< May 12 May 14 >

May 13

Category:Nautical lore

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 to merge, so rename to Category:Maritime folklore. – Fayenatic London 19:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category currently places many articles that are not about fiction (e.g. St. Elmo's fire, Swallow tattoo, HMS Bounty, Sargasso Sea, List of United States Marine Corps acronyms and expressions) under several fiction categories which is incorrect categorization. It appears that this category is being used as if it was a miscellaneous category (e.g. see Fothering). We don't have a structure of "lore" categories and we don't have a clear definition of what pages belong in a lore category. I propose purging this category of all articles about real ships (HMS Victory etc) as we have other categories (e.g. Category:Individual sailing vessels) for such ships and then upmerging the rest - with a possibility of creating a more tightly defined subcategory of Maritime culture in the future. DexDor (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What should the inclusion crieria and parent categories (and title?) be? If this category is for fiction then much of the current contents should be removed from the category. If this category is not specifically for fiction then it should be removed from all but one of the parent categories. DexDor (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of stuff that emerges from legend or "lore", and is then turned into specific fictional works (articles on which should not be here). What do you think should be removed? The issue of what the parent categories should be is a different one from merging. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this category is for fiction then most (at least 40) of the articles in this category (such as the examples I've referred to above) should be removed from it. The category has no text defining its inclusion criteria and Lore is a dab page so it's mainly the parent categories that define what the inclusion criteria for this category are. DexDor (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a rename to "Maritime folklore" (and purge) then? That would make clear which meaning of "lore" is relevant and discourage the addition of things like fothering and navies. However, so few of the articles currently in this category would belong in a folklore category that I think it would be better to either (1) delete/upmerge this category and then create a "Maritime folklore" category or (2) create a "Maritime folklore" subcat, move articles down into it and then delete/upmerge the "Maritime lore" category. DexDor (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to "Maritime folklore" and purge. (Options 1 and 2 are minor deviations leading to the same result.) Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are disadvantages in doing it that way (e.g. it would mean two edits to many articles) - is there any advantage is there in doing it that way? DexDor (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mouth diseases

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 since the category appears to be empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

11th century BC

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/delete as specified. MER-C 06:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: this was later reversed for births & deaths categories, see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme. – Fayenatic London 13:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


See: Category:11th century BC

the rest of the years and decades of 11th century BC
Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete Merge the first 19 categories per WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one on or two articles in each category. After merging, the other categories will become empty. This proposal is merging everything into either "general decade" categories and "by topic/location by century" categories and is very similar to this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like the year 700 BC 900 BC is a kind of turning point after which substantially more content becomes available. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Male historians

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 (notwithstanding the "keep" outcome for the Women category). – Fayenatic London 19:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category leads to WP:Overcategorization. It violates WP:Cat gender because gender does not have a specific relation to the topic. The vast number of entries that have been grouped under this category do not have any reliable sources characterizing them as "male historians." Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question really is, should we categorize the female perspective (that only can be delivered by women) or should we categorize history of women (that can also be delivered by male historians). The former seems very subjective, I would rather favor the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are categorizing historians by female gender. Why you think this is "very subjective" I can't imagine. There's no point in having an unmaintained "male" category which is no use to anyone at all. Feminists of all shades are interested in female categories; no one is interested in male academic categories as such. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subjectivity that I'm referring to is the perspective which is the rationale to keep the female category. How do we know if the perspective of a particular woman historian deviates from the perspective of a particular male historian just because of gender? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any "perspective" is wholly irrelevant here. These are by gender categories. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod, you say "Feminists of all shades are interested in female categories". Those same people are interested in male categories: it is how they establish the dichotomies etc that they perceive to exist. They critique by comparing and contrasting: you cannot have one without the other. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sign of this - there are easier ways to research male hegemony than Wikipedia categories, whose contents are random at best. Bearcat below puts the case I'm making more fully. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? UK television is awash with women "telly dons" nowadays. It isn't all Simon Schama etc and hasn't been for a long time: I was taught by as many women as men when I studied history at university back in the early 1980s. Whenever we have a one-sided gendering of categories, we effectively promote ghettoisation - "Ooh, look at her! Fancy her being able to do that!" or "Wow, here's one of us standing up to be counted!". - Sitush (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Ark-La-Tex

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 11:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Most of these fail WP:SMALLCAT. The County category is an unnecessary level of categorization, and the counties should just go in the parent category. These don't need to be deleted, since there seem to be enough relevant articles to go in the parent. kennethaw88 • talk 04:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More