< July 6 July 8 >

July 7

Category:Graphite mining

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. Timrollpickering 08:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous intermediate category. Only one sub cat. Rathfelder (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2018 (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:Square roots of integers

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A WP:SMALLCAT, which is already subsumed by Category:Quadratic irrational numbers. Side note: if kept, its supercategories should be fixed as well, because currently they make no sense. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the category has now restored it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please be more specific about what we are supposed to see here, in relation to the nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2018 (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 associated with the campaign for Welsh devolution

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. There is no need to merge to Welsh nationalists, as all four member pages are in sub-cats for Plaid Cymru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayenatic london (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:People associated with the campaign for Welsh devolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete, except for Ron Davies (Welsh politician) it is unclear how the people in this category are associated with the campaign for Welsh devolution. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2018 (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 associated with Transcendentalism

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 and purge. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge per WP:OCASSOC, more clearly describing how the people in the category are connected. More information see Transcendental Club. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2018 (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 associated with Junimea

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 14#Category:People associated with Junimea. ℯxplicit 03:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:People associated with Junimea to Category:Members of Junimea
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:OCASSOC, making the association with Junimea more specific. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas no, Marco. Very few of them wrote. Many were simply orators or lecturers, some were just attending and listening. From the beginning, Junimea was also a political party, meaning that the category includes people who were also active as Junimist politicians. Dahn (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok then split into Category:Junimea writers and Category:Junimea politicians. People who were doing absolutely no more than attending and listening should not be categorized here, for them it is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would we still need a parent cat in that scenario? Also, some of the people who were attending are routinely categorized as Junimea people by outside sources which we follow. That is the nuance I feel you're omitting here. Dahn (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you give some examples of this missing nuance? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One fairly known example would be Alexandru Odobescu -- the issue is bound to come up when the article on him is more developed. Odobescu was a writer who, in old age, attended Junimea and was published by the Junimists, but Z. Ornea for instance notes that he should not, cannot, be viewed as a Junimist writer. The fact of his attending is culturally and politically significant; it is not however a fact equivalent to his adopting the style or guidelines of Junimea. Likewise, Petru Verussi was neither a writer or a politician, he was a painter who attended Junimea, possibly the only one visual artist who integrated within the movement. There are also examples of other Junimists who were neither writers nor politicians -- I think this was the case of Lascăr Ciurea, who may not be significant enough to have his own article, but, in case he is deemed significant enough, would be so only as a Freemason who doubled Junimea by creating a Masonic Lodge from its core attendees.
WADR Marco, you also did not answer my previous: even if we split the cat into two, don't we also need a parent category? Would you rather have it under Category:Junimea people? Would that do? I mean, I can see your point about "associated with" being too loose, but let's see if we can come up with something that reflects the historical vagueness of that club. Dahn (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually not too sure that Category:Junimea politicians can be sufficiently populated. There are some people in this category who were a politician in a later stage of their life, after Junimea ceased to exist. They obviously do not belong in Category:Junimea politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never suggested Ornea should be added anywhere (?), while Odobescu clearly was a "member" in your definition, though certainly not a "Junimea writer", so your claim that we should purge him is whimsical (though note; he's not in the category at the moment, because the article on him doesn't even mention his affiliation to Junimea). You're still not clarifying what is wrong with "Junimea people" as an intermediary category, not what we should do about Junimists who were neither politicians nor writers.
And please, don't make the mistake of assuming the present state of the category and articles in it is ultimate. Your conjecture that we could not populate the "politicians" category is frankly weird: as you can read for instance in the article Vasile Pogor or Ioan Mire Melik, Junimea was something of a political party already in the 1860s and '70s (it was even part of a government coalition), and became an actual, fully registered, party in the 1880s. There were tens of people elected as Junimea representatives in the several legislatures. In some cases, notoriously including Titu Maiorescu and Petre P. Carp, they belonged to both categories you wish to split this into. Dahn (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they weren't. Notice even how the link says "1880"? There was no Conservative Party in the 1870s, but there was a Junimist party (sometimes known as Juna Dreaptă), and it took part in the first Epureanu government, of 1870, when Maiorescu himself was Education Minister. And even after the creation of a conservative party, Junimea, which was slightly more liberal, existed as a third-party, sometimes allied to the National Liberals. I repeat: in the 1880s, when you claim Maiorescu was representing the Conservative Party, he was in fact a president of the Junimist (or "Constitutionalist") party -- the party ran as such in the elections of 1888, for instance, when it fielded its own candidates. It was only later that Junimea, or at least its political wing, was absorbed back into the Conservative Party. Look, I know we have so far failed at covering that issue in the main articles, but you can read about in Petre P. Carp or Vasile Pogor or Ioan Mire Melik for now. All these articles clearly refer to several intervals where Junimea was a separate political party, before and after 1880. Or see Romanian general election, 1892 for exactly when and how Junimea stopped being a third-party. Dahn (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok you convinced me in this respect. So we can have Category:Junimea writers and Category:Junimea politicians as subcategories of Category:Junimea. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once we do that, we can have Category:Junimea people as the embracing cat, which would also deal with cases of Junimists who fit neither descriptor, and as a rough correspondent of "people associated with". If you dislike it, you can argue for deleting it in a new CfD submission, though I note that you presented no argument as to why we shouldn't have it. Dahn (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not come up with a new argument. "People who were doing absolutely no more than attending and listening should not be categorized here, for them it is not a defining characteristic" still stands. Besides Category:Junimea does an equally good job in embracing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well your first argument contradicts your second, since, per your system, we would still embrace those articles, but under "Junimea" (which means putting them together with articles about inanimate things or concepts, just because). And I have questioned that theory (and the factualness) of "nothing other than attended" -- this is not about people who did "nothing", this is about people who did something other than write or engage in politics. For instance, people who painted, people who collected books for the society, people who were published by Junimea without necessarily adopting its guidelines, people who organized its Masonic Lodge etc. I really recommend reading up on Junimea before emitting verdicts as to what we "should(n't)" have. Dahn (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In short, these are people whose connection with Junimea is not defining for them. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are mentioned as Junimists in every single source hat refers to them, but of course you know better. Dahn (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2018 (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 associated with Conway Hall Ethical Society

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 13. – Fayenatic London 19:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCASSOC, the society is not even mentioned at all in most of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2018 (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