May 29
Category:Sir Sly
- 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) 05:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON and numerous precedent at CfD. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
Blagoevgrad Province
- 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 10:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Ancient Blagoevgrad Province to Category:Ancient Macedonia
- Propose merging Category:Medieval Blagoevgrad Province to Category:Medieval Macedonia and Category:Medieval Bulgaria (or biographical subcats)
- Propose merging Category:Ottoman Blagoevgrad Province to Category:Macedonia under the Ottoman Empire and Category:Ottoman period in the history of Bulgaria (or biographical subcats)
- Nominator's rationale: merge as anachronistic categories, Blagoevgrad Province exists since no earlier than 1912. See also a similar nomination regarding Greek Macedonia. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Combustion scientists
- 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. Consensus here has determined that "combustion scientist" is a neologism which is not widely utilized to describe the scientists in these category, or widely utilized in general; as a result, its retention is not possible. ℯxplicit 05:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this category for deletion because of an unresolvable edit controversy on John von Neumann, where several users insist on reverting von Neumann out of the category, on the grounds that the term "combustion scientist" is somehow illegitimate (WP:MADEUP, WP:FRINGE, etc.). I personally don't favor deleting the category, I think it's fine. I'm nominating it in hope of getting a quick adjudication as to whether it's a legitimate category or not, whose members are "scientists who have made significant contributions to the study of combustion," which seems to be the intention of the creator of the category. Eleuther (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. As "combustion science" is a division of the sciences not widely recognized, members to the category should satisfy WP:CATDEF, which requires reliable sources to classify the subject commonly and consistently as "combustion scientists". It should not be Wikipedia's purpose to advance a WP:FRINGE division of the sciences for which reliable sources are limited. I imagine a few of those associated with The Combustion Institute should be called combustion scientists, as should those styling themselves as combustion scientists aND engineers. But individuals for whom there exist no reliable sources placing them in the category shouldn't be there. For instance, John von Neumann is not "commonly and consistently" referred to as a "combustion scientist", nor is Lavoisier, Arrhenius, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. Any article in this category needs sources "commonly and consistently" thus describing the subject, per Sławomir. Are there any persons who would qualify for inclusion, under that standard? That's a question of fact to which I don't know the answer, but if the answer is "no", then delete the category. --Trovatore (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. When I first saw John von Neumann categorised as a "combustion scientist", I went to the article about him, and I read about his work in explosive science, including that related to the Manhattan Project. I felt like I learned something interesting about him. While I don't have a strong feeling on this particular category, I note that categories are one way that readers navigate Wikipedia and read new things. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, yes, it's certainly possible that people could learn something because of the existence of the category, but you could say that about any number of things that we don't allow. We have to protect Wikipedia's neutral point of view, and we can't allow it to be used to promote neologisms, even if that does sometimes mean there are some missed opportunities. It's just not the role of an encylopedia, or this one anyway, to introduce novel ways of organizing human thought. --Trovatore (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, but "combustion science" isn't a neologism. There are books and journals with "combustion science" in their titles. I think the issue is whether or not John von Neumann should be categorised as a "combustion scientist". Attic Salt (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree with Sławomir Biały, and Trovatore, delete unless there exist members for which there are reliable sources that classify the subject commonly and consistently as a "combustion scientist", per WP:CATDEF. Paul August ☎ 21:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
| Offtopic discussion |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- If kept, rename to Category:Writers about combustion. Combustion exists, so you can write about it, and then the category would become a legitimate subcategory of Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area. But it is too questionable whether combustion scientists exist so the category can't be kept under its current name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- The person would need to be commonly and consistently known, not as a scientist, but actually as a writer about combustion. I'm pretty sure that this isn't what we want. Ray Bradbury would be included, but most legitimate combustion scientists (assuming there are any) would likely be excluded. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough if the category become a bit smaller and more focused. I am afraid I do not know a Ray Bradbury publishing about combustion though. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ray Bradbury was the author of the famous science fiction novel Fahrenheit 451, which you're probably familiar with, about book burning. A novel which is perhaps relevant here in another sense, since we're considering burning a lot of constructive work by the editor who created and has been populating the category. Eleuther (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I can't see if this is a joke or not so maybe I'm making a fool of myself by reacting seriously. Ray Bradbury fails to be commonly and consistently known as a writer about combustion. He may be known as a writer about book burning, but that is something else and it's most likely not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think Bialy probably meant it as a humorous possible counter-example, but not entirely as a joke. Eleuther (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's a good way to put it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think Bialy probably meant it as a humorous possible counter-example, but not entirely as a joke. Eleuther (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I can't see if this is a joke or not so maybe I'm making a fool of myself by reacting seriously. Ray Bradbury fails to be commonly and consistently known as a writer about combustion. He may be known as a writer about book burning, but that is something else and it's most likely not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ray Bradbury was the author of the famous science fiction novel Fahrenheit 451, which you're probably familiar with, about book burning. A novel which is perhaps relevant here in another sense, since we're considering burning a lot of constructive work by the editor who created and has been populating the category. Eleuther (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough if the category become a bit smaller and more focused. I am afraid I do not know a Ray Bradbury publishing about combustion though. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Marcocapelle, but how about renaming it to something more specific, that would exclude fiction writers like Ray Bradbury, such as Category:Scientists who have made significant contributions to the study of combustion. Eleuther (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- It is a needlessly long name and we do not have any similar categories so I wouldn't favor this. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are correct. How about something shorter, such as Category:Scientists of combustion? Eleuther (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Like the current category title, this would suggest to be an encyclopedic term by itself (scientist of combustion). The category title should become descriptive some way, e.g. Category:Scientists specialized in combustion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- You are correct. How about something shorter, such as Category:Scientists of combustion? Eleuther (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is a needlessly long name and we do not have any similar categories so I wouldn't favor this. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- The person would need to be commonly and consistently known, not as a scientist, but actually as a writer about combustion. I'm pretty sure that this isn't what we want. Ray Bradbury would be included, but most legitimate combustion scientists (assuming there are any) would likely be excluded. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep somehow, possibly renamed. Scientific results have to be written up for publication, but those who do so are primarily scientists, not authors. This is a branch of science that no doubt involves elements both of physics and chemistry. Purge if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment -- the term has a straightforward and obvious meaning. Having it as a category is not harming anyone. There are journals such as Combustion Science and Technology (Taylor & Francis, since 1969) and Progress in Energy and Combustion Science (Elsevier, since 1975), showing that it's not just a made-up term. Eleuther (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the category has a straightforward and obvious meaning, and that the term "combustion science" appears not to be a made-up term, but the question is does it have any members? Is there anyone for whom, per WP:CATDEF, there are reliable sources that classify them commonly and consistently as a "combustion scientist"? Just showing that someone did something related to combustion science, is not sufficient to satisfy CATDEF. Paul August ☎ 12:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Paul. The phrase "commonly and consistently" occurs in WP:CATDEF in one key place, which I will reproduce here:
- "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as ..."
- Now, as I've pointed out before, there is nothing here (or in the rest of the policy), that remotely suggests a source must contain the category name verbatim, in order to be relevant. This is a near total misreading of the meaning of the policy. For example, the defining characteristics of Category:Combustion scientists can reasonably and obviously be taken to be "scientists who have made notable contributions to the science of combustion." (If this isn't obvious enough, a remark to that effect could be added at the head of the category, but it's clear from the current population of the category, that this is the intended meaning.) Thus, to categorize X as a combustion scientist, sources would be needed that commonly and consistently describe X as a scientist, and as having made notable contributions to some area of the science of combustion. There is no requirement in WP:CATDEF for the sources to contain the exact term "combustion scientist."
- I don't know where this erroneous requirement came from. I know that a number of editors have been employing it in the current argument (starting on Talk:John von Neumann, and spilling over into this CfD; note that no similar dispute seems to have arisen about any of the other fifty members of the category). I doubt that all these editors can have misread WP:CATDEF so badly, and all in the same way. My best guess, instead, is that one editor misread (or mis-remembered) WP:CATDEF, and started employing the invalid requirement. The others saw this and thought, wow, WP:CATDEF, it must valid, and jumped on the bus, without bothering to read WP:CATDEF for themselves.
- Never mind how it arose. This erroneous requirement is not "per WP:CATDEF," as you describe it. Eleuther (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Combustion science" is not a widely recognized division in the sciences, so sources would fail the "commonly and consistently" requirement of CATDEF. Both WP:NPOV and WP:OR are Wikipedia policies relevant to this particular reading of CATDEF. It should not require original research, at all, to place an individual into a category. Original research includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The categorization of individuals like John von Neumann as a "combustion scientist" is such a "conclusion not stated by the sources." Also, the clear implication of WP:NPOV, in the context of WP:FRINGE, is that "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is". In the present case, the fringe division of the sciences is "combustion science". By placing luminaries into this category, we are indeed making that fringe division of the sciences "appear more notable... than it is". Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, SB. This argument (which you've given before) would perhaps be valid, I think, if you gave a reason why the term "combustion science" should not be regarded as a simple synonym of (say) "the scientific study of combustion." The latter term, I think, should be uncontroversial. You seem to feel that the former term has an additional meaning or implication, causing it to establish a "fringe division" of the sciences. Can you give a source, other than your own feelings, for this distinction? Eleuther (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're the one basing your !vote on the existence of this as a bona fide division of the sciences, supposedly with journals and institutes sporting the phrase Combustion Science™ in gleaming letters. So it seems to me that, if you're willing to defend that vote, you've gotta also be willing to stick with what the sources you pull up actually say. On the other hand if, as you now seem to argue, this is just a Wiki-shorthand neologism for "the scientific study of combustion", and that would seem to be another thing entirely and the category should be renamed to something purely descriptive, rather than referring to Combustion Science™ explicitly in the title. This may or may not be a thing for which there are specific accreditations and qualifications. In either case, it fails CATDEF, but for different reasons. I find your argument persistently elides one thing for the other. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, SB. This argument (which you've given before) would perhaps be valid, I think, if you gave a reason why the term "combustion science" should not be regarded as a simple synonym of (say) "the scientific study of combustion." The latter term, I think, should be uncontroversial. You seem to feel that the former term has an additional meaning or implication, causing it to establish a "fringe division" of the sciences. Can you give a source, other than your own feelings, for this distinction? Eleuther (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Combustion science" is not a widely recognized division in the sciences, so sources would fail the "commonly and consistently" requirement of CATDEF. Both WP:NPOV and WP:OR are Wikipedia policies relevant to this particular reading of CATDEF. It should not require original research, at all, to place an individual into a category. Original research includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The categorization of individuals like John von Neumann as a "combustion scientist" is such a "conclusion not stated by the sources." Also, the clear implication of WP:NPOV, in the context of WP:FRINGE, is that "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is". In the present case, the fringe division of the sciences is "combustion science". By placing luminaries into this category, we are indeed making that fringe division of the sciences "appear more notable... than it is". Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Paul. The phrase "commonly and consistently" occurs in WP:CATDEF in one key place, which I will reproduce here:
- I agree that the category has a straightforward and obvious meaning, and that the term "combustion science" appears not to be a made-up term, but the question is does it have any members? Is there anyone for whom, per WP:CATDEF, there are reliable sources that classify them commonly and consistently as a "combustion scientist"? Just showing that someone did something related to combustion science, is not sufficient to satisfy CATDEF. Paul August ☎ 12:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Eleuther and Sławomir Biały: What is your opinion about Category:Scientists specialized in combustion? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks, Marcocapelle. Personally, I would prefer to keep the current name. It seems to be the most natural term, once the misconception about WP:CATDEF has been removed, i.e., the misconception that WP:CATDEF requires sources to contain the exact words "combustion scientist." Your suggestion seems to be a bit too restrictive. For example, it would exclude Lavoisier, who was one of the originators and main early contributors to the science of combustion, so he should clearly be included. However, one cannot say that he specialized in combustion. He worked in many other areas as well. Eleuther (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- It may be surprising that I too don't see an immediate problem with the current title. It is just that one very vocal editor does not seem to think that sources are required, original research is ok if it's only used for the purposes of categorization, and (apparently) is convinced that everyone else in the discussion suffers from a "misconception" about Wikipedia's guidelines despite very clear arguments to the contrary implicating other policies and guidelines. We have WP:FRINGE for a reason, and fringe categories can and do exist (e.g., Category:Ufologists). They just have to have sources that directly support categorization, like everything else on Wikipedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, SB, thanks for clarifying that your beef is not with the category itself, but with me personally. Can you please give an example of a place where I have advocated unsourced edits or WP:OR? It's true that I have pointed out that categorization doesn't require explicit sourcing, if only for the practical reason that there's nowhere to place a citation for the act of adding an article to a category. Rather, categorization needs to be based on sources that are already present in the article. There's nothing controversial about this, that I can see. Eleuther (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Eleuther, I don't have a beef with you personally. Your remarkable statement that "categorization does not require explicit sourcing" is directly contradicted by quotations to Wikipedia policies given above. Yet, when this is pointed out to you, you threw what might charitably be called a tantrum, rather than engage in any substantive discussion about actual policies. After this point you continued to reiterate elsewhere the anemic rhetorical device that it was other editors in the discussion that suffered from "misconceptions", despite conclusive documentary evidence to Wikipedia policies that explicitly backed those editors up. Pardon me, but your entire premise is based on unsourced categorization. That's not consistent with policy. Period. See above, in the thread you stormed out of, for precise details. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, SB. WP:CAT says: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." In other words, categorization must be based on sources that are already present in the article. Thus, the act of adding a category template to an article does not, in itself, require an explicit citation. And anyway, there's nowhere to place a cite template on such an act.
- Eleuther, I don't have a beef with you personally. Your remarkable statement that "categorization does not require explicit sourcing" is directly contradicted by quotations to Wikipedia policies given above. Yet, when this is pointed out to you, you threw what might charitably be called a tantrum, rather than engage in any substantive discussion about actual policies. After this point you continued to reiterate elsewhere the anemic rhetorical device that it was other editors in the discussion that suffered from "misconceptions", despite conclusive documentary evidence to Wikipedia policies that explicitly backed those editors up. Pardon me, but your entire premise is based on unsourced categorization. That's not consistent with policy. Period. See above, in the thread you stormed out of, for precise details. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, SB, thanks for clarifying that your beef is not with the category itself, but with me personally. Can you please give an example of a place where I have advocated unsourced edits or WP:OR? It's true that I have pointed out that categorization doesn't require explicit sourcing, if only for the practical reason that there's nowhere to place a citation for the act of adding an article to a category. Rather, categorization needs to be based on sources that are already present in the article. There's nothing controversial about this, that I can see. Eleuther (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- These are all simple and uncontroversial observations about established policy. I honestly don't see how you can twist them into the accusation that I'm advocating unsourced categorization. I'm just pointing out the established policy that the sources must be already present in the article. (Pardon me for italicizing "already present" twice, but you seem to have ignored the phrase in all the places where I've used it before.) Eleuther (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously they are not "simple and uncontroversial observations about established policy", or we would not be having this discussion. In any case WP:CAT is not a Wikipedia policy. It is a Wikipedia guideline. An example of a Wikipedia policy is the policy against original research. In the present context (as I've already said) it should not require original research, at all, to place an individual into a category. Original research includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The categorization of individuals like John von Neumann as a "combustion scientist" is such a "conclusion not stated by the sources." This actually is a straightforward mandate of Wikipedia policies, which clearly trumps tendentious readings of Wikipedia guidelines. I've also given supporting reasons, based on the WP:NPOV policy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, SB, we're not having a "discussion" here. You are just attacking me on every ungrounded basis you can think of. I find this new-found distinction between policies and guidelines to be especially funny. What comes next? In fact, von Neumann is already well attested in the article as a one of the foremost experts of the time on the science of shaped charges (a form of combustion, see detonation). The necessary source is already present in the article. Eleuther (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- That was not a personal attack. It was an indication that black-letter Wikipedia policies are quite clear on the matter. In fact, it was an argument that I already made, which you apparently dismissed, and continued instead to refer to others in the discussion as suffering from "misconceptions" based on your own tendentious reading of the guideline CATDEF. It therefore seemed to be necessary to point out the distinction between policies and guidelines, since the application of policy to the present discussion apparently continued to remain elusive for you. Your reading of CATDEF is actually inconsistent with Wikipedia policies, and so cannot be correct. Your argument continues to have the following character: because von Neumann was an expert on the science of shaped charges, therefore he is considered a "combustion scientist". That is such a "conclusion not stated by the sources". Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, SB, we're not having a "discussion" here. You are just attacking me on every ungrounded basis you can think of. I find this new-found distinction between policies and guidelines to be especially funny. What comes next? In fact, von Neumann is already well attested in the article as a one of the foremost experts of the time on the science of shaped charges (a form of combustion, see detonation). The necessary source is already present in the article. Eleuther (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously they are not "simple and uncontroversial observations about established policy", or we would not be having this discussion. In any case WP:CAT is not a Wikipedia policy. It is a Wikipedia guideline. An example of a Wikipedia policy is the policy against original research. In the present context (as I've already said) it should not require original research, at all, to place an individual into a category. Original research includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The categorization of individuals like John von Neumann as a "combustion scientist" is such a "conclusion not stated by the sources." This actually is a straightforward mandate of Wikipedia policies, which clearly trumps tendentious readings of Wikipedia guidelines. I've also given supporting reasons, based on the WP:NPOV policy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- These are all simple and uncontroversial observations about established policy. I honestly don't see how you can twist them into the accusation that I'm advocating unsourced categorization. I'm just pointing out the established policy that the sources must be already present in the article. (Pardon me for italicizing "already present" twice, but you seem to have ignored the phrase in all the places where I've used it before.) Eleuther (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Eleuther has asked me, on my talk page to respond to his comment above about CATDEF. But I'm not sure what I can say that I haven't said already. To me the meaning of CATDEF is clear. To categorize a person A, as being an X, it is not enough that X be a characteristic of A, X has to be a defining characteristic of A, that is you need reliable sources which "commonly and consistently define" A as an X. In the case of "combustion scientist" it is not even clear that the profession exists, or is notable. That is, if there exist reliable sources which commonly and consistently define anyone as a "combustion scientist". The mere existence of the science of combustion, does not mean that there are combustion scientists. Just as the existence of the science of lightbulbs, and of telephones, does not mean that the professions "lightbulb scientist", or "telephone scientist" exist, and that we should categorize Thomas Edison as a "lightbulb scientist" or Alexander Graham Bell as a "telephone scientist". Paul August ☎ 11:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Paul here articulates something nicely with his examples that I too had wished to articulate, but was unable to come up with illustrative examples. "Lightbulb scientist" indeed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Paul, I already proposed above that the "reasonable and obvious" defining characteristics for "combustion scientist" are (a) scientist, and (b) made notable contributions to the science of combustion. Thus to categorize A as a combustion scientist, one must only show that (a) and (b) are among A's "defining characteristics." Nothing that I can find in WP:CAT requires A to be described by the exact term "combustion scientist" in a source, and nothing specifies any sense in which "combustion science" must be considered to be a "profession." Can you please point me to the text in WP:CAT that requires these things? I appreciate that you feel these things should be part of WP:CAT, but I've read WP:CAT over and over, and I can't find anything like these requirements there.
- By the way, absurd as it may seem, there's also nothing inherently wrong with the term "lightbulb scientist." Anyone reading it will understand what it means, and that Edison was one. I agree it shouldn't be a Wikipedia category, but not because the term itself is somehow illegitimate (according to some unsourced criterion, Bialy), or because of the paucity of sources describing people exactly as "lightbulb scientists." These criteria have been ascribed above repeatedly to WP:CAT, but they are not in fact present in WP:CAT. Nor does the category violate WP:CAT in any other way that I can find. But it does seem to violate WP:OVERCAT, etc. Eleuther (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- It would help, wouldn't it, to look at the history of this neologism. A Google search brings up a whole lot of job advertisments in New Scientist from 1974 onwards for heads of section who do the work of experimental engineers. It's simply a job category and I would require some good solid references before agreeing that it can be extended retroactively to innovators in the field of combustion. Does it, for instance, cover the first guys in prehistory to rub sticks together to produce fire? Sweetpool50 (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Sweetpool50, thanks for contributing. My feeling is that "combustion scientist" is not a neologism at all, it's just an ordinary English phrase, with an obvious meaning. So the question of whether early stick-rubbers should be included, sort of comes down to what you mean by "scientist." This is an interesting question, but it seems to be off-topic here. Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- It would help, wouldn't it, to look at the history of this neologism. A Google search brings up a whole lot of job advertisments in New Scientist from 1974 onwards for heads of section who do the work of experimental engineers. It's simply a job category and I would require some good solid references before agreeing that it can be extended retroactively to innovators in the field of combustion. Does it, for instance, cover the first guys in prehistory to rub sticks together to produce fire? Sweetpool50 (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why is "reasonable and obvious" in quotes? As far as I am aware, this is not a standard that is endorsed by any existing Wikipedia policies, but I would like to see the context. For direct quotes to Wikipedia policies, please see my response to an earlier comment you made. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's in quotes, as clearly stated, because I'm quoting an earlier remark by myself. Thanks for giving another example of attacking me for any bizarre reason you can imagine. Eleuther (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're citing a standard which does not exist. See WP:NOR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- What non-existent standard do you think I'm citing here? Please explain. Thanks,Eleuther (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is not consistent with WP:NOR that original research is acceptable if it meets the invented "reasonable and obvious" standard. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Bialy. You're amazing. The term "reasonable and obvious" was in quotes for the ordinary reason, because it's a quotation. In this case, it's a quotation of an earlier remark by myself, as I clearly stated at the time ("Hi, Paul, I already proposed above that the "reasonable and obvious" defining characteristics" ...). One should be able use quotation marks in their ordinary sense, without being attacked for WP:OR. Putting quotes around a phrase doesn't imply that I'm invoking a WP standard. It just means what quotation marks ordinarily mean -- that I'm quoting something that came earlier. What's so hard to understand about that? Eleuther (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't care about the quotation marks. Your invented standard is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies, whether it is in quotation marks or not. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, you seemed to care about the quotation marks earlier. If we agree that the quotation marks don't matter, then I just used two ordinary English words, reasonable and obvious, with their everyday meanings. Nothing suggests that I was trying to invent a WP standard by using these words. I was just using some ordinary words. What's so hard to understand about that? Eleuther (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing's hard to understand about it. It's just stupid. Let's stick with established Wikipedia policies. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- What, please, is "just stupid" about using words with their ordinary meanings? How is this contrary to established policies? Can you please name the policy you think is being violated here? Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've referred you on several occasions to the WP:NOR policy. You've not engaged on that, at all, and instead threw petty tantrums every single time. I'd add WP:V as well. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- What, please, is "just stupid" about using words with their ordinary meanings? How is this contrary to established policies? Can you please name the policy you think is being violated here? Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing's hard to understand about it. It's just stupid. Let's stick with established Wikipedia policies. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, you seemed to care about the quotation marks earlier. If we agree that the quotation marks don't matter, then I just used two ordinary English words, reasonable and obvious, with their everyday meanings. Nothing suggests that I was trying to invent a WP standard by using these words. I was just using some ordinary words. What's so hard to understand about that? Eleuther (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't care about the quotation marks. Your invented standard is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies, whether it is in quotation marks or not. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Bialy. You're amazing. The term "reasonable and obvious" was in quotes for the ordinary reason, because it's a quotation. In this case, it's a quotation of an earlier remark by myself, as I clearly stated at the time ("Hi, Paul, I already proposed above that the "reasonable and obvious" defining characteristics" ...). One should be able use quotation marks in their ordinary sense, without being attacked for WP:OR. Putting quotes around a phrase doesn't imply that I'm invoking a WP standard. It just means what quotation marks ordinarily mean -- that I'm quoting something that came earlier. What's so hard to understand about that? Eleuther (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is not consistent with WP:NOR that original research is acceptable if it meets the invented "reasonable and obvious" standard. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- What non-existent standard do you think I'm citing here? Please explain. Thanks,Eleuther (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're citing a standard which does not exist. See WP:NOR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's in quotes, as clearly stated, because I'm quoting an earlier remark by myself. Thanks for giving another example of attacking me for any bizarre reason you can imagine. Eleuther (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- To me the phrase "lightbulb scientist" names a (in this case non-existent) profession, and does not just mean a scientist whose work is related to lightbulbs, just as "occupation therapist" names a profession, and not just a therapist whose work is related to occupations. That is certainly how many editors are (and would be) interpreting the phrase "combustion scientist", that is, as a profession. If a the category is meant to be "scientists whose work is related to combustion" then that (or something like it) should be its name, otherwise it is (and will be) confusing at best. Paul August ☎ 12:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Paul, thanks. I think the key phrase in your comment lies in the the opening words, "to me." Can you cite an independent source for the idea that the term "lightbulb scientist" must name an established profession? I don't know of such a source, and I can't really imagine where one could be found. To me, the term is just ordinary English. Eleuther (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- For Category:Lightbulb scientists it would be required that the people in the category are known as lightbulb scientists, just like for the nominated Category:Combustion scientists people in the category should be known as combustion scientists. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Marcocapelle: Hi, thanks, I agree completely. But the argument is not really about that. It's about how the phrase "combustion scientist" should be understood. I personally think it should be understood as a simple description, and this seems to me to be the most reasonable interpretation. As a related example, consider Category:Nature photographers. The defining characteristics for this category seem to be (a) notable photographer, and (b) notable photographer of nature. Thus for X to be in this category, X must satisfy (a) and (b), according to sources in the article. But there's no requirement here, that I can see, that X should be described in a source by the exact term "nature photographer," or even more restrictively, that X must have some kind of degree or certificate in an academic field of "nature photography."
- So the question here, I think, is, why should the term "combustion scientist" be treated differently?. I acknowledge that a number of editors think that the term "combustion scientist" must somehow name a discrete academic discipline, which doesn't really exist. But none of these editors has provided a source for this belief, other than their own (sometimes passionate) feelings about the term. In the absence of sources to the contrary, I think the term should just be interpreted with its ordinary meaning, as a descriptive phrase, the defining characteristics of which are (a) notable scientist, and (b) notable contributor to the science of combustion. This is the simplest and plainest resolution of the issue that I've been able to come up with. Eleuther (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- We agree on the descriptiveness of the category name. The question simply is which category name is more clearly recognizable as descriptive. I think "scientists specialized in combustion" is. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Combustion science" actually is a discrete academic discipline. Eleuther's own keep !vote proves this. That's actually a good thing for categorization, because it means that there are sources that put individuals into the category, and ideally an individual should be in the category if and only if sources exist that do so. The analogy with "nature photographers" is illustrative, precisely for the reason that individuals in the category have sources that describe them as nature photographers. For example, sources cited in the article refer to Fiona Ayerst as a "wildlife photographer", and so her membership in the category is directly supported by sources. But no sources call von Neumann or Lavoisier a "combustion scientist". Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Marcocapelle, thanks. I already commented on your proposal above. I think it may be too restrictive, because it would exclude Lavoisier. Did you see my comment there, or was it drowned out by what came after? Lavoisier was one of the principal founders of combustion science, so I think he should clearly be included. But he did not exactly "specialize" in combustion --- he also contributed to many other areas of science (and philosophy, etc). But maybe I'm the one who's being too restrictive here. If you agree that scientists can have many areas of specialization, that would satisfy most of my objection. In this case, I would still suggest that "scientists specializing in combustion" is a somewhat more natural phrase, colloquially. Thanks, for all your attention to this issue. Eleuther (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, we require a source for statements like "Lavoisier was one of the principal founders of Combustion Science™." I know you feel that an exception should be made for categories, but that is inconsistent with the guidelines on categories, and numerous Wikipedia policies. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, SB, you're not making a lot of sense here. Lavoisier is well known in the history of science as a principal founder of the science of combustion, and indeed, of chemistry in general. Do you object to this statement? The article on Lavoisier supports it with abundant sources. (I suppose you could attack it on the grounds that the the exact phrase "principal founder" doesn't appear in the article, if you want to go in that direction.)
- Your objection here, instead, seems to be related to my use of the term "combustion science," in my comment a moment ago about Lavoisier. I personally think (as I've explained earlier, many times) that the term should be understood in the ordinary descriptive sense, as a synonym for "the science of combustion." You seem to think, in contrast, that the term "combustion science" is somehow "trade-marked" (as I interpret your special typesetting to mean), or somehow otherwise restricted to have a special meaning, which you haven't exactly defined, but which seems to require people to have explicit academic credentials in a field of that name.
- I respect that this is a possible interpretation. (Users Paul August and Trovatore seem to have shared something like it earlier.) But since it's non-obvious, I think you need to give a source for it, i.e., something that explains why the term "combustion science" should be understood differently from, say, Galactic astronomy, which doesn't seem to require practitioners to have an explicit degree in a field called "galactic astronomy." No one has given a source for this idea so far, however, i.e., a source for why the term "combustion science" must be treated specially.
- Note (as an aside) that Marcocapelle has already agreed with me above, that the category name should be descriptive. He then invited comments on the question of what category name would be most clearly recognized as descriptive. It's very hard for me to answer him intelligently here, if every answer I try to make is swamped by irrational disputation from you. But I suppose that's your intention. Eleuther (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Irrational disputation from you." That is not constructive. I have been completely consistent and rational. I simply propose that we follow Wikipedia's policies in the matter, which are quite clear. For example, if we were to say that "Lavoisier was a principal founder of the science of combustion", that absolutely does require a reliable source that says things in more or less this way, especially if it is challenged. Again, please see WP:NOR and especially WP:SYN. If you don't like that, you probably shouldn't be here. Also, yet again your examples are found wanting. Category:Galactic astronomers does not exist. You seem to be arguing that it should exist. Well, it would (also) require sources if so! Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Bialy. I made that statement about Lavoisier here, on a talk page, as part of an attempt to reply to civil question by Marcocapelle. Most people would regard the statement as obviously true. Regardless of what you think about it, I didn't make the statement in an article, where it would of course require appropriate sources. I made it here, on a talk page. Statements on talk pages don't require citations. It is clearly irrational disputation, when you attack me for not having supplied sources for a statement on a talk page. (And then to go on to say that if I don't like it, I probably "shouldn't be here," etc.) Eleuther (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- You get indignant when I suggest that the statement "Lavoisier was a principal founder of the science of combustion" (on a talk page) requires a source, yet you would use the same sentence to justify inclusion in a Category, with the belief (it would seem) that it is then exempt from sources. But, as I've said repeatedly and consistently (as do policies and guideline), that sentence that you've constructed to justify inclusion in the category, is precisely what requires a source in the first place. Indeed, with categorization, the requirement for sources is even stronger, per the very clear "commonly and consistently" wording of the WP:CATDEF guideline. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- So, you believe that I might use the sentence improperly sometime in the future, in a place where explicit sources are needed. Therefore you attack me for this imagined future violation here, on a talk page, where I'm just trying to answer a simple question from Marcocapelle. How, exactly, is this constructive, or even rational? Eleuther (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- You wrote "Lavoisier was one of the principal founders of combustion science, so I think he should clearly be included." I am simply pointing out that if he "clearly should be included" for the reason that "Lavoisier was one of the principal founders of combustion science", then indeed the required sources for that characterization are relevant to our discussion. If there are no sources that Lavoisier was a founder of "the science of combustion", then he may not be so characterized under Wikipedia policy. Hopefully that clears things up. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't clear anything up. In particular, it doesn't clear up the question of why you are attacking me here, on a talk page, on these imaginative grounds, when I'm just trying to answer a question from Marcocapelle. Can you please respond to this? And what do you mean by "our discussion?" I'm not trying to have a discussion with you here, I'm just trying to respond to a question from Marcocapelle. That's all I'm trying to do. Eleuther (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am not attacking you. I am firmly insisting that we adhere to Wikipedia's policies. I will not point these out further to you, since I have done so on many occasions already. I hope you will not be upset if I do not engage your further requests for clarification, since I seem to be unable to convey things in simple enough terms for you, as you appear confused even by my choice of pronouns. Perhaps there is a language barrier? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Finally. I will take that with the obvious meaning, that you decline to answer my simple question, because you can't. For the record, I don't advocate ignoring or misinterpreting Wikipedia policies, and never have. You have accused me of this many times, with respect to very many Wikipedia policies, but the accusations are all groundless, unsupported by anything I've actually written or done. The accusations are just you throwing unsupported WP-bombs at me from every direction you can think of, in pursuit of your obviously rancorous dispute with me, the origin of which I don't really understand. But I don't need to. The idea that you've been "clarifying" things for me is silly. The idea that you've been doing it at my own request is beyond silly. Bye. (Please honor your promise to stay away.) Eleuther (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I could try to answer the question if you really want. But, based on my interactions thus far, I do not think you would be able to understand the response. For the record, I have not been "throwing unsupported WP-bombs at me from every direction [I] can think of" though. You should not have commented incorrectly about my behavior here, because I must now correct it. From the very beginning of the discussion, I focused on the policy WP:NOR. I even quoted it so that it is absolutely crystal clear. I supported this reading by WP:NPOV, and a quotation to WP:FRINGE. In addition, although I did not refer to it initially, when you asked me to cite policies that are in conflict with your proposed "reasonable and obvious" standard of categorization, I cited WP:V in addition. I think my posts have been quite clear, and always focused on the same set of policies, so I strongly contest the characterization of throwing "unsupported WP-bombs". If there is an aspect of the application of policy that you were confused about, you had ample time to request clarification. You could have said, for example, "Original research allows us to draw 'reasonable and obvious inferences'." (This should be supported by some citation to policy as well, if there is one. That is why I asked you for the policy source of your proposed "reasonable and obvious" standard above, but you instead decided to make the issue the quotation marks rather than the substance.) Instead of attempting to justify yourself on the basis of actual Wikipedia policies, you continued to labor under misconceptions here, incorrectly characterizing the positions of others as misunderstandings. That also created, I feel, a need for me to correct you. You were commenting on the interpretations others had made (who supported their positions based on black-letter Wikipedia policies), without referring to policies yourself, as if they were the ones who did not understand Wikipedia policies. If you don't wish to be corrected at every turn, you should stop saying wrong things. Especially about others. In your case, I would highly recommend that you stop commenting altogether. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Finally. I will take that with the obvious meaning, that you decline to answer my simple question, because you can't. For the record, I don't advocate ignoring or misinterpreting Wikipedia policies, and never have. You have accused me of this many times, with respect to very many Wikipedia policies, but the accusations are all groundless, unsupported by anything I've actually written or done. The accusations are just you throwing unsupported WP-bombs at me from every direction you can think of, in pursuit of your obviously rancorous dispute with me, the origin of which I don't really understand. But I don't need to. The idea that you've been "clarifying" things for me is silly. The idea that you've been doing it at my own request is beyond silly. Bye. (Please honor your promise to stay away.) Eleuther (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am not attacking you. I am firmly insisting that we adhere to Wikipedia's policies. I will not point these out further to you, since I have done so on many occasions already. I hope you will not be upset if I do not engage your further requests for clarification, since I seem to be unable to convey things in simple enough terms for you, as you appear confused even by my choice of pronouns. Perhaps there is a language barrier? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't clear anything up. In particular, it doesn't clear up the question of why you are attacking me here, on a talk page, on these imaginative grounds, when I'm just trying to answer a question from Marcocapelle. Can you please respond to this? And what do you mean by "our discussion?" I'm not trying to have a discussion with you here, I'm just trying to respond to a question from Marcocapelle. That's all I'm trying to do. Eleuther (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- You wrote "Lavoisier was one of the principal founders of combustion science, so I think he should clearly be included." I am simply pointing out that if he "clearly should be included" for the reason that "Lavoisier was one of the principal founders of combustion science", then indeed the required sources for that characterization are relevant to our discussion. If there are no sources that Lavoisier was a founder of "the science of combustion", then he may not be so characterized under Wikipedia policy. Hopefully that clears things up. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- So, you believe that I might use the sentence improperly sometime in the future, in a place where explicit sources are needed. Therefore you attack me for this imagined future violation here, on a talk page, where I'm just trying to answer a simple question from Marcocapelle. How, exactly, is this constructive, or even rational? Eleuther (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- You get indignant when I suggest that the statement "Lavoisier was a principal founder of the science of combustion" (on a talk page) requires a source, yet you would use the same sentence to justify inclusion in a Category, with the belief (it would seem) that it is then exempt from sources. But, as I've said repeatedly and consistently (as do policies and guideline), that sentence that you've constructed to justify inclusion in the category, is precisely what requires a source in the first place. Indeed, with categorization, the requirement for sources is even stronger, per the very clear "commonly and consistently" wording of the WP:CATDEF guideline. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Bialy. I made that statement about Lavoisier here, on a talk page, as part of an attempt to reply to civil question by Marcocapelle. Most people would regard the statement as obviously true. Regardless of what you think about it, I didn't make the statement in an article, where it would of course require appropriate sources. I made it here, on a talk page. Statements on talk pages don't require citations. It is clearly irrational disputation, when you attack me for not having supplied sources for a statement on a talk page. (And then to go on to say that if I don't like it, I probably "shouldn't be here," etc.) Eleuther (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Irrational disputation from you." That is not constructive. I have been completely consistent and rational. I simply propose that we follow Wikipedia's policies in the matter, which are quite clear. For example, if we were to say that "Lavoisier was a principal founder of the science of combustion", that absolutely does require a reliable source that says things in more or less this way, especially if it is challenged. Again, please see WP:NOR and especially WP:SYN. If you don't like that, you probably shouldn't be here. Also, yet again your examples are found wanting. Category:Galactic astronomers does not exist. You seem to be arguing that it should exist. Well, it would (also) require sources if so! Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, we require a source for statements like "Lavoisier was one of the principal founders of Combustion Science™." I know you feel that an exception should be made for categories, but that is inconsistent with the guidelines on categories, and numerous Wikipedia policies. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- For Category:Lightbulb scientists it would be required that the people in the category are known as lightbulb scientists, just like for the nominated Category:Combustion scientists people in the category should be known as combustion scientists. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Paul, thanks. I think the key phrase in your comment lies in the the opening words, "to me." Can you cite an independent source for the idea that the term "lightbulb scientist" must name an established profession? I don't know of such a source, and I can't really imagine where one could be found. To me, the term is just ordinary English. Eleuther (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Insects of Guinea-Bissau
- 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 10:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Insects of Guinea-Bissau to Category:Insects of West Africa
- Nominator's rationale:
- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for Acanthosphinx).
- Note: A CFD in 2014 deleted moths-of-countries categories and further CFDs (recent example) have further reduced the number of by-country categories for types of insects. DexDor (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support common sense that insects don't respect national borders. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - per nom. Oculi (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Ancient Greek world by region
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. A split may be justified, but that is best left for another discussion. ℯxplicit 05:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greek world by region
- Option A rename to Category:Ancient Greece by region, over redirect, aligning the category name with its parent Category:Ancient Greece.
- Option B rename to Category:Regions of ancient Greece, aligning with the main article Regions of ancient Greece.
- In any case Greek world is confusing as it may well be associated with the Hellenistic world which covered a large part of the world. In contrast this category is about ancient Greece including its immediate colonies (e.g. in Southern Italy and North Africa). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
earlier discussion at CFDS
|
|---|
|
- Option B. "Category:Regions of ancient Greece" seems like the better title, and it would reduce the degree ambiguity in the present title—although I think that "ancient Greece" could still be interpreted to include areas outside of Greece proper, so it might be advisable to place a note at the top, explaining what should be included and excluded. I would probably expect to find Aeolia and Ionia under the heading of "ancient Greece", even though they're in Asia Minor. P Aculeius (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Option A of course - we want to reduce ambiguity whether it refers to modern areas or contemporary geographic definitions.GreyShark (dibra) 10:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have no idea why option 'A' would be preferable to option 'B', as it isn't any less ambiguous, and seems much less intuitive. We wouldn't have categories titled, "Parts of the United States by state" or "Subdivisions of Oregon by county"; we have "States of the United States" and "Oregon counties". If option 'B' happens to align with the title of the main article in the category, so much the better—not controlling, but relevant. P Aculeius (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure that either option adequately captures the scope of the contents. I'm concerned about Magna Graecia inparticular: are we to conclude that swathes of modern Italy are to be recognised as ancient Greece? They were certainly colonised by Greeks, but I doubt that contemporary Greeks would have thought that Syracuse was in Greece. Perhaps the category ought to pruned to include only Greece proper, leaving Magna Graecia to its own category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep-- We need a category that covers the whole of the ancient Greek world, including its colonies which were as far afield as Libya, Crimea, Sicily, and (I think) Marseilles in France. This is much wider than non-specialists would expect from the use of the term "Greece". This may make it an aberrant category. Category:Ancient Greece and its colonies by region might fit. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've change my !vote to It depends (see my comment below). Paul August ☎ 11:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The ancient Greek world was much larger than ancient Greece. And yes it included Marseilles, see the above map. Paul August ☎ 16:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- User:Laurel Lodged had a good point. Alternatively we may split this into Category:Regions of ancient Greece and Category:Regions colonized by ancient Greeks. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment As I originally read the proposal, the category was to be limited to Greece itself. I was perfectly happy to include the far side of the Aegean in that, but less so about Magna Graecia, much less other settlements or the conquests of Alexander. But if it's going to include a substantial number of these, then I don't really see a good rationale for excluding only those settlements or possessions that were the furthest away. P Aculeius (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I guess I assumed from the current title that the intent of the category was to capture the entire ancient Greek world, and was not intended to be limited to just Greece itself. Obviously if that is the intent of the category then the name should be changed. But what the intended scope of the category, or what the scope should be is now unclear to me. Paul August ☎ 11:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with that. A split of the category into Category:Regions of ancient Greece and Category:Regions colonized by ancient Greeks may work better then. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I guess I assumed from the current title that the intent of the category was to capture the entire ancient Greek world, and was not intended to be limited to just Greece itself. Obviously if that is the intent of the category then the name should be changed. But what the intended scope of the category, or what the scope should be is now unclear to me. Paul August ☎ 11:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The contents of this category go way beyong the limits of Ancient Greece, whatever limits you choose to make your own, and include regions like Ancient Cyrenaica, Magna Graecia, Ancient Cyprus, rightfully so. The term Hellenistic is wrong for anachrony reasons, because it is in principle relative to the Hellenistic period (ca. 323-31 BC), while said regions were extant several centuries before and after this period. The term Ancient Greek world is IMHO perfectly fine to describe the scope of this category, and I see no better. I also note that Ancient Greek civilization (another acceptable term in place of world) redirects to Ancient Greece, and that the opening line of this article defines its scope as :
Ancient Greece was a civilization belonging to a period of Greek history from the Greek Dark Ages of the 13th–9th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (c. AD 600).
i.e. with a primarily period/civilization definition rather than geographical, which would be the unfortunate case with Regions of Ancient Greece or with splitting. Place Clichy (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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:Women mayors of places in British Columbia
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Women mayors of places in British Columbia to Category:Women mayors of places in Canada
- Propose merging Category:Women mayors of places in Ontario to Category:Women mayors of places in Canada
- Propose merging Category:Women mayors of places in Quebec to Category:Women mayors of places in Canada
- Nominator's rationale: Subcategorization by province of a category which does not meet the conditions required to qualify for an exemption from WP:OCLOCATION: the intersection of "women mayor" with individual province is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right, and the parent category isn't large enough to require diffusion as there are only 144 articles across this entire tree combined. Upmerging to "mayors of places in (Province)" not required, as all of the articles here were left in there alongside this if they weren't already subcatted by city in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- All have more than 5 articles which is the accepted minimum. 144 is getting towards the level where we might want a split anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- "The number of articles in the subcategory exceeds five" is not relevant to whether WP:OCLOCATION applies or not — the intersection has to either be a WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right, or the parent category has to be large enough to need splitting, which 144 articles is not. The tree would have to be much closer to a thousand articles than it is to a hundred before the "size control" exemption from OCLOCATION kicked in. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete mayors by sex is not defining; they run presumably in a co-ed field and are elected among candidates of any sex - unlike say Category:Female tennis players; Category:Best Actress Academy Award winners. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Category:Women mayors is a well established tree. Canada's category is large enough that splitting is reasonable, at least of the larger provinces, and this follows the precedent already set by the US's state-specific women mayor categories. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- All four categories combined encompass a grand total of 144 articles. That is not "large enough that splitting is reasonable" — a category has to be much closer to 1,000 articles than it is to 100 before the "size control of a large category" exemption from WP:OCLOCATION kicks in. And no, Canada does not automatically need all of its categories to be subcatted exactly identically to USian categories either — the US has ten times the population of Canada, and thus roughly ten times as many people who are notable enough to qualify for articles. Which means the US has a lot more "category size" issues than Canada does, and thus something that qualifies under the "size control" criterion in the US can fail to do so in Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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.