Nominator's rationale: The philosophical literature category was created with the intention of containing all of this. There is no need for a "works" category for philosophy. Every "work" can be classified under literature.
Question - are ALL philosophical works written and therefore literature? Are there no philosophical works within other spheres such as the fine arts or music? Is Die Zauberflöte, for example, not a philosophical work? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would answer yes to the question ,because once it crosses over into some non-written media, that media claims it. If is is a song, it belongs in music, not philosophy. If it is a scuplture, it belongs in art. People within the fields of music and art would find it quite off putting for philosophy to be encroaching on theor turf, and I would understand that. There is a sense in which everything belongs under philosophy, but we can't exactly do that pragmatically can we? Let the musicians have their music, etc. Greg Bard22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Question. What about podcasts, such as Philosophy Bites? I regard these as philosophical works, but they aren't written and therefore, by definition, can't be considered literature. OK, there isn't currently an article on these, but doesn't the category structure have to allow for new ways of doing philosophy? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a particular podcast achieved notability beyond Philosophy Bites such that it warranted its own article, at that point I would suppose there would be a transcript available. Philosophy Bites itself is properly categorized under "philosophical media." So the question of finding a philosophical "work" that wasn't also a piece of literature is still wanting. Furthermore, can someone name a single philosophical "work" (art work, song, etc) that actually had a notable impact on the history of philosophy? I am talking about notability from within the field of philosophy.Greg Bard20:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative question - when Socrates was in the agora, he was doing philosophical work, but was he producing philosophical literature? Or is the latter a time-limited concept? AllyD (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think, for the purposes of philosophy, we are perfectly reasonable to place any such thing in literature, because inevitably and invariably, that is the form it takes. Socrates in the agora? If we have an example beyond Plato (which is all clearly literature), it surely has a name, and an account in subsequent philosophical literature. Whatever existence it has beyond that need not have its own category on WP. "Works" is a bit of overcat to me. We can place the whole of "phil lit" under all the same cats as "phil works" without any problem.Greg Bard20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My idea was to make a category that will contain solely philosopgical works (texts, essays etc.). The category "philosophical literature" should contain not only works themselves, but also articles about philosophical literature in general, such as for example Consolatio Literary Genre, Soviet Orientalist studies in Islam, and also articles about magazines, encyclopedias etc, that are also not 'works', but are literature.--Abiyoyo (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete: Articles tagged in this categories are part of the A History of the World in 100 Objects 100-part radio series (15 minutes each). Categorizing pages in this way will inevitably lead to over-categorization. After removing said articles only the main article will be left. jonkerz♠19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This categorises items in the British Museum selected by its director as the 100 most important of the artefacts. I appreciate that this is like an awards category (which we would delete and listify), but few museum objects will receive an "award" in this way, so that this will not lead to the severe over-categorisation which awards categories and performamce by performer categories produce. Being selected as one of the most important objects in one of the world's most important museums is surely a notable distinction. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand that some classifications may be added to articles (e.g. Category:World Heritage Sites) some may not (e.g. Principia Mathematica is not worth tagging for being mentioned in Twelve Books That Changed the World). A History of the World in 100 Objects falls somewhere between those extremes, and in my opinion do not reach above the absolute level for having articles categorized in this way. I guess we have to wait for more input from other editors. jonkerz♠20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify trivial association better maintained as a list. This listing has little to do with the objects themselves, rather, it is the opinion of a specific bunch of curators on what they think of as important, a highly subjective rating. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lame deletion rationale; Wikipedia has space enough for useful categories like this one. Category quite legitimate.• Ling.Nut02:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, modify or else delete, listify - Change to a talk page category so that it can still be used by the GLAM/BM project. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an often repeated type of deletion discussion; (a) it is not a choice between categories or lists, both exist for different reasons on WP, (b) unique published lists are often categories on WP, this does not fall under the TOPTEN rationale (c) there is no particular precedent being set by using this category and there is no current problem with over-categorization of these types of articles about historic artefacts or any reason to think there will ever be such a problem. Fæ (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being selected for this programme is not defining of the objects and doesn't create any sort of meaningful association amongst them. Not likely to be useful for research purposes and anyone who should happen to be researching this subject is likely to start with the lead article. It has led and will likely continue to lead to inaccurate categorization, as for instance the inclusion of the Hoxne hoard on the basis of an episode about a single spice jar (which will likely never become notable independent of the hoard. As an aside, these items are not uniquely associated with the British Museum, for instance there are 14 known intact Hedwig glasses and ten known fragments and only one is held by the museum. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per discussion above. Possibly purge the category before merger, because someone born in Shropshire but brought up elsewhere is not "from" Shropshire in any meaningful sense. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete - the category was recently nominated for renaming and I suggested it be deleted as a small category with no likelihood of expansion. Since that nomination closed most of the contents of the category were deleted (per my prods) as not being notable. This would seem to confirm that the category is not needed for the few remaining articles (which are interlinked through their text). Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish sportspeople
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.
Nominator's rationale: As per Wikipedia:OC#CATGRS there is no substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) and it's one can be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Withdrawn per User:MacRusgail ethnic rather than religious , however I have removed Category:People by religion and occupation as a parent of these
Queries – and so the nom is to do what with these categories? And can the nom provide links to the many previous cfds concerning these? Occuli (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry . I'm not aware of past cfds I've had a look at the history of a few and didn't see any. If your aware of some please add them Gnevin (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there are certain reasons why Jews as a group are different to say, Christians or Hindus. Cs32en's comments about LGBT are not helpful either, since there are a number of LGBT categories relating to things completely unconnected with sexual preference, e.g. acting, sports etc. A person's sexuality does not directly come into these things, although they may suffer prejudice, which is a different issue.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (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:Jewish American sportspeople
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.
Keep - There are categories for Jewish people by profession. Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity, of course, but there is a slight blurring of the line in this case.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2010 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename: These categories should be renamed for consistency with similar categories that have already been renamed. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–07:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Many of the individuals are not of the 'ethnic descent' described, but of that ethnicity (i.e. they speak the language of the ethnic group as a first language, amongst other things) I do agree that we should not, ideally, categorise both for ethnic descent and ethnicity separately as it is nearly impossible to distinguish in most cases, as bios typically lack the required info. I think we need, eventually, to rename the categories to, for example, Category:Sinagporean people of Cantonese ethnicity or ancestry to cover both ethnic descent and ethnicity. What the heck, I ll suggest it here now as alternative rename, with the goal of setting precedent to rename the whole tree - Rename each to Category:Singaporean people of Fooian ethnicity or ancestry etc. except Rename Category:Singaporean Jewish people to Category:Singaporean JewsMayumashu (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not really understanding the distinction between ethnicity and ethnic descent. Could you explain? — Cheers, JackLee–talk–13:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'ethnic descent', if only on WP, is meant to mean ancestry, not ethnicity. Ancestry indicates the ethnicity of one's forebearers, but not of one. An 'American of German descent' or 'American of German ancestry' is not someone of German ethnicity - they do not speak native German or subscribe to German culture as their primary culture. What has been becoming apparent though is the WP most likely needs to combine Category:People by ethnic or national descent and Category:People by ethnicity as, as I say above, few bios are robust enough to allow for one to judge if one is of the ethnicity in question or of its descent. Mayumashu (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I don't think we need to get this technical. People of Malay ethnicity are still of "Malay descent"—the term is broad enough to cover all contingencies. For the sake of consistency, these should be renamed to the standard format. Changing to "of FOO ethnicity or ancestry" is just a more long-winded way of saying "of FOO descent", so I honestly can't see a good reason to change from the standard. There seems to be agreement that these need to be changed to something, I just don't think we should depart from the standard. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Slight change the disambiguator proposed to match the category names to the article Socialist Workers Party (Britain). (From what I can tell, the page was moved from using the "(UK)" disambiguator because this particular party only organises in England, Scotland, and Wales. The Socialist Workers Party (Ireland) has traditionally been the organiser for the same causes in Northern Ireland.) Good Ol’factory(talk)04:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - people are not defined by the organizations or political parties to which they donate money, even if the donated amounts are quite large. People donate to any number of causes over the course of a lifetime and categorizing on this basis is untenable. There are also WP:BLP implications. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of main article. With 7 well-defined subcats and sub-subcats there is more than enough to justify an eponymous category. Occuli (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as I know, "Cook Island" is the correct adjective except when referencing "Cook Islands Māori" (the language). The people are "Cook Island Māori". Certain organisations have also been given an official name that includes "Cook Islands" as an adjective, such as the Cook Islands Government. User:Grutness was a bit of an expert on this issue, as I recall, and he was strongly in favour of "Cook Island" being accepted as the standard in generic usages. You can find usages of either on the web, but official sources from New Zealand, the Cook Islands, and UNICEF tend to use "Cook Island" (though exceptions can be found). Some Cook Island(s) gov't sources are: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and UNICEF. At the end of the day I don't have a strong preference one way or the other but I suppose they should be standardised to one or the other. "Cook Islands" is probably more intuitive, if not completely correct. For similar reasons we have favoured "Kiribati" even though "i-Kiribati" is technically correct. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
?But Good Ol'Factory's comments and provided links show both are commonly used, even by official organisations.
Actually, I only added links for ones that use "Cook Island FOO". But it's not hard to find exceptions—as I said, both are used frequently, though official sources tend to drop the "s" more often than not. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I have no idea what is the official term, but "Island" makes it sound as the subject is a single island. The Cook Islands include at least ten populated islands and this should be reflected in the naming. Dimadick (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
