who built and restored temples.
    • Coyotlinahual a god of featherwork
    • Athena a goddess of handicraft
    • Brigid a goddess of smithing
    • Maliya a goddess associated with gardens and with artisanship, specifically with leatherworking and carpentry.
    • Mama Ocllo a goddess of weaving, sewing, and household duties.
    • Hedjhotep a god of fabrics and clothes and, to a lesser extent, of weaving and the deceased
    • Nunura a god of pottery
    • Ptah patron deity of craftsmen and architects
    • Vishvakarma deity of craftsmen, architects, crafters of chariots and weapons, city-builder.
    • Quetzalcoatl related to wind, Venus, Sun, merchants, arts, crafts, knowledge, and learning.
    • Uttu a goddess of weaving
    • Minerva a goddess of wisdom, justice, law, victory, and the sponsor of arts, trade, and strategy.
    • Ninmug a goddess of artisanship, especially with metalworking, as evidenced by her epithet tibira kalamma, "metalworker of the land."
    I don't see a really clear pattern here. Some articles do not seem to mention anything to do with "the crafts" at all (like Minerva being responsible for lots of things, but not really "the crafts"), and might have to be Purged from this tree. Part of them could reasonably be called deities of handicrafts like Athena, Nunura, and Hedjhotep. Others seem to be about larger structures, buildings, cities even. Architects design buildings, not decorative small objects normally associated with "handicrafts". I guess it was my mistake thinking that "handicrafts" and "crafts" meant the same, but evidently handicrafts are a subset of the crafts. NLeeuw (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing the legwork! I am uncertain that users of English distinguish handicrafts from crafts consistently. I haven't tried a survey; serendipitously, last night I read "the development of farming techniques, building skills, craft traditions such as pottery, trade networks" (Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East). NebY (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand NebY's reaction. Shouldn't we rather split this to handicraft on the one hand and building/construction on the other hand? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, if the literature supports such a division. But lots of articles in this tree do not seem to mention any "crafts" at all, or I just don't properly understand the term. NLeeuw (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think such a split would make sense. We can easily conceive of a set that includes all of building, construction, weaving, smithing and pottery, and in at least one language it can easily be given a name. I fear that in English it can't and so en-wiki can't usefully have such a category. NebY (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comments on splitting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

Category:Marching

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Purge or reparent. Are pride parades part of military traditions? There's already Category:Military marching and Category:Military marches. --MikutoH talk! 02:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in New Caledonia

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Broaden this category to include 19th-century churches of all denominations. There are only two pages in here, and 4 total in the entire Roman Catholic churches in New Caledonia Mason (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the rename and the merge proposal are keeping the content in the tree of the the dependent territory, so this is not a reason to oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case either keep as it is, or, less preferably, keep a big tent category for Roman Catholic churches of all collectivités d'outre-mer along with the sole pays d'outre-mer and the collectivité sui generis. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I countered your argument in my previous reply. Then it does not make sense to repeat your "keep" without any new argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI to the closer this IP is probably WP:LTA/HKGW Mason (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Marcocapelle you didn't have a single word on the big-tent proposal on a category for all collectivités d'outre-mer, the pays d'outre-mer and the collectivité sui generis. What's your take? (...are keeping the content in the tree of the the dependent territory... And no I don't mean generally the tree under Category:Dependent territories but Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings by dependent territory specifically.) 61.244.93.97 (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, @Mason, any compromise here? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles involving Bengal

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, battles are diffused by (former) countries and Bengal was not a country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok that is a reasonable alternative, but then still the content should be added to Category:Battles involving the Indian kingdoms too. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: it should only be a selective merge to that parent, because many of the articles are already in other subcats of that one, and I'm not sure whether the others belong there. I suggest you watch the category and merge any valid missing items yourself if the rename goes through. – Fayenatic London 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only 4 churches total in Category:Roman Catholic churches in Réunion, so diffusion by century isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about, say, Hawaii or Alaska? (Or Malta should integration be achieved back in the 1950s–60s?) 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or Kaliningrad post-1945? 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so that it may be grouped under an African parent category when there are also such by continent parents. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you create it then of course it is a good merge target too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated above; or otherwise the next preferable choice would be merger with Roman catholic church buildings in all other départements et régions d'outre-mer under the same category. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this category and put it under both the French and the African hierarchy. 83.229.61.201 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an IP user you can vote as many times as you want but don't expect it to be taken seriously by the closer of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments on the final merge target, specifically on whether these churches belong in the "France" category, would be appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to multiple targets including France, and the new Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Africa. The nominator has added 2 articles in the nominated category to 2 articles in the Reunion parent to make 4, but they are the same 2 articles, so no breakdown of Reunion churches is justified. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re the Africa category, I have added a parent Category:19th-century churches in Africa and retrieved some contents that had been upmerged per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_23#Category:Anglican_cathedrals_by_country. @CanonNi: please expand the hierarchy around these still-isolated categories to other continents and centuries. – Fayenatic London 11:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry but I created the categories from category requests. Try contacting the requester. Thanks. CanonNi (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fayenatic london: Cool. Would you think it's easier to navigate and clearer to understand from the audience' point of view to have for these buildings in Réunion a subcategory under both the French and the African categories, than a four-way upmerge? 83.229.61.201 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for following this – I assume you're the same editor as the requester 59.152.195.28 (talk · contribs). I used to support thin hierarchies with very specific intersections, but in the last few years there have been many precedents at CFD with consensus to merge such cases. So no, I don't recommend creating categories with only one or two members, except where we can reasonably expect that more eligible articles will be created fairly soon. – Fayenatic London 13:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • No I'm not. Given the number of articles in French on Wikipedia about churches in Réunion a lot more articles can reasonably be expected. 83.229.61.201 (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            That's not a criteria for keeping a category. Mason (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

Category:French forts in the United States

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This seems anachronistic. These forts were not "in the United States" when they were built and only became so later on. User:Namiba 02:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, or perhaps simply Category:Forts in New France. Category:French forts in Canada may be nominated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment if these forts still existed at the time Canada was established, then the category is correct. And there was also the colony of Canada, New France and colony of United Canadas, British North America -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if these forts still existed at the time that the USA took over the territory, then they are correct. Such as many forts acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. Or any ruins/museums that still exist today -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not only a proposed renaming but also an extension of scope; forts in New France that were not in provinces which became the United States will be covered as a result. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is perfectly fine. New France has never been divided in an American and a Canadian part. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mason (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical schools in the Caribbean

[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge categories with only one or two members to all parents. Rename the last WP:C2C. – Fayenatic London 08:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: It doesn't sound nice to lump together the BES islands with those of the CAS islands. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you use terms that may not be common knowledge, please link them, e.g. BES islands and CAS islands.
Sorry if IYHO it doesn't sound nice to use Dutch Caribbean, but setting up a separate sub-hierarchy for Caribbean Netherlands would require many perpetually small categories. The best hierarchy we have is Dutch Caribbean. – Fayenatic London 17:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: IP has a point this time, Dutch Caribbean is a non-existent polity. It is merely a legacy term after the Dutch Antilles were dissolved. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm no expert on the history or current politics, I'm just looking at how our categories are structured at the moment. Would you support a split of the whole Dutch Caribbean hierarchy? If so, I suggest you make a nomination to split some representative categories at the top levels. But until that has happened, the tiny sub-topic of medical schools should follow the existing hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well at least I still support merging, even if one of the merge targets (Category:Medical schools in the Caribbean versus Category:Medical schools in the Dutch Caribbean) is disputable. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Medical schools in Sint Maarten and keep it under Category:Medical schools in the Caribbean and Category:Medical schools by country (along with Category:Medical schools in Curaçao and Category:Medical schools in Aruba). Group medical schools of the BES islands under Caribbean Netherlands and keep them under both Category:Medical schools in the Caribbean and Category:Medical schools in the Netherlands. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right about my spelling mistake and, more importantly, right about the way to solve this problem more generally. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as obiter dictum, should Category:Dutch Caribbean be kept just to hold a small number of subcategories and topics that are common to both BES and CAS (or ABC and SSS)? 46.229.243.187 (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's "non-existence" yet it's a good collective term to refer to these special municipalities altogether. It's somehow like referring to an additional province although they aren't. 46.229.243.187 (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A category for medical schools in the Caribbean Netherlands would be too small, as there are only 2 members in the current cats for Bonaire and Saba. If there is no consensus to merging to the intermediate level Dutch Caribbean, then revert to my original merge proposal, but omit the Netherlands category in the case of Sint Maarten. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_old_discussions

Leave a Reply