Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 6
July 8 >

July 7

[edit]

Category:Swahili furniture

[edit]
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 to Category:African furniture (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2023 (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:Islands of the Kuril Islands

[edit]
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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 08:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT and straightforward tautology. The categories on individual islands would be subcats of Category:Kuril Islands rather than current one. Brandmeistertalk 19:18, 7 July 2023 (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:F.C. Edinburgh

[edit]
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. – Fayenatic London 10:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The club has been renamed (see Talk:Edinburgh City F.C.). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2023 (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:Russian city-states

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2B, especially all categories connected through Wikidata. c:Category:Rus principalities has existed on Wikimedia Commons under that name since 2009. Rus' principalities is the WP:COMMONNAME for post-1240 principalities which continued to exist after Kievan Rus' disintegrated. See also Armies of the Rus' principalities (recently renamed after consensus reached on the talk page).
  • Note that even though "Novgorod Republic", "Pskov Republic" and Kirov are historiographically labelled "republics", they still had (elected) princes (see Prince of Novgorod) and are also simultaneously labelled "Rus' principalities"; these terms aren't mutually exclusive. "City-state" also doesn't quite capture what they were; especially the Novgorod Republic controlled a huge territory and other major cities (including initially Pskov).
  • Note that it is also not the same as Category:Subdivisions of Kievan Rus', which only includes principalities that were already part of Kievan Rus' before 1240 (including ones which disappeared before 1240 such as Principality of Terebovlia), and not those which were founded after 1240 (such as Principality of Tver, Grand Duchy of Moscow and Principality of Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The description seems to imply Category:Rus' principalities after 1240. You know that Rus includes Kyivan Rus, and everything called Ruthenia up to Carpathian Ruthenia at least as late as the early 20th Century, don’t you? Not sure, but there may have been princes there much later than medieval times. The intended scope should be more clearly defined and the chosen name should reflect it.  —Michael Z. 22:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you're right. I thought Rus' principalities was only used for principalities that survived the collapse of Kievan Rus' in 1240 until somewhere in the 16th century, by which time they had all been absorbed into either the Commonwealth or the Tsardom. The latter still seems true (e.g. Carpatho-Ukraine may also have been known as "Carpathian Ruthenia", but it was a republic, so it wouldn't "count"). But I now see that Janet Martin 2004 p. 94 also uses the term for a wide-range analysis from the 11th to 13th century: ...law codes introduced by Prince Iaroslav and his sons in the eleventh century but also adopted widely in the early thirteenth, reflect the existence of a common culture binding the Rus' principalities together. On p. 103 she writes about the relations of Novgorod with other Rus' principalities in the 11th and 12th century. On p. 162 and 163 she talks about the Livonian Brothers of the Sword being founded in 1202 ...west of the Rus' principalities. However, all other references to "Rus' principalities" in her book refer to post-1240 events, developments or situations.
    Looking at some linked categories and lists:
    If there are any patterns here, it is that it should include all East Slavic language dominated Rus' principalities between th 9th and 16th century, excluding Lithuania, the Commonwealth, the Tsardom, Perm, and Vyatka, but including all pre-1240 principalities and all post-1240 principalities which could reasonably be called "Rus'" due to linguistic, cultural and partially legal/institutional/dynastic succession/continuation, such as Tver, Muscovy and Novgorod-Suzdal. That scope encompasses both Category:Subdivisions of Kievan Rus' and the Category:Rus' principalities I would like to have.... Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, the usage of the term "Rus'" becomes blurry after the fall of Kievan Rus'. "Ruthenian" has of course the same meaning, technically, but is mostly used for the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of the later Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, although few would extend it as far as 1795 or even 1938. E.g. Lithuania was arguably a Principality (more commonly called Grand Duchy), but apart from adopting a lot of Kievan Rus' law and customs and having lots of Rus'/Ruthenian subjects, I wouldn't call it a Rus' principality (ltwiki doesn't). Carpatho-Ukraine certainly could be called Ruthenian, but not a principality. Tver, Muscovy and Novgorod-Suzdal never were Kievan Rus' principalities (as dewiki rightly shows), but through their predecessor Vladimir-Suzdal, pretty much everyone would still call them Rus' principalities (even ukwiki). I don't see major disagreements there. The problem for us is that we still need to decide what our category scope(s) is/are.
      I think we've got 2 basic choices:
      (A) the whole period from 9th to 16th century, no distinction between before and after 1240, but rigorous in making sure every item is both Rus' and a principality, or
      (B) the same as (A), but a split at 1240 (thus creating a lot of overlap, but making sure that people understand that e.g. Tver, Muscovy and Novgorod-Suzdal never were Kievan Rus' principalities). Because Muscovy, and later the Tsardom of Russia, Russian Empire, and Russian Federation (up to Putin in 2021), have each claimed to be "the rightful successor of Kievan Rus'", even though Muscovy was founded only after Kievan Rus' was already gone, this claim is highly controversial, and one which we should treat with great care. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or (C) stop using the term "Rus'" in category names after the fall of Kievan Rus' is also a serious option. The article Rus' people only discusses pre-Kievan Rus', not post-Kievan Rus', while the successor term Ruthenia was used as early as to refer to Kievan Rus'. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm so that comes down to Delete then? (Or rather Upmerge to Medieval Russia, as you suggested). I don't know. I think "Rus' principalities" has some added value because it is so frequently used in literature, even if not everyone agrees which states are in or out. There is consensus on a large number of them. If you like, I could start creating a list of Rus' principalities similar to the one found on German Wikipedia, but with a separate section for post-1240 principalities like Tver. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Then it is done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason we can't get more participation in this. I know several editors who might be interested, but they've got an Eastern Europe restriction and shouldn't be pinged...
For me it is evident that this category should be renamed in accordance with all the interwikis at Wikidata. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2023 (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:Welfare state in the United Kingdom

[edit]
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 (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have a tree for Category:Welfare state by country. This is the only category we have on Wikipedia for "Category:Welfare state in Fooland". I think there is no need to differentiate between welfare and welfare state in this context for categories. This category shoud be upmerged to Category:Welfare in the United Kingdom. Related discussion: Talk:Welfare_state_in_the_United_Kingdom#Requested_move_18_June_2023 (and Talk:Welfare#Social_security_articles?, the latter may result in many category mergers/renames in the long run). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:17, 7 July 2023 (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:Tucana (constellation)

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation, compare main article Tucana. Contested CFDS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Alta Loma, Rancho Cucamonga, California

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Alta Loma has been part of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, California since 1977. No need for a separate neighborhood subcategory here. User:Namiba 23:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be slightly controversial, it seems that people from Alta Loma have a strong own identity. ("Residents of Alta Loma and Etiwanda finally agreed to incorporation provided their identifying community names would be kept along with separate post offices and ZIP codes. In addition, businesses are permitted to use either Alta Loma or Rancho Cucamonga on letterheads, business permits, and other records.") Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: The US Post Office has a long list of "vanity cities" they tolerate for specific zip codes that differ from the official city listing they recommend. See here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:13, 7 July 2023 (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:Two-time VFL/AFL Premiership players

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is unencyclopaedic to create a category just for winning a premiership twice. We don't do that for any sport in WP. What next? A category for three time winners? LibStar (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per Pichpich, I could accept upmerges to Category:VFL/AFL Premiership players and Category:VFL/AFL Premiership coaches, but would prefer for them all to just be deleted. The-Pope (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've tagged all the additional categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:03, 7 July 2023 (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:Novels set in fictional villages

[edit]
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. I have listed the current contents at Talk:List of fictional settlements. – Fayenatic London 11:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: So many novels are set in fictional villages that this doesn't really seem to be a defining category. DonIago (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago, The Man in Question, Dimadick, Aidan721, RevelationDirect, 4meter4, and Kaffet i halsen: I have added the siblings to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer This is obviously meant as an expansion of the earlier iVote by @Aidan721:, not an additional iVote. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]
@Marcocapelle: Took the liberty of adding these to the header of your nomination to make the change clearer without digging through the comments. - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer. This is to be understood as an expansion of the original deletion nomination by @Doniago: and not counted as an additional vote. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Note to Closer This is obviously meant as an expansion of the earlier iVote by @Dimadick:, not an additional iVote. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer The 2 additional cats were formally added to the nomination just before the time stamp of this comment. Please leave at least 7 days from this point before closing. (@4meter4: This addresses your valid procedural concern about leaving enough time to reach consensus.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify/Delete - The problem here is that we're grouping the works, without any idea whatsoever what the fictional village/town/city is. This is MUCH better represented as a list. I think all 3 could be listified to the same list. If no consensus to listify, then just delete. Categorising these works in this way doesn't seem helpful for readers or navigation. - jc37 12:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:58, 7 July 2023 (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:Places of local interest needing cleanup

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear subject. What does "of local interest" mean in a global encyclopedia? User:Namiba 22:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a maintenance category, it doesn't have to be exact as long as it helps users find what they need. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:49, 7 July 2023 (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:European chronicles

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:CROSSCAT. :Background: Talk:Rus' chronicle#Title.
It looks like certain category trees have been mixed up. E.g:
The problem is that language and location can be independent. Language is evidently important and defining for literature, but why does location matter? If someone in Denmark publishes a book in English tomorrow, and that gets distributed online or appears in hardback and paperback copies in countries around the world (where it may even be sold and read more widely than in Denmark itself), what makes it "European literature"? The "Denmark" part? The "English" part? Europe seems to be WP:NONDEFINING for the book in question.
It is telling that the "main article" List of European literatures [sic? I don't know if "literature" even has a plural] is just an WP:UNSOURCED sum of language-based articles for literature in languages widely spoken and written in Europe, but not only in Europe (English literature, Spanish literature and Portuguese literature probably have a much greater presence/influence in the Americas than in Europe, so what makes them "European"?). Moreover, European literature just redirects to Western literature (which is incredibly interesting, suggesting there is no such thing as "European" literature).
Anyway, my suggestion to untangle the mixup between the category trees of literature by language and literature by location is to eliminate literature by location altogether. But to keep it simple, I'm just gonna start with this one single category where we noticed this problem for the first time as a test case. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:47, 7 July 2023 (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:Manuscripts by area

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 09:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:CROSSCAT in practice.
A: Location tree: Category:Categories by location. (compare Category:Books by country)
B: Topic tree: Category:Works about countries > Category:Works by topic)
C: Language tree: Category:Manuscripts by language > Category:Works by language)
The fact that it is a WP:CROSSCAT is not necessarily its own fault, but more that of the ambiguous meanings of the adjectives (like "Czech") in the names of its subcategories. For example, are Category:Czech manuscripts
A) written in the Czech lands (Codex Gigas)?
B) about the Czech lands (Gelnhausen Codex)?, or
C) written in (old) Czech (Zemské desky)?
Answer: All of the above! (not picking on Czechia, Czech history or the Czech language in particular; it's just the alphabetically first good crosscat example.)
Many subcategories are often simultaneously in Category:Manuscripts by area and Category:Manuscripts by language, such as Category:Arabic manuscripts, Category:Dutch manuscripts, Category:German manuscripts etc.
Other subcategories seem unambiguously language-based and have nothing to do with area/location, e.g. Category:Hebrew manuscripts, Category:Aromanian manuscripts, Category:Slavic manuscripts etc.
Therefore, I think we should split this category up by location (per WP:C2C parent Category:Categories by location), and by topic (as a child of Category:Works by topic). All subcategories and items based on language should be manually moved to Category:Manuscripts by language. This process will probably require further splitting and renaming of the subcategories (e.g. Category:German manuscripts might need to be split into Category:German-language manuscripts and Category:Manuscripts about Germany). But I think it's better to first address this at the parent level to see the bigger picture.
Alt rationale I'm still thinking location is actually WP:NONDEFINING for works (see the "Category:European chronicles" CfD). Because what does "area"/"location" really mean for manuscripts? Where the manuscript
(a) was first written,
(b) was discovered/found, or
(c) is currently being preserved?
(a) is often impossible to definitively establish and hard to categorise, (b) isn't very defining, and (c) is more for a category like Category:National Library of Russia collection, in the Category:Manuscripts by collection tree. I think people have often just confused area/location with topic; e.g. manuscripts about Poland belongs in the topic tree, not the area/location tree, even though Poland is also an area/location.
So as an alternative to splitting, we could just rename the whole category to Category:Manuscripts by topic, and manually move all subcategories and items based on language to Category:Manuscripts by language. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Ok, to start with, opposing' "by topic" and "by area/location/region". Neither seems to cover the intent here. The use of provenance is interesting, but that could be a list of people and places, from creation to the present. How about Renaming to Category: Manuscripts by original provenance? I did a search for "original provenance", and that seems to be what is used - this, for example: "The collection is sorted according to the original provenance." Collection sorting. Sounds an awful lot like what we're doing here too... - jc37 12:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_5 to see what happened to various categories that were mentioned above and are now red links. – Fayenatic London 13:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that link.
    I'm looking over those and see a mixture of things. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_5#Category:Spanish_manuscripts in particular seems a situation where a category was intended for one thing, but where, per the nom, they "cleaned it up" to be something else. I don't know. I think having ancient manucripts by original provenance would be a good idea, especially, as we now know, that's how those who hold said manuscripts sort/catalogue them. So maybe those discussions (well-meant though they mayhave been at the time) might have been incorrect due to what we now know. - jc37 14:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is "original provenance", exactly? How do we know which provenance was "original"? For instance, could you indicate what the "original provenance" of the Khlebnikov Codex would be? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By whatever is said in the sources... - jc37 05:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know what it even means yourself? Because I don't. I can't find a definition of "original provenance" anywhere; I only get definitions of "provenance", and examples of the "original provenance" of item X, without explaining what that means as opposed to just "provenance" (e.g. "The museum’s original provenance records showed that painting was sold in 1935 at the Graupe auction house in Berlin." Lisa Reynolds 2008. Yeah that's interesting and everything, but what does that mean? And how do we categorise that? Category:Paintings sold in Berlin?). I hope we're not creating a category we don't even understand ourselves. That solves nothing, but just creates more problems. We can follow whatever is said in the sources, but how do we know that the source is correct or incorrect when we don't know what they're talking about?
    Incidentally, the very first hit I get on Google Books is a list of texts with "original provenance unclear". Not very encouraging. We should remember that whatever we categorise by should be WP:DEFINING. If this is data that is frequently unknown (even unknowable), contested (or contestable), or arbitrary/subjective, it's not helpful for categorisation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just thinking aloud, but if we don't understand the source material, perhaps we houldn't be editing said material?
    I would guess that if this is the widespread way that organisations (ones that we would typically call reliable sources) catalogue, organise, and sort, such manuscripts, then using that would seem to make more sense, than arbitrarily making up our own .
    As for what it means, wikt:original and wikt:provenance would seem to be the answer to that? - jc37 15:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As for what it means, wikt:original and wikt:provenance would seem to be the answer to that? Seems like the definition of WP:SYNTH. Let's not do that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I say this with polite sincerity - I suggest you may want to re-read WP:SYNTH. We're talking about the basic definition of 2 words. Not the melding of two sources. And even if we weren't. SYNTH applies to original research (where that abbreviation links to). And I've already shown that reliable sources use those words together. So it is in no way WP:OR...
    All that aside, I guess I don't understand what you are arguing against, or why, for that matter. The answer is the word "provenance" (take your pick - definition #1, 2, or 3), but because that can also mean wikt:chain of custody (again, per wikt:provenance), I'm suggesting using the term that museums use, which is "original provenance".
    What's the issue? - jc37 22:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not trying to be annoying on purpose. Sorry if that seems so. I'm just slightly frustrated because I don't see how this solves the issues we would like to solve.
    We have three competing definitions of wikt:provenance:
    1. Place or source of origin.
    2. place and time of origin
    3. history of ownership
    So which one is "original"? Where it was produced? Where it was found? Who owned it first (and are we referring to the original owners (often those who wrote or commissioned the manuscript), or to the first one(s) to find the manuscript after it had gotten lost?) I don't know, I haven't got a clue.
    I just read (for the first time, I must admit) in the related entry wikt:provenience that provenance is everything from production, storage/original ownership, going lost, artefact finding by anyone (archaeologists/historians, or common people), selling to a trader, acquisition by scholars/antiquarians/private collectors, and being acquired by some museum/archive/gallery/library etc. but provenience only the place where the artefact was found. provenience might actually be a good idea, as it is more specific, but where would that place, for instance, the Khlebnikov Codex I mentioned above? I only know it was 'unexpectedly discovered in 1809' somewhere in Russia , but not where. Moreover, this is a codex which was lost and retrieved/rediscovered several times over. Which of these rediscoveries do we consider its provenience? The 1809 one? The acquisition by Pyotr Khlebnikov somewhere in the mid-18th century? The retrieval around 1610 in Krosnyk by "father governor of Ustia"? I think the 1809 one, but I'm not sure. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if we need to pick only one, as the current name is "by area", I presume that we're talking about "place or source of origin"? (origin..., original..., form of the word...)
    As for the rest, it sounds like the answer, per you, is "in Russia". (I'm not going to even try to parse Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia...) But if you are saying that that actually cannot be determined, then maybe we shouldn't be categorizing these this way at all.
    I'm also wary of deciding on a category scheme based upon only 1, or a few, examples. - jc37 09:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response. Well, your guess is as good as mine. I've been trying to figure out what "by area/location/country/region/provenance/place of origin/etc." means ever since I found this Category:Manuscripts by area on 27 May, and decided to nominate it because I couldn't figure it out. I haven't been able to figure it out since, and nobody else seems to be able to make this category WP:DEFINING.
    I think that your words that [if place of origin] actually cannot be determined, then maybe we shouldn't be categorizing these this way at all are very wise. This is why I have included the option Alt rename to Category:Manuscripts by topic if we can't figure out what "area" actually means, so that in practice, it is simply WP:NONDEFINING and doesn't help us with categorisation at all. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I agree with you that we should be wary of deciding on a category scheme based upon only 1, or a few, examples. I've only given the Khlebnikov Codex as an example here for you, just because we were talking about provenance, and I recently read and wrote a lot about that codex, and still haven't been able to figure out its full provenance (scholars haven't either, and Wikipedians can't do better than scholars). But if you're interested, I've given many other examples above of cases where I don't know how to connect a certain (group of) manuscript(s) to a certain area either. (The Category:Mesoamerican codices may be an exception, but Mesoamerica is extremely large and vague as an "area". All other child categories are arbitrary to connect a specific "area", whatever that means.) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All of which is moving us towards Delete all territory. (And shifting inclusion criteria to "by topic" doesn't seem appropriate at all in this case.) I do still think "original provenance" can work, with a note at the top of the cat making clear that these are categorised based upon "earliest known location"/original provenance. But if you're saything that that still won't work for categorisation (and thus a WP:LIST would be more appropriate, so to be able to explain these things), then I'm not opposed to Listify/Delete, either. - jc37 10:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Listify/Delete may be a good idea for all items and subcats which do not fit the Category:Manuscripts by topic target. But this target remains the most appropriate solution for e.g.:
    Some of these cats were already in Category:Manuscripts by works contained. I've also temporarily "parked" other cats (usually from Category:Manuscripts by area) there for now. But I think they deserve their own Category:Manuscripts by topic, because the other subcats of Category:Manuscripts by works contained are about textual witnesses of specific texts, not just random works about a shared topic (like Category:Medical manuscripts). (At Category talk:Church Slavonic biblical manuscripts#Textual witnesses we're currently discussing about how to better organise these categories). Moreover, pretty much all these categories are already in the Category:Works by topic tree. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can create Category:Manuscripts by topic without removing anything from any other cat. Maybe do that, and then let's see where we are with this cat. - jc37 14:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jc37 I guess you're right. I've been wanting to create that category for well over a month now, but I thought I had to discuss it and agree with everyone first, and that a rename/split from "by area" would be best. But it is pretty evident now that this has not been the best tactic. Then I'll Boldly create it at your suggestion, and we'll see what happens indeed. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Category:Manuscripts by topic. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:45, 7 July 2023 (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:Italian sports directors

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category refers to sporting directors, a management role. A sports director is a role in TV broadcasting. Nehme1499 09:32, 7 July 2023 (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 assassinated people

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 21#Ancient assassinated people

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_7&oldid=1166405271"