< May 24 May 26 >

May 25

Byzantine bishops

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: do not merge. MER-C 11:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:NONDEF, the respective bishops are mostly characterized just as "bishop of [place]", not as "Byzantine bishop" - which is not at all surprising because the traditional "official" year of separation between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine) churches was as late as 1054. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose due to false understanding of the category's nature. "Byzantine" is not a religious denomination, but a nationality, i.e. this category concerns prelates from, or active in, the Byzantine Empire. And I request the nominator to restore the other related categories "X-th century Byzantine bishops" to the many articles he deleted it from. The category is a subset of "X-th century Byzantine people" by occupation, and is of use independently of the Great Schism. Constantine ✍ 22:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if that is really a good idea. It means you need to find bishops of Thessaloniki in the Byzantine category in one century but in the Eastern Orthodox category in another century. I'd say that in case of bishops a stable categorization by see is more important than nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see where the problem is. A Byzantine bishop of the 9th century is two things: a Christian bishop and a Byzantine subject. A Byzantine bishop of the 12th century is two things: an Eastern Orthodox Christian bishop and a Byzantine subject. If you make the EO category a parent category after 1054, then there really is no problem. And for the few who were Byzantine but Catholic, say in the 15th century, you can add extra categories. Anyhow, I consider it important to have a "Byzantine bishops" category, much like "Byzantine monks", because these people are distinctive groups with a major role in the history of Byzantium. And given how many there are, subcategorizing by century also makes sense. Constantine ✍ 08:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With monks we have a similar problem, Byzantine is a defining characteristic of monks of the category only if this person has been closely affiliated to the Byzantine court. Otherwise monks are characterized as Christian or Eastern Orthodox. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only if this person has been closely affiliated to the Byzantine court" Huh? Where is this written? Are Category:Italian monks affiliated closely with the Italian court? "Byzantine" is a nationality (and ipso facto, at least in later centuries, a specific cultural identity). Someone born a Byzantine who went to become a monk in Mount Athos remains a Byzantine. Place of birth, language, religious practice, recognizing the Byzantine emperor as ruler, all of this matters as to whether someone was "Byzantine". Proximity to the court has nothing to do with this. Constantine ✍ 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, don't get me wrong. I was just reading the articles, and this was my empirical observation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that explains it. It is just that we usually know of such people to the degree that they came into contact with the court, and thereby to the attention of historians. However there is still lots of ground to cover in the area, rest assured. Constantine ✍ 22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not primarily to make the Great Schism a dividing point here, I was planning to propose an upmerge to Eastern Orthodox bishops for the 12th to 15th century in a later stage, which I'd better postpone given the amount of opposition at this nomination. Anyway, the point at stake really is whether Byzantine is a defining characteristic. Given the varying borders of the Empire in the course of time it nearly requires OR to determine whether or not a provincial town was still within the borders of the Empire in a particular century - which is opposite of what a defining characteristic is meant to be. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but that last argument is pure nonsense. In most cases we know pretty well when a bishop was under Byzantine imperial authority. And nationality always is a pretty defining characteristic for a person, as is evidenced by the host of nationality-based categories we have. Churchmen are no different in this regard. I really don't understand how you suggest religious affiliation might displace nationality; they are two different things... And, I feel I have to stress this to avoid future discussions, "Byzantine" is not coterminous with "Eastern Orthodox" or even with generic "Christian", whatever that might be; there were plenty non-Chalcedonian bishops in the 4th-7th centuries, a few Uniates in the 15th, and Armenian Apostolic ones in the 10th-11th centuries. Constantine ✍ 19:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nationality is actually a rather new concept. For example, I really wouldn't know what "nationality" an 18th-century parish priest in Nassau would have. The more ancient we go, the more speculative nationality becomes, unless people are related to a monarch's court (and fortunately for WP categorization, the more ancient centuries have a higher proportion of notable people related to a monarch's court). With Byzantine people, from what I saw, they are regularly mentioned in Wikipedia without a nationality or sometimes as being Greek (is that having Greek "nationality"?). As for your last remark about Byzantine and Eastern Orthodox, I know and agree with what you're saying. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted that nationality in the modern sense is a recent development, but in the sense of belonging to a people/state/culture/etc it is by definition as old as the first social/political organizations, which is why we have nationality-like categories for Babylonians, Romans, Athenians, Sasanians, etc. This is in the same vein: "Byzantine" as in part of the Byzantine political and cultural sphere, not necessarily "Byzantine" as in pure Byzantine Greek descent... There were plenty of Armenians, Syriacs, Bulgarians, etc. who came from the margins or outside the Empire and became assimilated so as to be undistinguishable from the other "Byzantines", after all. Constantine ✍ 22:25, 26 May 2015 (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.

2nd-millennium BC executions

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. MER-C 12:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in each category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2015 (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.

1st-millennium BC executions

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. MER-C 12:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in each category. (Starting in the 6th century BC there is sufficient content for century executions categories.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2015 (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:English feminists

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: do not merge. MER-C 12:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The UK is a unitary sovereign state. England is not a country any more than Hawaii is. I cannot find, for example a category for Texan feminists or Bavarain feminists. Having a separate category is disorganised. It reduces the impact (American feminists category has 597 members, British has 100, English has 132) and relevance of categories. The majority of people in England identify as British first, and a massive majority identify as British combined. It is wrong to reject this identity and nationality AusLondonder (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Length of existence of a category does not mean it is appropriate. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the best argument. Look at my argument. Having separate categories is ludicrous. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would strike that comment, User:Peterkingiron. It is an unnecessary personal reflection on another contributor due to their implied nationality. Stick to the issues, and explain why, despite an absolute majority of people residing in England identify as British first, that identification should be ignored in a unitary sovereign state. There are differences between New Yorkers and Texans, but separate categories do not exist AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are a very serious breach of WP:TALKNO, User:Peterkingiron. Would you be making such a reflection on me if my username was AfricanLondonder or ChineseLondonder? AusLondonder (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Peterkingiron - See also WP:WIAPA which states 'Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.' WP:NPA states 'Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly racist or sexist insults) should not be ignored' AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to have offended, and have deleted (not merely struck) the offending words. I was not intending to be racist. I was questioning whether the nominator was sufficiently familiar with UK to say that it is homegeneous: it is not. London is probably the most cosmopolitan part of UK. I refrain from commenting on local issues in other countries, or if I do make my lack of knowledge clear. We have national and ethnic categories in WP galore; and many US categories have 50 or so subcats, one for each state. The argumetn thus has a false premise. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. However, I do not accept that I have little knowledge on UK issues. My edits usually relate to topics about the UK ie politics, books, individuals and organisations. With regards to categorisation in the US, these subcategories rarely relate to individuals. For example, the American feminists category has only Puerto Rico (a special case, similar to an overseas territory) as a location-based subcategory. If both categories are retained, I think individuals should be placed in both the English and British categories, given the fact the vast majority of people residing in England identify as British. AusLondonder (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out there are not significant differences between the parts of the UK and feminism, see Feminism in the United Kingdom AusLondonder (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point is User:RevelationDirect, feminism is the same across the UK, see Feminism in the United Kingdom. It does not make sense to have separate categories, just as it wouldn't make sense to have separate categories for Alabamian feminists or Rhode Islander feminists. AusLondonder (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then what would be your preference of diffusing the large British (and American) categories, if not geographically? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2015 (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:9th-century Roman Catholic bishops

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. – Fayenatic London 23:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as the categories for Roman Catholicism extend back to the 11th century only eg Category:11th-century Roman Catholicism or Category:11th-century Roman Catholic priests or Category:11th-century Roman Catholic bishops. NB:The category is rather lacking in parent categories, as it should (if kept) link also to Category: 9th-century bishops And the 11th to 17th centuries also need the category for Roman Catholic clergy by century (eg Category:14th-century Roman Catholic clergy) as a parent category for priests, bishops etc in that century. NB: the subcategories of Category:Popes by century eg Category:14th-century popes do not have any link to the appropriate category for the particular century, i.e. similar to Category:18th-century Roman Catholic clergy or Category:18th-century Roman Catholicism (Not sure about pre-11th-century popes though). Hugo999 (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I referred to in my comment as well. However, I think we should have Coptic subcategories rather than Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox subcategories. Coptic is clearly defining, while Roman Catholic is not (at least not in this century). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, we should have Coptic etc. categories since the Coptic Church became independent and we should have Roman Catholic categories since there is a separate Roman Catholic Church (usually dated in 1054). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2015 (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:Cars having sold 10 million units

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. If someone wants to create a list later, they can do that but there's none now. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:ARBITRARYCAT most likely. Brandmeistertalk 11:56, 25 May 2015 (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.

1st to 5th century BC births

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. MER-C 12:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: this was later reversed (where the dates were justified), see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme. – Fayenatic London 07:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


See: Category:1st-millennium BC births

the rest of 1st to 5th century BC births
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one or two articles in each category. This proposal is merging everything into birth categories by decade. It's a follow-up after the 6th-century BC births nomination that is still open for discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! And of course you're welcome to propose a rename for the 0s but I suppose that will require a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a clear case of WP:OSE. These aninmal categories should be merged as well, obviously. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. In retrospect, I support a merge to the decades categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2015 (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.

@MER-C: The implementation of the above leads to problems: you can't go around with a bot to replace one category by two categories on biographical articles:

  1. WP:Bot policy#Categorization of people: assigning of an additional category (which is different from renaming/merging a category) can not be done by bot but only manually: these articles have to be opened manually, with an assessment of which of the proposed replacement categories is suitable.
  2. WP:COPDEF: only year of birth is a "standard biographical detail" for categorization; a "year" category is not, "year" categories are not even part of the "people" categorization tree, so can not be slammed on biographical articles, and certainly not by bot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Armbrust: pinging the bot operator of the bot that apparently proceeded with the task without taking account of bot policy and the WP:Categorization of people guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT Olympians

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: listify. MER-C 10:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:LGBT Olympians to article List of LGBT Olympians
Nominator's rationale: Being LGBT and having competed at this competition are no related enough ideas to warrant direct navigation between all the containing articles. The link is especially tenuous for the many in this group, like Brian Orser, whose sexuality was never an element in his Olympic career at all, but much afterwards. A list is a much better format as information like year(s) of competition can be added and whether they discussed their sexuality in relation to the Olympics or not. SFB 01:56, 25 May 2015 (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:Sportsmen with retired numbers

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. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category does not lead into male-gendered categories, but genderless ones instead. Sportswomen with retired numbers, like Alana Beard, should also be reasonably included in this category tree. SFB 01:51, 25 May 2015 (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.
More