Content deleted Content added
Marcocapelle (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
CorbieVreccan (talk | contribs) →Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent: I agree, but keeping it sourced and cleaned up has been sisyphean |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
*'''Oppose''' - Please, everyone, first see the discussion at the Indigenous wikiproject. We had a long discussion and reached '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America&oldid=897676160#WP:RS_Sources_for_Native_Identity consensus to move this to where it is now]''' As Nil Einne said, all we did was align the category name with the description. We did this informally at the Wikiproject because it involves issues around sourcing that require some familiarity with the field. Or, that was my rationale. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 17:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' - Please, everyone, first see the discussion at the Indigenous wikiproject. We had a long discussion and reached '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America&oldid=897676160#WP:RS_Sources_for_Native_Identity consensus to move this to where it is now]''' As Nil Einne said, all we did was align the category name with the description. We did this informally at the Wikiproject because it involves issues around sourcing that require some familiarity with the field. Or, that was my rationale. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 17:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
* If I understand correctly, this category and all of its subcategories are intended for people who are not recognized as Native Americans by [[WP:RS]]. Why do we have these categories at all? [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 17:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC) |
* If I understand correctly, this category and all of its subcategories are intended for people who are not recognized as Native Americans by [[WP:RS]]. Why do we have these categories at all? [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 17:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::I initially did not want these categories and lists (yes, there are lists). I wanted them all XfD'd. Then one of the long-term editors in this field reminded me that, no matter what we do, we keep getting editors adding self-identified people to the Native American and tribal categories, based on no better sourcing than a People magazine or TV Guide piece where they said, "Yeah, my great-grandmother was Cherokee." Right now we are still going through exhausting cleanup on articles over this stuff. I would vastly prefer to just cut all the people who aren't sourced to reliable, tribal sources that claim them. But this editor reminded me that, since tribes rarely make the effort to put out statements that people are false claimants (there are just too many), we wind up with a lot of people with shaky claims, and their fans saying that an otherwise RS source that they made this claim means it's "sourced that they're Native" or "sourced that they're a descendant"... often when we know it's not true. So, it gets into shaky territory, especially on BLPs. There are all kinds of edit-wars over this stuff, and most editors don't know how to evaluate the claims and sourcing. Only a bare few of us keep an eye on the veracity of the claims, and we're exhausted. I would love to have more help with this, but it hasn't been forthcoming. - [[User:CorbieVreccan|<span style="font-family:georgia"><b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b></span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:CorbieVreccan|☊]]</sup> [[WP:SPIDER|☼]] 18:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==== Category:Pro-choice organizations ==== |
==== Category:Pro-choice organizations ==== |
Revision as of 18:19, 25 May 2019
May 23
Iranic categories
- Propose deleting Category:Iranic people
- Propose deleting Category:Iranic music
- Propose deleting Category:Iranic folklore
- Propose deleting Category:Iranic art
- Propose deleting Category:Iranic women
- Nominator's rationale: The term is barely used. We don't even have a article of the term or anything. The common term is Iranian, not Iranic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support - More of Krakko's attempt to ethnicise things that shouldn't be. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Question, shouldn't some of these categories be merged, e.g. Category:Iranic people to Category:Iranian ethnic groups? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Category:Iranic people is a container for categories about Iranian individuals, such as Saka people, Alanic people, Scythian people, Sarmatian people etc. Merging those into Category:Iranian ethnic groups would not be helpful. Krakkos (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - The "common term" is already applied in the following categories:
- Those categories are about the people, women, music, folklore and art of the country of Iran, which includes non-Iranian peoples like the Azerbaijanis. The categories that are proposed for deletion are about the people, women, music, folklore and art of Iranian peoples, which includes peoples like the Ossetians, who are not citizens of the country of Iran. Iranian peoples and citizens of the country of Iran are two very different subjects, and cannot be merged under one and the same category. This is a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. WP:DEL-REASON#11, therefore, does not apply in this case. As a substitute for the common term Iranian, Iranic is the best option. Krakkos (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging PPEMES, Place Clichy, Dimadick, Peterkingiron, Inter&anthro, Aleksandr Grigoryev, Florian Blaschke and Spinningspark, who have participated in related discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatolian peoples, as per WP:APPNOTE. Krakkos (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging Rye-96, who moved Category:Ethnic Iranian culture to Category:Iranic culture,[1] as per WP:APPNOTE. Krakkos (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Iranic is barely used though. Even in more recent sources the term Iranian is favoured by a huge margin. We have a policy in Wikipedia that we use the common version, this is far from the case. Also what Johnbod said is completely true as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- HistoryofIran - Of course the term Iranian is favored by a huge margin for peoples speaking Iranian languages. But that term is also favored by a huge margin for the people of the country of Iran. Currently, Category:Iranian people covers people from the country of Iran, which means that the favored title is already in use by a different category. I hope you understand that we cannot have two categories with the same title, nor should we merge peoples speaking Iranian languages and people of the country of Iran into the same category, as these are two substantially different things. Policy does not encourage the deletion of categories with unconventional or inconsistent titles. It encourages that the title be renamed, if more suitable alternatives exist. As this nomination seems misplaced, i would encourage you to withdraw it and initiate a move discussion, if you know of a better title. On your userpage, it says that you categorize yourself as being "of Iranian ancestry" and "proud to be Iranian". It seems strange that you would agree with Johnbod, as he advocates deleting the category covering the ethnicity to which you claim to belong. Krakkos (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Iranic is barely used though. Even in more recent sources the term Iranian is favoured by a huge margin. We have a policy in Wikipedia that we use the common version, this is far from the case. Also what Johnbod said is completely true as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – I think Krakkos might have a point here. I do not want to give away my credibility completely by stating that I am not really familiar with the subject, but there definitely exist such a term. On the other hand wikitionary has following definition for wikt:Iranic. The next reference points that the term Iranic follows the same word morphing as Germanic, Slavic and others. Apparently Professor John Perry also stated that Iranic has a right on existence according to this reference. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – per Krakkos's explanation. Comparing the frequency of the terms would be biased, because "Iranian" has the meaning of "from the country of Iran" in addition to "of the Iranian ethno-linguistic group", while "Iranic" is used exclusively to refer to the ethno-linguistic group in a way that it wouldn't be confused with the other. Naming categories based on this essential distinction would be reasonable, in my opinion.
—Rye-96 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) - Oppose Per Krakkos.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support in principle. This is apparently about Iranian peoples, and since we already have Iranian peoples and Category:Iranian peoples let's please keep consistent terminology. The only thing I am not certain of is whether some of it needs to be merged or renamed rather than deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's principles does not encourage categories with inconsistent terminology to be deleted. It encourages them to be moved. As the conventional title is already used for a category covering a different subject, moving the title of the the category with the unconventional title cannot be done. As the category with the conventional title covers a different subject than than the subject of the category with the unconvential title, the category with the unconventional title cannot be merged into the category with the conventional title either. The least bad option is then to use the second-most conventional title for these categories, which is Iranic. Krakkos (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, here is an alternative proposal:
- Propose deleting Category:Iranic people because the content is already in the tree of Category:Iranian peoples
- Propose renaming Category:Iranic music to Category:Music of Iranian peoples
- Propose renaming Category:Iranic folklore to Category:Folklore of Iranian peoples
- Propose renaming Category:Iranic art to Category:Art of Iranian peoples
- Propose deleting Category:Iranic women because the content is already in the tree of Category:Iranian peoples
- - Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle - This is a better proposal, but it still makes the deletion of useful categories a requirement to ensure consistent terminology. Another proposal might be to simply revert these categories back to the way they were a few days ago:
- Propose renaming Category:Iranic people to Category:Ethnic Iranian people
- Propose renaming Category:Iranic music to Category:Ethnic Iranian music
- Propose renaming Category:Iranic folklore to Category:Ethnic Iranian folklore
- Propose renaming Category:Iranic art to Category:Ethnic Iranian art
- Propose renaming Category:Iranic women to Category:Ethnic Iranian women
- Such titles would be consistent with naming conventions used within the Iranian framework and for related categories:
-
- I hadn't realized these categories were renamed a few days ago. Yes I definitely support reversal. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
-
- Oppose We need a way to distinguish between the people and cultural products of the country of Iran and the people and cultural products of the Iranian peoples, an ethnolinguistic group spead over much of Asia and Europe. Dimadick (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent
- Nominator's rationale: Non-standard criterion by self-identification, which is prone to misinformation and factual inaccuracies. If there's a corresponding reliable source for each of them, then they should be moved to "of Native American descent". Selective merge looks like a suitable option. Brandmeistertalk 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- The target is currently a cat-redirect to the subject, but it is contradictory, because it has subcats by each native people, with a headnote saying it is for those not identified with a tribe. The target is in a standard format (though mostly used for non-Americans). I understand that having some native ancestry is relatively common in descendants of those who were in frontier zones during the expansion into the West. The issue of self-identification is probably better addressed by the headnote saying that the category should not include those for whom native ancestry is minor and incidental. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support Since when is "self-dentification" important in a topic relevant to genealogy? What matters are the sources. People may self-identify as Martians for all we know. Dimadick (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I don't deal much in CfD but is merging the correct description? The Category:American people of Native American descent only exists as a redirect, I would think renaming would be the correct description. Anyway whatever the case, I would note the current self-identify name for the cat was from what I can tell, itself a rename from the merge/rename target after this discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Related discussion: Category:American people of Native American descent. That discussion was mentioned on the cat talk page Category talk:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent#Discussing criteria again over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Related discussion: Category:American people of Native American descent. I'm not sure where else it was advertised. The discussion also doesn't seem to have been formally closed but was enacted by one of the participants after a few days. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've mentioned this new discussion on the old discussion. I didn't give any notice on the talk page since AFAIK it's not generally considered necessary if the cat itself is tagged. Also I forgot to mention but even before the rename, the cat text itself said it was for people who self-identify, see e.g. this minor wording change from 2016 [2] which hasn't changed until now (i.e. it was the same prior to the recent move) Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Please, everyone, first see the discussion at the Indigenous wikiproject. We had a long discussion and reached consensus to move this to where it is now As Nil Einne said, all we did was align the category name with the description. We did this informally at the Wikiproject because it involves issues around sourcing that require some familiarity with the field. Or, that was my rationale. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, this category and all of its subcategories are intended for people who are not recognized as Native Americans by WP:RS. Why do we have these categories at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I initially did not want these categories and lists (yes, there are lists). I wanted them all XfD'd. Then one of the long-term editors in this field reminded me that, no matter what we do, we keep getting editors adding self-identified people to the Native American and tribal categories, based on no better sourcing than a People magazine or TV Guide piece where they said, "Yeah, my great-grandmother was Cherokee." Right now we are still going through exhausting cleanup on articles over this stuff. I would vastly prefer to just cut all the people who aren't sourced to reliable, tribal sources that claim them. But this editor reminded me that, since tribes rarely make the effort to put out statements that people are false claimants (there are just too many), we wind up with a lot of people with shaky claims, and their fans saying that an otherwise RS source that they made this claim means it's "sourced that they're Native" or "sourced that they're a descendant"... often when we know it's not true. So, it gets into shaky territory, especially on BLPs. There are all kinds of edit-wars over this stuff, and most editors don't know how to evaluate the claims and sourcing. Only a bare few of us keep an eye on the veracity of the claims, and we're exhausted. I would love to have more help with this, but it hasn't been forthcoming. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Category:Pro-choice organizations
- Propose renaming Category:Pro-choice organizations to Category:Abortion-rights organizations
- Propose renaming Category:Pro-choice organisations in Australia to Category:Abortion-rights organisations in Australia
- Propose renaming Category:Pro-choice organizations in Canada to Category:Abortion-rights organizations in Canada
- Propose renaming Category:Pro-choice organisations in Ireland to Category:Abortion-rights organisations in Ireland
- Propose renaming Category:Pro-choice organisations in the Netherlands to Category:Abortion-rights organisations in the Netherlands
- Propose renaming Category:Pro-choice organisations in New Zealand to Category:Abortion-rights organisations in New Zealand
- Propose renaming Category:Pro-choice religious organizations to Category:Abortion-rights religious organizations
- Propose renaming Category:Pro-choice organisations in the United Kingdom to Category:Abortion-rights organisations in the United Kingdom
- Propose renaming Category:Pro-choice organizations in the United States to Category:Abortion-rights organizations in the United States
- Nominator's rationale: As explained in the terminology section of the abortion-rights movements article, "pro-choice" is an imprecise, POV slogan that we should be avoiding except in quotes and proper names. Same goes for "pro-life". I would presume if this were moved it would apply to the subcategories, too, but I'm leaving them off for now in case there's a reason to discuss separately that I'm not thinking of. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: please do add the sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 13:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: Ok. Think I got them all. I was going to add the [nationality] pro-choice activists in Category:Abortion-rights activists, but it looks like you're already working on that? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, I found that Category:Abortion-rights movement & the top "activists" category had been moved via the Speedy page, so I nominated those sub-cats likewise using the Speedy route. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support - moreover pro-choice redirects to abortion rights movements. Oculi (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support for consistency. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support to avoid weasel words. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support To properly depict which legal choice they propagate. By the way, the main article is quite a mess. Entire sections are devoted to abortion-related laws, not to the organizations which support or oppose them. Dimadick (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals
- Propose renaming Category:Catholic sex abuse cases to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals
- Propose renaming Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals by country
- Propose renaming Category:Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in Australia to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Australia
- Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Canada to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Canada
- Propose renaming Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Germany to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Germany
- Propose renaming Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Ireland to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Ireland
- Propose renaming Category:Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in New Zealand to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in New Zealand
- Propose renaming Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United Kingdom to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in the United Kingdom
- Propose renaming Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in the United States
- Propose renaming Category:Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Europe to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Latin America
- Propose renaming Category:Catholic sexual abuse cases in Latin America to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Latin America
- Propose renaming Category:Catholic Church sex abuse scandal in Oceania to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Oceania
- Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in Oceania to Category:Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in Oceania
- Propose renaming Category:Academic literature of Catholic sex abuse cases to Category:Academic literature about Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals
- Propose renaming Category:Anti-pedophile activists in Catholic sex abuse cases to Category:Anti-pedophile activists in Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals
- Propose renaming Category:Curial response to Catholic sex abuse cases to Category:Curial response to Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals
- Propose renaming Category:Media coverage of Catholic sex abuse cases to Category:Media coverage of Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals
- Propose renaming Category:Abuse by members of Catholic orders to Category:Sexual abuse scandals in Catholic orders
- Nominator's rationale: Per consensus to rename other categories of "child sex abuse cases" to "child sexual abuse scandals" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 18#Category:Child sexual abuse in religious groups.
- Note 1: I have used "Catholic Church" following Catholic Church abuse cases, Catholic Church sexual abuse cases (renamed in 2014, see Talk:Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases/Archive_15#Requested_move) and the majority of current categories. Alternatives include "Catholic", "Roman Catholic", "Roman Catholic Church" or "in Catholicism", although the latter would be clumsy when combined with "in [location]".
- Note 2: the word "child" was added into the parent category names at the March CFD. However, I have not proposed to add this, to avoid unnecessarily long category names. It is not present in some of the article names, where the content may also cover abuse of adults.
- This nomination supersedes an earlier nomination of the Australian category alone at CFD May 2, and of three categories on the Speedy page; in both cases, there was support for a wider nomination. @Steel1943, Danski454, Armbrust, Black Falcon, PPEMES, Marcocapelle, Oculi, and Laurel Lodged: Pinging participants in previous discussions. – Fayenatic London 13:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Support ALT on all: "Catholic Church sexual abuse in X". While it is certainly relevant to cover the ensuing scandals, the main scope are the deplorable very cases, which should in my opinion be in focus as seen also in the title. The scandals are due and relevant, but they are not what's most alarming in this content. Something we should not divert from for a number of reasons, one of them being slippery slope towards two different articles. PPEMES (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support per the cited consensus of March 2019. Scandal is somewhat wider than 'case'. Oculi (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support per previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support per previous discussions Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support For consistency reasons. Note however, that the main article sexual abuse also covers the abuse of people with developmental disabilities, people with dementia, elders in nursing homes, and sexual harassment and coercion within schools and workplaces. Should the categories also cover cases where Catholic church employees were abused by their co-workers? For example, Catholic priest Joseph Maskell is known to have sexually abused the religious sister Catherine Cesnik, and is considered a main suspect in her murder. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands
- Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, opposed on Speedy page as ineligible. The nomination would remove ambiguity with Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814). – Fayenatic London 09:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Copy of Speedy discussion
|
---|
|
- Support - seems straightforward. Oculi (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, but no objection creating subcategory Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1797–1799) next to Category:French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814) which should also become a subcategory of the nominated category. Note that currently the information about the second French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814) is hidden in the article French rule in the Ionian Islands (1797–1799), so the article may better be renamed back. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle, I fully intend to write the article French rule in the Ionian Islands (1807–1814) very soon, and the existence of two distinct periods of French rule is pretty clear, so the disambiguation for the extant article is necessary. I should have disambiguated right away when I created both article and that category, but didn't, for some reason. I am now merely seeking to rectify my previous oversight. It really shouldn't be that difficult. I feel caught up in a bizarre bureaucratic process over a non-issue. Constantine ✍ 19:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support - per Wikipedia:Categorization#General conventions#2: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article". Krakkos (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Category:Montreal bus routes
- Propose deleting Category:Montreal bus routes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Montreal bus routes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Almost no notable bus routes, category is populated unanimously with redirect articles. As bus routes are generally non-notable this category is unlikely to ever be useful. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Category:Mathematician politicians
- Propose deleting Category:Mathematician politicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Mathematician politicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: An unremarkable intersection of categories Rathfelder (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Listify at least, as this intersection has been subject to research and comment; e.g. a very quick search turned up Forbes, Springer academic article re Italy, National Review. – Fayenatic London 18:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think there are more politicians who are doctors, but we dont have a category for that. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment -- Politicians will bring a particular expertise to politics according to their previous profession, so that this is not trivial. I may be in a minority, but I consider that such categories should be allowed. I think we have in the past deleted actor-politicians, a case where previous profession would be less important. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Category:Literature of England
- Propose merging Category:Literature of England to Category:English literature
- Nominator's rationale: It seems like these two categories could be merged. Although I'm sure there are editors who will respond who can tell me the difference between Category:English literature and Category:Literature of England. From a laywoman's perspective, it looks like these two categories could be combined. If not, I'm sure you will let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The main article English literature is about literature written in the English language, not literature written in England. Dimadick (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- In that case, shouldn't Category:English literature be merged to Category:English-language literature, or vice versa? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be merged with that one. Dimadick (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Category:English literature has been tagged as well so this discussion might immediately be closed as merge Category:English literature to Category:English-language literature if there is consensus about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be merged with that one. Dimadick (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:16th-century English literature to Category:16th-century literature of England
- Propose renaming Category:17th-century English literature to Category:17th-century literature of England
- In that case, shouldn't Category:English literature be merged to Category:English-language literature, or vice versa? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support Marco's suggestions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- After checking this in more depth the best solution is to split Category:English literature between Category:English-language literature and Category:Literature of England. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: saving a link here to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3919946 (English lit) so that we don't lose it. Also https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16785991 for Lit of England. – Fayenatic London 07:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, for the predicted reason that they are different things. Though I agree Category:English literature and Category:English-language literature are the same thing, though commonly known as 'English literature' ...in England, at least! Sionk (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Liz and Marcocapelle: For clarity, I suggest withdrawing this one to facilitate a fresh nomination, to split and disambiguate Category:English literature to Category:English-language literature and Category:Literature of England. – Fayenatic London 12:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good suggestion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I cannot believe the nom looed at the subject category before nominating it. The nom category is mostly about literature that is not in English. There is probably a case for a separate Category:English literature and Category:English-language literature, the latter including American, Australian, Indian, etc and the former specifically that of England, but this nom would not achieve that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)