Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_18 References

< May 17	May 19 >

May 18

Category:Articles about multiple people

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: containerize and figure out the rest later. There doesn't seem to be anyone arguing for keeping the category around in its current state, although there isn't very much agreement on much else within this discussion. So, the category will be converted into a container category (which will effectively "make it hidden", at least on articles). There seems to be agreement that the category will need to be renamed after the containerization, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus on what it's new name should be. I'd suggest that someone boldly renames it and see if anyone objects. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 01:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Propose containerizing and renaming Category:Articles about multiple people

Nominator's rationale: containerize per WP:TRIVIALCAT, the fact that an article is about multiple people is entirely trivial, but the category need to be kept in order to tie the subcategories together. The consequence of containerizing is that the category also needs to be renamed (as it will no longer contain articles). Possibilities are:

option 1 Category:Multiple people;
option 2 Category:Groups of people;
option 2A Category:Specified groups of people
option 2B Category:Groups of people defined by number

Note that the objective of the nomination is containerization while the consequence is a rename. With the objective in mind, any of the rename options will do.

This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion. @ Rathfelder, Fayenatic london, Anomalous+0, DexDor, Peterkingiron, Dimadick, and Janke: pinging contributors to previous discussion - Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

How about Category:Groups of people defined by number? I'd like to keep out the articles about families and articles where two people share a name or some other characteristic but are not actually a group. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Added as option 2B. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply

So the intention would be to removed subcategories like Category:Articles about multiple people in pre-Tang China and just have articles and subcategories defined by a number? There were quite a lot of what I now know to be called prosopographical articles, and I've removed those, apart from the Roman ones. Rathfelder ( talk) 07:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Eh? The member articles of Category:Articles about multiple people in pre-Tang China are very much defined by a number. That category would not have to be removed, but renamed in a matching way.
Category:Articles about multiple people in ancient Rome is more to the point. A few pages (like most of those in the Greece, Bible and Quran categories) are about couples or other pairs. Other pages in the Rome category are more like disambiguation pages for shared names. – Fayenatic London 08:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Oppose option 2B, no difference from Category:Quantified_human_groups which was deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_18#Category:Quantified_human_groups. Note: the name of the sub-cat Category:Quantified groups of defendants‎ no longer carries any weight, as it was chosen to match that (now deleted) parent category in the absence of agreement on another name. – Fayenatic London 09:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Groups of people (currently a redirect) as that refers to a topic and purge of anything that doesn't fit in that topic (or purge and then rename). DexDor^(talk) 19:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- Groups would include families, clans, sports teams, gangs, maybe organisation members, etc. is that what we want? And I'm not sure what people would understand by Category:Multiple people Rathfelder ( talk) 20:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  - "Groups of people" was previously rejected at CFD 2011 Jan 9 as unsuitable for articles about 2 people. – Fayenatic London 10:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    - In that case delete and leave it to anyone who thinks there is a purpose to a category like this to propose creating a new category with a more suitable name and clear inclusion criteria. DexDor^(talk) 16:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Make hidden. While I agree "articles about x number of people" is trivial and non-defining, it appears to be more of a maintenance category than a directory category, similar to Category:Articles containing Afrikaans-language text or Category:Year of birth missing (living people). Thus, per WP:HIDDENCAT, making it hidden makes more sense then keeping it visible and perpetuating the false idea that we categorize articles by the article type versus the subject themselves (e.g. the article Barack Obama doesn't belong in Category:Biographies, even though it is a biography.) --Animalparty! ( talk) 21:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply

What maintenance would the articles in such a category need? Maintenance categories are usually/always added by a template (rather than a category tag being placed directly on an article). DexDor^(talk) 05:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Make hidden. as per Animalparty's suggestion. This is in effect a maintenance category, about articles with multiple topics. Several of which may need to be split eventually. Dimadick ( talk) 07:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I think we need to look at the subcategories before we decide what to do about this one. They are mostly perfectly legit. NB I am having trouble persuading people that Nonet should be in Category:Nonets. I'm told that disambiguation pages should not be in categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Ref to category fixed. See WP:DBC. DexDor^(talk) 16:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I leapt to defend this at the previous discussion, seeing it as a useful way to group the sub-cats and some other valid content. However, it is a mixed bag (some of the above comments overlook this). It includes:
1. Biographies of couples or other groups of 2+ people who acted together or had some other shared experience.
2. Biographies of people sharing a name. Many are from the ancient world, but not all (e.g. Keaweaweulaokalani, Winamac). In many of these cases the persons were not contemporaries of each other. The pages could be split, but (as argued by User:Peterkingiron at CFD 2009 May 12) there is little point in splitting the articles, since in many cases nothing more will be known of them, and reducing them to standard form dab pages would be destructive.
3. Articles about families, which do not need to be categorised here as they are already categorised within Category:Families. (Note: groups of relatives such as Witches of Belvoir come within #1 above.)

I would not object to splitting group #2 to a separate sub-cat, if there is a helpful name for it. – Fayenatic London 10:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Rathfelder: you stated that you have removed a lot of prosopographical articles, and apparently this now includes the Roman ones, since Category:Articles about multiple people in ancient Rome is now much smaller. For the record, please would you summarise what you have removed during the discussion, e.g. pages that are within the sub-cat Category:Ancient Roman prosopographical lists, and whether they are all within related hierarchies such as Category:Families? – Fayenatic London 10:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I've taken Category:Articles about multiple people in ancient Rome off anything which also appeared in the prosopographical category - and added a few which should have been in it. Not many of those articles were families. Most of them are about people who share names, and for some, may actually be the same person. ( Unsigned comment by User:Rathfelder)
After inspecting the contents I could see the point of the prosopographical category. Should we have more like it? Rathfelder ( talk) 11:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- The article Prosopography states that "The technique is used for studying many pre-modern societies." This suggests that it may not be an appropriate term for modern cases, e.g. the North American/Pacific examples that I gave above. @ Mdanaher and Flagrant hysterical curious: could you advise on this, please? – Fayenatic London 21:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Upon review, this parent category appears to be a wholly artificial construct. What precisely do Musicians of the RMS Titanic have to do with Category:Groups of Christian saints‎? Nothing, as far as I can see. There also doesn't seem to be a proper rename target either, based on the meandering attempts to move toward an end point in the above discussion. Newshunter12 ( talk) 04:02, 10 August 2019 (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:Christian terrorism by country

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, recreation permitted if coverage of this topic improves. MER-C 09:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:Christian terrorism by country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, unneeded category layer with only one subcategory. No objection against recreation if more country categories with a substantial amount of content on this topic are created, but I do not envisage that on a short term. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Merge to parent -- I am concerned that anti-abortion violence is included here. Is Christianity really the only religion where some adherents are opposed to abortion? Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I have initiated a separate discussion about the inclusion of anti-abortion violence at the Wikiproject terrorism talk page as it may not comply with WP:TERRORIST. With respect to merging to Category:Christian terrorism, that is not needed because the content is already in Category:Christian terrorism in North America. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply
- Likewise, merging to the other parent Category:Terrorism by country is not necessary either because the content is also already in Category:Terrorism in the United States. – Fayenatic London 10:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as WP:SOFTDELETE until there are more sub-cats by country to be added. – Fayenatic London 10:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:26, 17 June 2019 (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:Latgalians

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. MER-C 10:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:Latgalians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, does not contribute much to its parent Category:People from Latgale. The two biography articles are already in Category:People from Daugavpils, a subcategory of Category:People from Latgale. If kept, rename to Category:Latgalians (modern), aligned with its main article, and remove the subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Rename per nominator's alternative suggestion, since the lead article says they "share a common culture that sets them apart from other Latvians." The old category page should then be disambiguated. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Rename - I also lean towards disambiguation. -- Ivario ( talk) 20:45, 3 June 2019 (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:People by historical province in Latvia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Latvian people by location and then delete. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 01:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:People by historical province in Latvia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: ~~delete~~, probematic holding category. For both subcategories the word "province" is inaccurate ( Livonia is a former confederation and a former Russian governorate; Courland is a former prince-bishopric, part of Livonia). In addition, the phrase "in Latvia" is quite problematic for Livonia because Livonia was actually bigger than Latvia (it also contained the southern half of Estonia). Finally for people from Courland we already have people by historical region in Category:People by cultural region in Latvia or Category:People by region in Latvia, so then this holding category is redundant. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Suggest Category:People from the Baltic provinces. What have recently been the three Baltic republics were previously Russian, before that Swedish, and even earlier the land of the Teutonic Knights. Category:People from the Baltic states would be an alternative, as province may denigrate their sovereign status at some periods. This is a case where we cannot use modern states as they are not the same. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- @ Marcocapelle and Peterkingiron: Baltic provinces redirects to Baltic governorates. Should Category:Baltic provinces be nominated for merger to Category:Baltic governorates? – Fayenatic London 20:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  - @ Fayenatic london: it would not solve the problem. For example there is Courland and Courland Governorate; there is Category:Courland and Category:Courland Governorate. Of course Category:Courland Governorate would be an appropriate subcategory of Category:Baltic governorates, but not Category:Courland. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    - Thanks. Would People from Livonia fit within the sibling People by cultural region in Latvia? If so, let's just merge there. – Fayenatic London 21:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
      - No, first of all Livonia is not a cultural region of Latvia because that is a closed set of regions and Livonia is not one of them. Second, People from Livonia contains people from historical Livonia which was actually a lot bigger than current Latvia so by definition it cannot be a region within Latvia. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
It does not matter that Livonia was bigger than Latvia. In Latvian Wikipedia, Livonian people is within Latvian people. Merge to Category:Latvian people by location, i.e. move the Livonia category up into that one (Courland is already categorised in cultural regions). – Fayenatic London 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- Agree with merging to this "by location" category, as it does not suggest that Livonia is/was a region within Latvia. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I dont think we can be too picky about the categorisation of people who lived in countries or territories which no longer exist, or even more confusingly, have changed their borders. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The name that eventually emerges should have time delimited parameters. For the early medieval period much of the area was in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This question is closely linked to the wider Polish question. What is Poland? When is Poland? These two questions should be decided as a unit. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was actually in the Early Modern period when the Livonian Confederation no longer existed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Were the two states contemporaries for a few decades? ("The states of the Livonian Confederation ceased to exist during the Livonian War of 1558–1582."). In any case, since a "by state" categorisation is out of the question given the fluid nature of states in the region, then a regional categorisation is best. Is "Eastern Baltic" a thing or "Southeastern Baltic"? I don't want to have the word "provinces" in the title as it raises questions of state "ownership" of provinces. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

I definitely agree on not having provinces, FL's suggestion above Category:Latvian people by location does not have that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete, and move People from Livonia to Category:Latvian people by location and maybe Category:People by former country. It would also make sense to merge Category:People by cultural region in Latvia and Category:People by region in Latvia, per this other discussion. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:49, 17 June 2019 (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:Hetmans of Livonia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to parents Category:Hetmans and Category:People from Livonia. Jan Hieronimowicz Chodkiewicz is already in Category:Duchy of Livonia; if this is incorrect, please move it to Category:History of Livonia. – Fayenatic London 06:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:Hetmans of Livonia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, small category and hardly defining for the one biography in it. Limited growth possibilities since the Duchy of Livonia only existed from 1566 to 1621. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Upmerge also to some specifically Duchy of Livonia rulers category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

The dukes were the kings of Poland, so governors (hetmans) is all we have in terms of actual rulers. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 14:13, 18 May 2019 (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:Serer royal houses

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 2#Category:Serer royal houses

Category:Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao geography stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 03:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao geography stubs to Category:Bangsamoro geography stubs
Propose renaming Template:ARMM-geo-stub to Template:Bangsamoro-geo-stub

Nominator's rationale: The related categories were renamed following consensus here. The stub category was opposed on the Speedy page and the opposition was not withdrawn. I have added the template to this nomination. – Fayenatic London 07:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Copy of Speedy discussion

Category:Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao geography stubs to Category:Bangsamoro geography stubs – C2C/C2D per successor region Bangsamoro RioHondo ( talk) 17:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Oppose for the same reason as bellow. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC) reply
You know that that is being inacurrate and that no places or geographic entities can exist in a dead region. Even the regional government website already redirects to new regional entity https://armm.gov.ph. Take a look at the contents of the above geography stubs category. Most of them are articles on municipalities that left the old region, now defunct, and formed this new one through a legitimate plebiscite. The speed by which wikipedia updates its information to provide accuracy at all times is lost to bureaucracy.-- RioHondo ( talk) 16:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Armbrust: the related cases went to a full nomination here, which resulted with consensus to rename. Would you therefore withdraw your opposition to this speedy renaming of the stub category, please? – Fayenatic London 20:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Support - per previous cfd. Oculi ( talk) 11:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Support per previous cfd. Imho User:Armbrust should have withdrawn their opposition earlier on, so that this could have been speedied. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Books by Anne Sexton

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Books by Anne Sexton to Category:Poetry by Anne Sexton

Nominator's rationale: Anne Sexton is primarily known as a poet, known for individual poems (e.g. Sylvia's Death, Her Kind) and her books are chiefly if not exclusively poetry collections as opposed to novels, non-fiction, etc. I think a poetry category is more suited (compare to Category:Poetry by Emily Dickinson), at least until there are more Sexton articles to categorize. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Support - the ones listed are poetry. Oculi ( talk) 19:23, 18 May 2019 (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.