< November 6 November 8 >

November 7

Category:Lurish music

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 16#Category:Lurish ____

Category:Lurish scientists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 16#Category:Lurish ____

Category:Lurish culture

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 16#Category:Lurish ____

Category:Lurish musicians

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 16#Category:Lurish ____

Category:Lynn, Massachusetts city council members

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 10:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: fix capitalization error TM 21:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This one needs to be redone; the correct form is "Category:Lynn, Massachusetts, City Council members". Bracketing commas always come in pairs. WP:RM] has been over this about 10,000 times. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charlotte City Council members

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 15#Category:Charlotte City Council members

Category:Durham City Council members

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 10:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify that this article is only for those city council members from this city and not the many other the municipalities called Durham. TM 21:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cairns

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 10:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ASTONISH although the discussion at Talk:Cairns (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 May 2019 was closed without a move (it actually looks like no consensus) the plural form is far more of an issue in categories because there usually plural. See Category:Wells (which was renamed years before the article was moved), Category:Tours, Category:Queens and Category:Friends. In most other cases in the article namespace the plural redirects to the singular even if there's a notable topic under the plural such as Bones, Bookends, Cars, Cats and Parachutes. Category:Cairns could then become a DAB with Category:Cairns Region. We also sometimes have categories disambiguated even when the article follows the same NC as categories such as Category:Perth and Category:Plymouth. Commons:Category:Cairns is a DAB page although it was about the stack. However like Queens, this category could be re created for the stack but its probably best to have a DAB here. Note that the article and category were moved without discussion in 2011 but "Cairns" already redirected to the Australian city. The sub categories can be nominated for speedy renaming once this is done. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suites

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 Category:Suites only. MER-C 12:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After I nominated the top category and the composer category it was then pointed out to me that if done the sub categories should also be nominated. However then people said that renaming the people categories were unnecessary (which I agree with) however its standard practice that sub categories match their parent even if they don't require disambiguation[1]. As noted Suite is a DAB and Suites redirects there, furthermore the Commons category is at Category:Suites (music). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Ancient Greek categories

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. As a contested rename with no consensus, the categories are returned to their previous titles. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose move
Nominator's rationale: I am actually not interested in these categories. I processed a speedy move request [3] which at the time looked uncontroversial to me. However, after the move three users in good standing showed at my talk page and objected the move. I am going to cite their arguments here:
Future Perfect at Sunrise: I can see the logic of the nomination, but in the case of "Kingdoms in Greek antiquity", the new category name now doesn't match the existing category contents. The thing is, that category was widely used in a rather loose sense, including kingdoms that roughly belonged to "Greek antiquity" as a wider historiographical/cultural sphere, but weren't actually Greek in an ethnic/linguistic sense. Examples include Kingdom of Cappadocia, Paeonia (kingdom), Kingdom of Pontus, Odrysian kingdom, Minoan Crete, etc.
Calthinus: The old category was useful in that it marked places that were part of the ancient "Hellenistic world" -- which is a useful thing to mark, and also something distinct from being completely "Greek". Way back in the day, this distinction was pretty meaningful, even if today it is obscure -- for example, the Hasmonean Kingdom was quite heavily influenced by Greek... everything, yet its foundation was resistance against the form of Hellenization that threatened the native cultural identity.
Nominating for the reverse move--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping involved users: @Brandmeister: @Black Falcon: @Future Perfect at Sunrise: @Calthinus: @Jingiby:--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Fut Perf's rationale and mine already given above.--Calthinus (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A good argument could be made for many of the subcategories still falling under the definition of "Greek", at least at some point in their existence, although there's endless squabbling about groups like the Macedonians and Thracians, which I tried to avoid by not bringing it up in the first place—and while you may want to exclude the Minoans as well, at least they lived in Greece and clearly were one of the sources for later Greek culture. But all of that is beside the point I made: all of the articles in the category are about Greek kingdoms, either because they were in Greece or were Greek colonies. Subcategories are another matter entirely, and might merit some discussion. But the current title identifies this category in a more restricted way than the proposed category title, and this definition matches the articles listed. P Aculeius (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is a scientific consensus on Thracians as quite separate and attempts to blur the two are typically outdated fringe by either the Greek side i.e. Skordelis, or a certain period of communist era Bulgarian historiography (as A. Madgearu can explain for you -- [5]) which tried to reclassify certain Greek subgroups as "originally Thracian" and endeavored to demonstrate to the world the "hitherto unknown importance" of the "enlightened" "mystical" Bulgarian Thracian civilization and its Orphean "lyrical genius" and etc, thankfully modern Bulgarian historiography has backed away from these embarrassments [archaeologiaexnovo.org/2016/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/6_Marinov_Zorzin_Ex_Novo_2.pdf] [www.academia.edu/download/56883859/Ant-Thrace-Marinov.pdf]. Macedonians -- likely Greeks or at least kindred. But regardless of details, I think we can all agree that we need to differentiate "Greek" entities from their supercategory of "Hellenistic" ones, and categorize things properly. --Calthinus (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've always regarded Thrace as part of the ancient Greek world, because the teachers and sources I'm familiar with seemed to, but never been entirely clear on the reasons. I doubt very much it has to do with Greek or Bulgarian nationalism. According to our article on Thrace, a number of the "Greek" heroes of the Homeric sagas came from Thrace, so that Homer at least regarded Thrace as part of the Greek world. The Thracians of later antiquity don't seem very Greek, perhaps suggesting that they, like several other groups, were not the same people who had inhabited the region before the Greek Dark Ages. However, they lived on the periphery of Greece, and were in the process of Hellenization "before the Peloponnesian War", i.e. by the fifth century BC. So while the Thracians may not have been ethnically Greek, a strong argument could still be made for including them in the category of Ancient Greece, as one would for the far-flung colonies of Magna Graecia. The same would not be said of many of the conquests of Alexander and the generals who followed him, who ruled over regions far from Classical Greece, that were primarily non-Greek in ethnicity, history, and culture; Egypt, for example, or the eastern satrapies, and client kingdoms, that were part of the Hellenistic world. So I think it's still perfectly reasonable to include Thrace or Thracian topics in the Hellenic/Greek category. P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^This is very true and I agree with most of it. That's why I think it is important we mark out the category of places Hellenistic places as indeed places that did not speak Greek, i.e. Phrygia, Lydia, Magna Graecia (to be entirely fair there were plenty of actual Greeks in this region too -- as was true of coastal Thrace) as you noted and yes Thrace that were recipients of and to a lesser extent contributors toward Hellenic civilization. This is a distinct category -- and should be marked off somehow. I don't know how you'd like -- Hellenistic as a subgroup of Greek i.e. semi-Hellenized cultures, or the reverse, either works for me -- but surely we should maintain existence of category for these? --Calthinus (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While parts of coastal Asia Minor could be considered parts of ancient Greece, as I think one has to include the entire Aegean littoral, and perhaps even Magna Graecia, I don't think it's fair to describe Ptolemaic Egypt, the eastern satrapies, client kingdoms, or other eastern regions that were ruled by or influenced by, but not primarily composed of Greeks, as being "in ancient Greece". In a broad sense you could describe various customs as occurring "in ancient Greece", with it being understood that this might apply to all or most of the Hellenistic world as well, but while there are arguable regions—for instance, see the above discussion about Thrace—many are not even arguably "in ancient Greece". There's a second objection to naming these categories after the "things" they describe, and then the cultural context, i.e. "Leagues in ancient Greece" as opposed to "Ancient Greek Leagues". I agree that the former is a more natural, more encyclopedic-sounding title. But the search window typically brings up all similar results, and in this case that would mean that its utility would be limited by the number of topics beginning with "Leagues in...", potentially dozens of different entries, which could not be displayed. And people may not be sure what to look under to find them in the first place. Beginning the title with "Ancient Greek..." limits the scope of the search to potentially-related articles, and so is more helpful for searching. It's probably for this reason that so many topics and categories already begin similarly. If the scope of Wikipedia were limited to the classical world, perhaps the more encyclopedic title would be less problematic. As it is, "Leagues in ancient Greece" might be hidden in the midst of categories with titles such as "Leagues in ancient Italy", "Leagues in ancient Persia", "Leagues in early American baseball", "Leagues in nothern European linear measurement", "Leagues in Japanese poetry of the feudal period" and soforth. While "Ancient Greek..." might also pull up a lot of titles, at least they'd have a chance of being related to the topic being searched for, and just adding the letter 'L' might bring up the desired option. P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ymblanter, I offer my apologies for assuming that you had more involvement in this than a strictly administrative role. I have obviously seen your name elsewhere and mistakenly assumed that I had seen you in Greek/Ancient Macedonian issues. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. We typically cross our paths in Ukrainian articles (including Kiev/Kyiv discussions).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And, thus, "Kingdoms of Greek antiquity" accurately bore just such categorization without the exaggerated category label of "Greek kingdoms". How about a category "Men of Wikipedia" and list all our female editors under a subcategory? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, look, another strawman argument. Khirurg (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While 2 and 3 seem to be clear delineations, the first is where the devil lies. There were states, such as Ancient Macedonia, that were not Greek (or barely Greek) to begin with, but became more Greek as the centuries passed. It's a complex situation that cannot be simplistically summed up by "Greek kingdom". That was the point of the unchanged title (Kingdoms in Greek Antiquity): to include fully Greek states, of course, but also include those states on the periphery of the ancient Greek world that were not Greek, barely Greek, not completely Greek, or transitioning from one level of "Greekness" to another during some or all of antiquity. If you have a better title formulation, please propose it, but "Ancient Greek Kingdoms" is not it because it is a narrow title that some editors want to make include states on the periphery that don't properly belong, either partially or completely, within the semantic range of "Ancient Greek Kingdoms". (And, of course, Athens, while "Greek", wasn't even a "kingdom" during a significant portion of Greek Antiquity. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're seeing a problem that exists almost entirely within the bounds of modern national politics. Only a very small minority of scholars continue to argue that Macedonia wasn't Greek, or would object to its inclusion in a category entitled "ancient Greek kingdoms". A stronger case—as stated above, twice—could be made to exclude Thrace, even though it was on the periphery of Greece, was considered part of the Greek world by the Greeks themselves, and had been hellenizing for a long time before the beginning of the Hellenistic period. But it's not possible to include or exclude some of these cases in a way that will satisfy everybody, no matter how you phrase it, because some people simply will not accept any category that they disagree with philosophically. The goal here is not to achieve the impossible—a definition that fits everybody's needs and with which everybody agrees—but to achieve the most reasonable result given the difficulties.
The main issue as I summarized it above remains: if you change "ancient Greek kingdoms" to "kingdoms in Greek antiquity", then pretty much every kingdom in the classical world is fair game for inclusion, whether they were Greek or not, whether they were Hellenized or not; every kingdom that in some way affected or was even in contact with the Greek world could fit under that category. I'm quite certain that wasn't the original intent of the category. If you want such a category, why not create it at that title, and leave this category for the topics that fit within the narrower limitation that it presently has? If the goal is to have only one category that meets both definitions simultaneously, then you're out of luck. That's not even a remote possibility. I also don't think it's relevant to the current proposal that Athens wasn't a kingdom throughout antiquity. It was for part of its history, so it fits within this category, even though it wasn't a kingdom in its later history. Places that were never kingdoms and are excluded by the present title would also be excluded by the proposed title, so the fact that they would be excluded really has no relevance to this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, P Aculeius! Also, let me quote you: "I think you're seeing a problem that exists almost entirely within the bounds of modern national politics." is exactly the problem I am having with Taivo over the kingdom of Macedon. I am confident that if modern politics didn't get in the way, the categorization "Greek Kingdom" for Macedon wouldn't even be having opponents. I am trying to tell the editors to leave politics aside but they are not listening. Regarding the categorization name, the whole issue is summarized as such: Macedon was founded by Greeks from Argos and was at all times ruled by Greeks. This kingdom had 3 time periods: early, middle and late periods. The early is the only debated period, while the middle and late ones in which Macedon dominated Greece and the world, find it being fully hellenized. Yet some editors insist on turning a blind eye to the middle and late periods, (which mark the kingdom's most notable periods in world history) to validate their arguments over the Greekness of the kingdom and remove it alltogether from this category. This is clearly a political approach and is finding me firmly opposing. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assume that I am an idiot about the nature of the ancient Macedonian population, language, history, and culture before the foundation of the kingdom and after and that my views are motivated by modern politics. There's a reason that there is a specific record of Alexander speaking "Macedonian" by a contemporary. Why would that be noted if he was just speaking Greek? There's a reason why half the ancient contemporary Greek authors didn't include Macedonia as a Greek kingdom. It's because the relationship between ancient Macedonia and the Greek city-states was complex and that one did not equal the other. But that's an issue for another page. On this page it's clear that there is no consensus for keeping the current category labels and User:Ymblanter, who moved the categories to their current location, is in favor of moving them back to their original places in the absence of a consensus to keep them where they are now. So the question now is how to label the category "Kingdoms of Greek antiguity" so that it includes (as subcategories) the Greek city-states (Athens, Sparta, etc.), the semi/non-Greek periphery (Macedonia, Thrace, etc.), and (perhaps) the Hellenized outer regions. The original label does, I agree, seem to be too broad. China (under some dynasty or other) was "a kingdom of Greek antiquity" in its broadest sense. So how can the title be restricted to include just and only the Hellenized world, with subcategories marking the relative distance from the core (Athens-Corinth-Sparta ?)? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason that there is a specific record of Alexander speaking "Macedonian" by a contemporary.. As did king Pyrrhus of Epirus spoke Epirote which had non-Greek elements. How is that validading your argument? Macedonian and Epirote languages shared morphology and similarities in that they contained both Greek and non-Greek words, as well as influences by other Balkan tribes. However I am not seeing anyone questioning Epirus while somebody, especially those who sympathized with the Republic of North Macedonia in the past, are usually the ones who are questioning the facts about the kingdom of Macedon. This paradox is, unfortunately, the result of modern politics getting in their way into Wikipedia if nothing else; Epirus wasn't the subject of a long-standing debate, while Macedonia was. Even the Macedonian Diadochoi aren't being quoestioned, while their homeland, Macedonia, is questioned. This shows how politics can make things as absurd as they are now.
You are claiming that your position isn't influenced by the politics, yet it is difficult to explain to us how comes you are so passionate and obsessed with the non-Greek aspects of Macedon to the point of using the language as an argument. Arguing that "Alexander spoke Macedonian" and ignoring the fact that per sources and the epigraphic evidence, the Macedonian language was closely related to the Greek vernacularly, while it was Greek in literacy. I am not clueless and ignorant of the politics, and I am sure the same is true for others here as well. It is time for you to finally drop your arguments of the type "Alexander spoke to his soldiers in Macedonian, not Greek" once and for all, because it is used by nationalist Macedonians and the VMRO-DPMNE party in North Macedonia. Instead of using such well-known arguments, it could have been more productive and believable if you provided us reliable sources confirming your claims that the Macedonian language spoken by Alexander wasn't Greek/related to Greek in any way.
However, there has been an improvement in your position over the course of the past years if my memory does not fail me. In the past you used to disagree with Alexander and King Philip as being classified as Greeks, while now you seem to be slowly accepting this fact. This, imo, is an welcoming progress. However, even if you not believe the same about the kingdom, still it is absolutely valid to categorize it with either of the names discussed in this move proposal. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Future Perfect's rationale which were quoted by Ymblanter are absolutely legit, indeed several of these aforementioned kingdoms werent exactly Greek in the narrow sense. However the other editors have their own valid points in that that proposed list name, "Kingdoms on Greek antiguity" is technically vague and could include even China under very specific circumstances, because technically, China existed during this antiquity and there have been interactions between Greek traders in ancient India and the Chinese people. Which, even though it is merely an example, it is absurd and is exactly the reason I opposed the move proposal. I could rather prefer sticking to the current, less vague name "Ancient Greek Kingdoms" which is more clear in what kingdoms it refers to and leaves no room for miserpretations of what this category is meant for. In the case there is a consensus for moving from "Ancient Greek Kingdoms" to "Kingdoms on Greek antiguity", this does not exclude or negate the necessity for a "Ancient Greek Kingdoms" as separate category nevertheless. That option should still be considered for creation, and include only these kingdoms which were obviously Greek. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While this looks like a "move" proposal for technical reasons, it's actually a "restore" proposal. Once the old names have been restored (which Ymblanter has said would happen without a consensus to keep the new names), then finding a better name for the category is a good idea. But "Ancient Greek kingdoms" has the opposite problem that "Kingdoms of Greek Antiquity" has--while KGA is too broad and vague, AGK is too narrow and subjective. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your opinion, but I point out that "in Greek antiquity" is a much broader category. "Ancient Greek" implies that a person/place was primarily Greek in origin/culture, while "in Greek antiquity" could theoretically include any person or place that was at any point in contact with Greek civilization—Hellenic or Hellenistic—and therefore has practically no limitation. True, Macedonia may be included in either category, as could Thrace, the other principal subject of dispute. However, Egypt was certainly not Greek, even though it was ruled by a Greek dynasty for three centuries; the various kingdoms of Asia minor (other than the various Greek colonies) and former possessions of Persia were decidedly not Greek; and more distant kingdoms in India, China, Italy, and the Mediterranean (apart from the city-states of Magna Graecia) were neither Greek in origin, culture, language, nor ruler, although they existed during Greek antiquity and were in contact with Greek civilization. Rome and Carthage, the various city states of the Etruscans, the Samnites, native tribes of Sicily, Phoenician cities, the Jewish kingdoms, and many more (depending on whether we're speaking of the "kingdoms", "ambassadors", or "leagues" category) could all be included under "in Greek antiquity", which I think is a very undesirable result: one that effectively overlaps all of classical antiquity, but is described for no apparent advantage to anyone as "Greek". Nobody objects to having categories limited to the Greeks themselves, or to the Hellenistic world specifically; and no title avoids the dispute over whether to include Macedonia or Thrace. But at least I can see some point in limiting a category with "Greek" in the title to people, places, and things that are in some way Greek. P Aculeius (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of subcategories like 'Leagues of the Hellenistic Period' etc. will be fine instead of moving the entire existing category 'Ancient Greek Leagues' and creating WP:CONSISTENT issues.Alexikoua (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have used the wrong word, User:Alexikoua. It is not "moving" it is "restoring". It was an undiscussed (although legal) move that started this whole mess. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the only "mess" here, was the category's previous name which you appear to be wanting so badly to "restore". FYI, in recent years, the international media reported on the findings about Ancient Greeks may having built China's famous Terracotta Army – 1,500 years before Marco Polo (more at: [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/china-terracotta-army-ancient-greek-sculptors-alexander-the-great-marco-polo-a7357606.html) and, mind you, this isn't the only report on the interactions between Ancient Greeks and China, just one of multiple (such as trade and other cultural exchanges as well). I was wondering if China should be added into that ambiguous "Kingdoms of Greek antiquity" category, in light of these new findings. This was a true mess. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I regret that this discussion has now devolved into a Macedonia dispute. Let me state a few things.
  • 1) In my humble Calthinus opinion-please-don't-kill-me Ancient Macedonia and Ancient Macedonian topics logically belong to this category whatever the result is of this discussion. Regardless of whatever Makedones were originally, before the period we know as antiquity was up, they had clearly been totally Hellenized and indistinguishable from the Greeks of any other region. Actually we have sources saying as much that the Macedonian idiom (dialect, language, doesn't matter) was replaced by Koine Greek, explicitly; culturally, afaik the general idea is that after their political differences were smoothed so were cultural differences, and this happened before the time Roman rule solidified.
  • 2) So Macedonia -- or Epirus, for that matter -- should not be considered an analogous case to indigenous/superficially-Hellenized kingdoms like Thracian Odrysia, or Phrygia, or Galatia, or Paeonia, or Armenia, or Seleucid/Hasmonean Judaea, or Ptolemaic Egypt, or "Scythia", which were much more superficially Hellenized.
  • 3) I would much rather we argue about Armenia/etc than (sigh) Macedonia.
  • 4) I have to confess SilentResident has a reasonable point about China, though to be fair I don't think anyone would ever put China in the category. Saying "in Greek antiquity" needs to somehow be distinguished from saying "in antiquity and with any vague relation to Greece". Perhaps a better solution would be something like "States in the Ancient Greek world" (after all plenty of non-Greek places were still culturally relevant to Greek life -- in Anatolia, Colchis per the Jason myth, Babylonia, Egypt of course etc...), or removal the subcategory of "Hellenistic states" from it, and include Thrace/Armenia/etc only in the latter. If this were actually carried out, it would probably satisfy everyone, except maybe with regards to that whole Macedonia thing. I don't know. I don't want to further complicate something was not supposed to lead to this hairball. Anything but making the closer read another word about Macedonia.--Calthinus (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "States in the Ancient Greek World" is actually a rather good proposal since it includes both a time frame and a location without identifying any relevant state as being "Greek" or not. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still seem to be focused on finding a solution to a non-existent problem. Nobody is arguing over which definition includes or excludes Macedonia or Thrace, despite the fact that they keep being mentioned, because everyone admits that they would probably be included under all proposed category names. The question under discussion is whether the proposed move would eliminate all prudent limits on the contents of the category. "The Greek world" is almost as vague as "Greek antiquity". Was Rome part of the Greek world? Carthage? Persia? India? What purpose is served by expanding a category that by name includes Greek people/places/things into one that includes all of classical antiquity? Surely there has to be a better reason than the need to sidestep the question of whether the kingdoms on the northern periphery of Greece should be included under the heading of "Greek". P Aculeius (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: Having a "Ancient Greek Kingdoms" category, doesn't exclude having a "States in Greek antiquity" category. I do not know why I am getting the impression, in this discussion here, that the choices are about "this or that" when we can have both categories: The more consistent one "Ancient Greek kingdoms" for the main article, and the generic one "States in Greek antiquity" for the rest of the articles shouldn't be a problem, I think. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You also seem to be missing the point. Who gets Macedonia then? There are good reasons why it is ambiguous. Having "States in the Ancient Greek world" then has whatever subcategories you like including an ambiguous "Macedonia", a crystal clear "Greek States", "Non-Greek Hellenized States", etc. The point isn't to multiply categories, but to create a useful category. Restoring the original name, "Kingdoms of Greek Antiquity" and then (perhaps) moving it to "States in the Ancient Greek World" clarifies the situation. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be a problem to have Macedonia listed in both categories? Wikipedia is full of such cases and that was never a problem before. For example the Achaemenid Empire is listed as part of the category "Iranian empires" and at same time, it is listed into the "Iron Age countries in Europe" category without a problem. The one category is about entities which are Iranian at core, and the other is a broader term and includes both Iranian and non-Iranian countries. Like I said: being in one category does not exclude being in other categories. Simple as that.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least, there is one plus in Calthinus' proposal for "States in the Ancient Greek world": besides including to it the Greek states (i.e Macedon, Epirus and Athens), it can have a set of rules about what kinds of non-Greek states shall it contain and not (I have in mind China which I believe should not be included at no time, even with the new discoveries and findings that may expand the term "Greek World" beyond to how it is currently understood and defined. Having these rules helps keeping things tidy and clear due to the category's ambiguity).
Edit: Actually, the idea of restoring the category back to its original ambiguous name and then moving it to "States in the Ancient Greek World" doesn't clarify anything, only worsens things, because 1) It moves the category from the current wp:consistent name to a non-consistent one, and 2) complicates things due to "States in Ancient Greek World" being as equally ambiguous, because the boundaries of the ancient Greek world aren't explicitly defined and is equally inconsistent to the category "Kingdoms in Greek Antiquity", with the only difference being "States" replacing "Kingdoms". I can't see how this solves any problems.
Edit 2: I hope editors realize that the necessity for a WP:consistent category is not to be confused with the necessity for more broader categories. I believe both categories are useful, and they shouldn't exclude/override/be dependent to each other, as they are two completely different categories. The steps I propose are the following: 1) keep the current category's name so that it is consistent with the main article and evaluate the political entities in it, and 2) create a new category for the rest of the world of that time, which isn't about Ancient Greece itself but about the broader Antiquity. BUT I strongly believe the new broader and ambiguous category will have to have to abide by certain criterias set by the editors with a consensus. The last thing I want is to see the new category having included to it those states that had very limited interaction with the Greek world - and by that, I do not only mean China but also other states, which the editors in this topic have pointed out.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose having two categories with nearly the same scope and nearly the same name, that would be too confusing. Also oppose inventing arbitrary inclusion rules, category names preferably speak for themselves (which Ancient Greek does) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All right, ok. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, these debates you are talking about, were mostly centered around the kingdom of Macedon, and that was due to modern politics. These debates happened even when Macedon was still under the previous category name. The good thing today is that the majority of the editors who participate here, consider it a needless debate and agreed that Macedon fits in both categories regardless of the move's outcome. That's a positive step which should be acknowledged. If your concern is whether these debates will be reignited, it is understandable, and all I can say, is that I am positive that this isn't the case anymore. I may sound naive, but I am hopeful at least the category's name (among others) won't be hostage to the past and its politics. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident: I have read and re-read your comment, but I am not able to interpret it in any other way, so I have to ask: Are you actually saying that discussions like Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/Archive 14#RFC on using "ancient Greek kingdom" instead of just "ancient kingdom" in the lead section was due to modern politics. That would be a rather strong accusation against all participants there. --T*U (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TU-nor: I strongly believe that if politics didn't get in their way, so many debates over ancient Macedonia today could have been unnecessary. This is not an accusation but an acknowledgement on how Wikipedia has suffered from the Macedonia question. What is your problem? If my memory does not fail me, this is your third or fourth time within 2019 that you are asking specifically me for clarification on my statements. Looks like as if you are acting like some sort of a censor police force that is clinging on whatever I do say. Why? Is there something you want to confess? Three or fourt times like that, is not a coincidence and I highly recommend that you drop this intimidating attitude). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentResident: If you have been asked only three or four times in a year about clarifying statements, you should consider yourself very lucky. It happens all the time to me, even with my rather modest output. Only this week, I have redacted my own comments twice because it turned out that they could be misunderstood. I frequently ask other editors to clarify, since I like to make sure that I understand them correctly. Regarding the present discussion, I follow it (since I have participated in it), and I felt a bit offended by a remark that seemed to indicate that discussions (with my participation) about Macedon are not only influenced by, but due to modern politics. I resent that aspersion. I also find that your accusation that I am acting like some sort of a censor police force not to be quite consistent with WP:AGF. --T*U (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that I was a participant to that old debate too, as you were. If I was accusing you as a participant, then, wouldn't it mean I am accusing myself too? That would been very hypocritical of my part. Now about I resent that aspersion that goes two ways, I am afraid: All the requests for clarifications were coming from only one person. Do you realize what I mean? Only one editor. Don't get me wrong, but I cannot help but wonder if it is just my choice of wording the problem here and not something more: i.e. a matter of mutual trust perhaps? Frequent misunderstandings are often a sign of mistrust, IMO. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sense in which your continued harangue about "politics" might be correct for editors like you--"Greek" is an all-encompassing category that includes every nation and every people surrounding Greece from ancient times until the present. You defeated your northern neighbor in a completely Greek-begun and Greek-maintained false trademark dispute and now you wish to follow up on your victory over your Slavic neighbor with victories over your ancient neighbors. Yes, it's political, but it is entirely of Greek political origin. The rest of us are looking objectively at the issues. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... I am speechless. I didn't see that coming from an editor who has tried to portray himself as an "objective" person. Please you need WP:RELAX. The Greek people have done nothing to deserve your unjustified hatred against them, and you are reminded that, as editor, you are not in a WP:FORUM and you are called to avoid discussing politics here or derailing this move discussion by using Macedonia as a pretext for this. I have tried my best to respond to you in line with Wikipedia's norms and rules, but I am not going to be part of your vitriolic comments and pointless debates which go against WP:ETIQ. Taivo, you should apologize right away to all the editors for your shameful statement. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for editors to accuse each other of political bias, demand apologies on behalf of other editors, etc. If you can't resolve a personal dispute, there are better places to have it out than this discussion. We all have our opinions on whether ancient Macedonia should be included within the purview of ancient Greece, and this debate isn't going to change anybody's mind. None of the proposed category titles would clearly exclude Macedonia, so the question of whether you call it a Greek kingdom or not is not relevant to this discussion. The question is whether the categories should be titled "ancient Greek...", "...in Greek antiquity", or "...in the Greek world", and the focus of the discussion is (a) whether the current title is broad enough to include the desired articles, (b) whether the alternatives are so broad as to have no practical geographical or cultural limits within the realm of classical antiquity, (c) whether the current titles should be maintained because they're consistent in style with related articles and categories, or (d) they should be returned to the previous titles because there was no clear consensus for moving them to the present ones. Let's please try to limit the discussion to these or related questions, and not waste time on arguments over the Greekness of Macedonia, Thrace, Epirus, or other places, since (1) no resolution of those questions is either (a) going to happen or (b) going to satisfy everyone, and (2) no matter what your position in those debates, it doesn't affect what we're discussing here. P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @P Aculeius:, I realized that, in trying to participate as actively as possible to this topic discussion, I may have inintentionally contributed negatively to the discussion and for this reason I am withdrawing from further inputs on this topic. However if you or anyone else feels that my input can be useful, feel free to ping me and I will try do my best. Thank you for everything and have a good day. :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, my comment was aimed at more than one editor. Many of us have a tendency to become worked up when someone raises a point of view to which we're strongly opposed. But the key is to stay focused on the relevant issues, and try to avoid letting disputes between editors grow out of control. Thank you for your contributions to the discussion! P Aculeius (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A bare assertion and an analogy. By the way regarding Epirus, you have some reading to do. It was definitely not an "unambiguously non-Greek". Khirurg (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was using Epirus not for any other reason than I've seen Epirus combined with Thrace in the previous discussion. It doesn't matter. What matters is the point that I was making, which you seem to have not understood. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he understood perfectly well. More to the point, Macedonia, Epirus, and Thrace are likely to be included in these categories no matter which set of titles we choose, even though some editors strongly oppose including them under the heading of "Greek" anything. None of them are "unambiguously non-Greek" because many scholars include each of them under the heading of "classical Greece"—whether they're right or not, the fact that they do disproves the statement that they're "unambiguously" non-Greek. Because none of the proposed titles will resolve that debate, the only real questions are 1) whether the titles give the categories a reasonably limited scope, or are synonymous with "all of classical antiquity" with the word "Greek" thrown in for no good reason; and 2) whether the titles are consistent with those of similar categories and related articles. And no, I'm not saying that category titles must always be consistent within a field—but consistency is desirable when it can be achieved without creating ambiguity. P Aculeius (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why the category should be moved back to consensus, and let the passionate citizens of Wikipedia contribute to places in their discrete nerdy interests rather than their overlapping areas of contradictory opinions on matters of the nation. If anything, this entire hairball conversation is an elaborate illustration of exactly what the non-consensus move is capable of causing. Should admins want this volume of non-constructive talk page debates? Policy says no. --Calthinus (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing that this entire hairball conversation is an elaborate illustration of some editors approaching the naming of categories from a political and not an objective perspective: [6] This is exactly what we need avoid here. We are supposed to tackle the categories objectively and in line with Wikipedia's rules by making sure that they are WP:CONSISTENT, avoid unecessary ambiguity in their names, and be in line with their articles and the academic consensus. I do understand your concerns however, but avoiding using here the rationale used for other categories in Wikipedia, doesn't deal with the category's problems, IMO, just prolongs them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd say the problem with reverting the move is that there clearly is not consensus for those titles—nor obviously for the present ones—and certainly not for any of the alternatives. This is quite a knot to untangle, and the only way to do it without more input from those whose opinions were posted (or described, but who didn't participate directly in this discussion) early in the discussion will require someone to go through the discussion carefully and figure out which options have the strongest and weakest support, and then balance those answers against considerations such as practical utility to the encyclopedia—after all, it's not strictly speaking a matter of how many votes each potential option has. I don't envy whoever has to make that "discrete nerdy" decision, although I don't see how it could be any of the major participants in the discussion, including myself. P Aculeius (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about "consensus", I am talking about WP:CONSENSUS. Which is not ambiguous. When something is controversial, you revert to the status quo ante, which, by the way, did not have this level of um... discussion. --Calthinus (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. The move was made without proper discussion and consensus-building so should be reverted if there is no consensus for the move. You don't get to keep the results of an ill-advised action just because it benefits you. There is clearly no consensus for the move, therefore Wikipedia procedures are clear that it should be reverted to its original state and discussion begin again. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moves like that, which bring the categories in line with Wikipedia's rules and are done in line with Wikipedia's procedures, aren't supposed to be controversial.
When the move was initiated, I didn't even bother asking for a discussion, as I assumed everybody here will be fine with it since it is in line with the project's standards.
If you read the entire discussion here, you will see that 90% of it isn't a debate about whether the name of the category is consistent or in line with the project's rules, but about POV differences among editors over these ancient kingdoms. Also, it came to my notice how the participants here, admitted or implied that the previous category name was either directly or indirectly the result of editorial opinions, not the result of what sources/scholars/parent articles do say... And I can tell you: this isn't right! As it isn't right that some editors here voted in favor of returning to the previous name exactly because there are disagreements that are of editorial nature.
The category's move was a WP:NPOV step in the right direction, even if you disagree, and is in line with the principles upon which WP:NEUTRALITY is based and cannot be superseded by editor consensus. Likewise, we shouldn't be weighting on what we -as editors- do believe about the ancient kingdoms; we should leave that to the scholars. It really disappoints me that the *true* dilemma behind this debate is 1) going by categories influenced by editorial POVs and opinions and their names are on purpose ambigous, or 2) going by categories that are more consistent, are reflecting the academic consensus and the parent articles and are closer to Wikipedia's standards.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? "I didn't even bother asking for a discussion"? Perhaps it's because you knew that it would be controversial and would result in "no consensus"? You have been involved with Macedonia-related issues long enough to know that there would be controversy. Assuming that you could move this without discussion when you knew that there would be objections is acting under false pretenses and rather sneaky. User:Ymblanter, who has never been involved in these Balkans issues, has been clear that even though the move was made within the body of Wikipedia rules, it should have been discussed and he will move it back if there is no consensus for the move here (which there is not). This move is not NPOV as you claim and since there was no editor consensus for the original move, then the move is invalid. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have been involved with Macedonia-related issues long enough to know I did, yes. And that was one of my most unpleasant periods in my Wikipedic life. These debates were all affected, directly or indirectly, by the Macedonia naming dispute and the various POVs of that time, before the current academic consensus over ancient Macedon came to be. It is no coincidence that some participants in these debates, were in fact very staunt supporters and sympathizers of what it is today the Republic of North Macedonia and, coincidentally, shared the mainstream views in that Republic over the so called "non-Greekness of ancient Macedonia". However, I had the impression that, thanks to the Prespa Treaty, things will become much less controversial in Wikipedia as well, just like they did in real life, where there was a noticeable recession of Macedonian nationalism under SDSM's rule and the blow the Antiquization policy received when its most vocal supporter, the hard-line former PM Nikola Gruevski, resigned from power and fled the country to become a fugitive. Apparently, from the looks of it [7], I was wrong. But this doesn't mean I am "sneaky" even if this is what you like to believe. You may not realize it, but you have politicized the whole move request debate and I am not exactly sure what I am supposed to do here. You know what? I am out. I see nothing useful can come from all this no matter if I keep talking to you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. So at this point, do we just wait for an uninvolved admin to notice? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Eye

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 15#Category:Eye

Category:Octessence

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. MER-C 10:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only populated by a single article. I placed it in a parent category. TTN (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If category is deleted then at least replace that category with Category:Marvel Comics demons and Category:Marvel Comics principalities in the redirects, thanks. Weapon X (talk, contribs) 20:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Proemial Gods

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. MER-C 10:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only populated by redirects TTN (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If category is deleted then please replace that category with Category:Marvel Comics cosmic entities, Category:Marvel Comics alien species and Category:Marvel Comics deities in the redirects, thanks. Weapon X (talk, contribs) 20:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zee5 original films

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: procedural close, this category is already covered by the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_6#Category:ZEE5_original_films. – Fayenatic London 10:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with the parent article ZEE5. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marathi poets

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 10:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Marathi-language writers and List of Marathi-language poets. – Fayenatic London 13:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mini-Cons

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 16#Category:Mini-Cons

More