Category:Members of the Editorial Advisory Council of ''Dionysius''
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:Delete. There is no scheme for categorizing editorial boards of particular journals, and it's probably not a good idea to start. Academics in particular often serve on editorial boards or advising councils of many academic journals and such service is generally not defining. Many of these positions (not necessarily with this particular journal) are often ex officio or merely honorary, so these especially would not make sense to categorize by.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, it's certainly true that academics often serve on many such boards. My thought when I created the category was that showing the links between the people who make up this board (and others like it, if similar categories are created for other journals) could be a useful contribution to a certain kind of intellectual history, the "who knew whom" and "who taught whom" kind (to which by the way the Internet seems to me especially to lend itself), which in turn can sometimes support intellectual history of a more substantial kind. But I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and have an open mind on this question. Best regards,
Tillander00:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Another point occurs to me...I'm not entirely clear about why it's a problem that advisory board membership often has an honorary character. We have categories for things like Members of the Bavarian Order of Merit and Recipients of the Australian Sports Medal (and indeed lists and ordinary pages devoted to such things)...why should academic honours be any different? But as I say, I'm still new at this; I'm happy to go along with whatever consensus develops.
Tillander03:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The guideline in question is
here. I think the short answer is that many, many categories for awards that currently exist probably run afoul of the guidelines. But no category gets dealt with unless it gets nominated for discussion.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Listify. This can be useful information, but merbership on editorial advisorty boards can change too often, and someone can be on too many at once for it to be defining. Most university professors are only at any given time on one faculty (there are exceptions, esepcially among some music and other arts faculties, but they are rare) while there are many who serve on multiple editorial advitsory boards at once. A list would also have the advantage of being able to list what years the people served on the board so it would indicate who actually served with whom, while the current function would group together people who may have served 20 years apart, and you would only find out if they overlap if the articles gave a when served instead of just listing that board amont the 7 or so boards the given person was on.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree with Good Ol'factory that for starters this should be made a list at the journal article. In some journals having it as a seperate article would probably work, but it probably can start as a list with the journal article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I did in fact make a list at the journal article twice, in
this version of it and later in
this one. In each case the list was deleted. I also tried to argue the case
here and
here, but without success. I wasn't sure what to do: that's why I thought a category might be the answer. Best,
Tillander22:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I went and resored the list. I would say that if the OR concerns expressed against the list in the past are valid, they apply at least as much to the contents of this category, they are just harder to voice.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete and delete the list also. Being editor in chief of a journal is notable, but not merely on the editorial board. It's not even particularly important for most journals. There is also no reason to have a list anywhere, since it's the practice not even to include this material in articles on the journals. Sometimes it's listed in the bios of academics, but usually it's considered trivial, almost like on-campus awards. For large journals, it amounts to a linkfarm. It would amount to collecting information almost indiscriminately. Many journals are even perfectly willing to add anyone of any reputation to the board as a quid pro quo for submitting an important article. I agree that lists and categories are generally both justified when either is, but the converse is also true--when there is no reason for one, there's usually no reason for the other. DGG (
talk )
03:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment DGG there are lots and lots of lists that work where categories do not. There are also some categories that are just not practical to turn into lists. Whatever the merit of this particular think as a category or a list, there is no reason why every list should spawn a category, and there are very, very good reasons why many lists should never be used to make a category. Lists allow for better tracking of multiple characteristics. Lists of state leaders in a given year should not get parralel cats.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete – it's not defining to be a 'Member of the Editorial Advisory Council of Dionysius' (or any other journal at all, I would have thought). It's not even the sort of factoid that would necessarily be mentioned even in a longish article on an academic. I am not surprised that the corresponding list is in difficulties.
Occuli (
talk)
17:26, 14 August 2011 (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.
Media by continent of setting
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: Delete per consensus and close remarks at
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_30#Category:Media_by_setting. The pre-existing
Category:Locations in fiction does an adequate job as a top-level category and container for works that are "set" in a geographical location (as opposed to produced or shot) are therefore necessarily fiction. Moreover,
User:Stefanomione has acknowledged at CfD that works such as novels, plays, etc. are not "media" in our sense of the word, and so the entire category tree is also mis-named. I am not nominating specific genres such as films, plays, novels, etc. set in foo, as I believe these are or may be useful.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Support whatever can be done to sort this mess out. Outright deletion might be the easiest. Is it time to approach
User:Stefanomione again regarding category creation? It was done before and he stated that he would start explaining his approach in CFD discussions, but he hasn't really appeared, despite being notified.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I am not sure what they are, it might be a reference to what thinks are filmed on. Which of course is one of the confusions some people have. The setting of a ficitonal TV show or movie is indepdent of the real location at which it is filmed. They may be the same, but are other different.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)reply
This category is not about "media sets", Kylekieran. The category names mean "media that were set in Foo"; i.e. in the story the location was Foo, even though the film might have been made in another place. Films made in Trinidad are not necessarily set there. See the two cub-categories of
Category:Films by city of location. -
Fayenatic(talk)23:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge/rename "media" to "works". It seems to me that in most cases, categories for "media" can be renamed using "works". In a few cases, media categories also contain magazines, which don't really fit in creative works, e.g.
Category:American Civil War magazines. However, I think these are rare enough that it would be fine to use "works" as the standard name in categories, replacing "media". IMHO this is clearer than the names within
Category:Locations in fiction; if that really is the same thing then that tree should be nominated later, from "Foo in fiction" to "Works set in foo". -
Fayenatic(talk)23:00, 13 August 2011 (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:Chinese media
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. Whatever the outcome of that barely discussed RFC, most of the contents of this category have nothing to do with the People's Republic of China. So the suggested target is clearly not correct. Feel free to nominate with a different target.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
04:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose pending RFC under way at
Category talk:China. Besides, it currently contains two articles, one of which is about Republic of China not PRC, and the other is pre-1949. The sub-cat contains a PRC category and another pre-1949 article. -
Fayenatic(talk)19:37, 8 August 2011 (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.
Types of marketing
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 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:Marketing organizations
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.
Oppose, but with caveats. Although this category should be given a once-over for accuracy, as some of the things added here do seem to be "companies" rather than "organizations", they're not actually redundant categories — frex, the
American Marketing Association is not a company, but a professional trade organization for people who work in marketing. The
Canadian Association of Promotional Marketing Agencies, similarly, is an industry organization which individual marketing companies are members of, but is not itself a marketing company per se. Accordingly,
Category:Marketing organizations does need some cleanup to remove articles which more properly belong in
Category:Marketing companies, but the categories themselves should not be merged.
Bearcat (
talk)
06:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose, as it contains cats and sub-cats for co-operatives, but tag the category as a parent category as articles on individual organisations should go down into sub-cats, except for associations as stated by Bearcat. -
Fayenatic(talk)19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose - These are different although I am not sure the distinction between companies and organizations is as hard and fast as some seem to think it is.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:07, 8 August 2011 (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.
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.
Delete both per nom and precedents. I'm especially unimpressed by the addition of
Category:WMMS to individual musical recordings that the station merely happens to have been an early playlister of. Worst idea I've seen on here in at least a week!
Bearcat (
talk)
06:00, 8 August 2011 (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:Armenian writers
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.
Nominators rationale currently a large number of the people in this category were born in Georgia, Syria or other places and never lived in Armenia. It is also not clear that these people neccesarily wrote in Armenian, just that they were part of the Armenian diaspora (although part of the problem is that historic Armenia is much larger than modern Armenia). Armenianess has a meaning that is almsot as deeply ethno-religious as Jewishness. However it also has a meaning that is directly tied to the modern nation of the name. The Nationality category for Armenian writers should also probably be limited to post-1917 if not post-1990 writers. The writer nationality categories seem to have largely ignored the time-dependent nature of nationality.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment The larger scheme is to associate writers with the nation they are nationals of. We could of course justy move this category to be a subcat of
Category:Writers by ethnicity and not have any writer cat for citizens of Armenia. The problem is that this cat is currently grouping together people in ways not supported by the parent cats.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment The problem is that Armenianess is an ethnicity with strong religious connections. Jews who move from Israel to New York do not stop being Jews, and Armenians did not stop being Armenians just because they had moved to Baghdad, Istanbul or Odessa. This was especially true under the
Ottoman Empire's millet system where many of the Armenians lived in areas where Armenians were not the majority of the population (such as Istanbul). The problem here, and arguably with the Czech cat as well, is that a cat that today is clearly a cat for people connected with a specific country is also being used for people in the past not connected with that country. Actually I think we have this problem present with writers from every country created in the 20th century, at least where the nationality name is also used as an ethnic name.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I thought I had covered all that. Doesn't "Armenian descent" cover the diaspora, whereas "from Armenia" is just for the nationality/territory? -
Fayenatic(talk)21:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose -Armenian writers has several possible meanings: (1) writers who are Armenian by nationality (i.e., ethnically anything but holding a passport of the Republic of Armenia); (2) writers who are ethnically Armenian regardless of whose passport they hold, but excluding ethnically non-Armenians holding Armenian passports; and (3) writers in the Armenian language, regardless of what ethnicity or passport they have. Only (1) or (3) make sense for categorization, lest we assume some monolithic viewpoint that Armenian blood imparts in one's writing which would be inappropriate. So the split into a category for (2) is the inappropriate use of
WP:OCAT.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment There is
Category:Armenian-language writers (or at least there is precedent with things like
Category:English-language writers and
Category:Greek-language writers). It is standard wikipedia practive to distinguish nationality and language. If in fact we want to limit this category to nationals of the Republic of Armenia we would need to purge a large number of those in the category. I am also not sure there are any Nationals of the Republic of Armenia who are not Armenian by ethnicity. I know there are no nationals of Saudi ARabia and many other "Gulf" states who are anything other than Arab by ethnicity, but I am not sure if Armenia engages in the type of actions required to limit nationality status to people of a given ethnicity.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:04, 10 August 2011 (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:Czech writers
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.
Nominators rationale This category is supposed to be for writers who were nationals of the
Czech Republic. However the first person in the cat died in the 16th century, while the Czech Republic was not formed until 1992. The category with its current name is being misapplied so we should rename it for more precision. I gtuess I could just unilaterally move a bunch of people but I want some discussion on this. There is already a
Category:Czech-language writers. Do we also want a cat
Category:Ethnic Czech writers, or should we purge those from before 1992 to the various language/earlier nationality cats?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep – the category system is 'broad brush' and cannot possibly handle all changes in nations and boundaries in the last few millennia. 'Czech' is being used an approximate term and should be left as it is.
Occuli (
talk)
13:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep per all above. Also "Czech writers" does not refer to the Czech Republic-based authors, but to the ethnic Czech people. -
Darwinek (
talk)
12:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
In Central and Eastern Europe word "nationality" de facto equals "ethnicity". The current categorization scheme is clear and simple. It would be nonsensical to categorize people according to political entities. In that sense the first President of Czechoslovakia, T.G. Masaryk could be categorized as French sociologist, Austro-Hungarian sociologist and finally Czechoslovak sociologist. -
Darwinek (
talk)
19:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The "Nationality" categorization is based on political entity, it is not for people by ethnicity. That is why we have a serpate category for ethnicity. If Masaryk really was a national of France (as opposed to an Autro-Hungarian expatriate in France) than we should have him in all three cats. Nationality can change, therefore there is no reason a person can not be in multiple nationality cats.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
In a black-and-white world you would be correct, but in practice this is not how the categories have been applied, especially the European ones. As Darwinek says, for European subjects these categories have been applied much more loosely to mean "nationality" and historically at least, "ethnicity".
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Given your statements
User:Good Olfactory and
User:Darwinek, could you chime in to merge the various Fooish-Jewish categories for all the Central and Eastern European Foos because Foo is Foo ethnicity, which is how the "Jewish" part is being used - i.e., devoid of religious affiliation. Or are we destined to have Fooish-Catholic, Fooish-Lutheran, Fooish-Unitarian, Fooish-Orthodox, categories for every country in which a diaspora of such folks is found???
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
21:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Question Are you complaining about the case-by-case nominations of writer cats? Each of the countries in question has a unique history that makes categorizing the writers of that country a unique issue. The issues of Czech are in some ways unique, and the other writer cats I have nominated have involved totally different issues. We should apply the "nationality" identifier in the proper way, and not identify people with a nation they were never in any way part of.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment I would hardly take the current state of the writer-by-nationality cats as a good precedent for how we ought to arrange them. Up until I removed him from the cat for clearly not belonging,
Johannes Gaitanides was in
Category:Greek writers even though he was born, raised in and was for all his life a resident of Germany. His father was from Greece, and he did on occasion travel to Greece, but he was clearly not Greek. In the case of Czech writers in some articles one begins to wonder if Czech is just being used as a convient short form of Czechslovak.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment since the various American people of FOOian-Jewish descent cats have been centralized I find the complaint about them off base. Considering any other nationalities with the American ones would just be too complexed.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)reply
It's been quite a tortured problem getting there; there are still at least 5 different discussions open on 3 different days, so it's not exactly easy to follow what's going on with them. They should have all been withdrawn and one unified nomination started instead.
Good Ol’factory(talk)07:48, 10 August 2011 (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:Modern Greek writers
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.
Nominators rationale The article
Modern Greek is on the language. This category has incorrectly been made a sub-cat of
Category:Greek writers which is not supposed to be a language cat but instead is supposed to be a nationality cat. This shows that the current name is being misinterpreted so we need a more precise name.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:07, 7 August 2011 (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:St. Joseph's Seminary (Yonkers) alumni
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 - There are a few reasons to do this. First off the people in these two cats all graduated from the same institution, although those with the St. Joseph's Seminary (New York) cat graduated from it while it was in
Troy, New York while the Yonkers people graduated from it at Yonkers. The proposed name is reflective of the name of the article on the institution. There was in the past at least vone other seminary in New York named St. Joseph's Seminary,
St. Joseph's Seminary (Callicoon, New York) but none of these men went to that institution.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:27, 7 August 2011 (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:Winners of beauty pageants in the Philippines
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.
Rename to
Category:Winners of beauty pegenats of the Phillipines. We considered in the discussion what we actually wanted the inclusion criteria for this to be. These are supposed to reflect that the pegeants have affiliaiton with a specific county, not that the winner of the pageant is affiliated with the country. This should be a sister cat to
Category:Alumniu by university or college in the Philippines. However beauty pegents are less connected to a specific loaction than are colleges, so we have to allow for the theoretical Miss X pageant held in place Y because of some factor or other but consisting of contestants from Y. If someone calls their pagent "Miss Vietnam" and holds it in Louisiana because its contestants are Vietnamese-Americans living there than it is a peagent of the United States. However if the constestants are Vietnamese women who have traveled to the US because they decided to mix a tour with the beauty pegeant and the organizers are Vietnam residents than it would be "of Vietnam".
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
We never (?) categorise by the location of a competition:
Cindy Breakspeare (who seems to be definitely Jamaican and possibly Canadian) won the
Miss World title in London, but 'London' is incidental to this. If
Category:Miss America winners are not necessarily American (a surprise to me) then it should be removed as a subcat of
Category:American beauty pageant winners (or one could accept that category inclusions are approximations rather than robust claims to citizenship). (Most countries do require contestants in their competitions to be nationals.)
Occuli (
talk)
11:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Nationals, yes; citizens, no. The problem with some editors' interpretation of the nationality categories is that they assume that nationality means "citizenship". It does not. Nationality refers to anyone in a country who has a right to remain there indefinitely (i.e., "permanent residents") as well as citizens. So you can be a citizen of Mexico but be a permanent resident in the U.S. and still participate in Miss America.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per Occuli, consistent with its sister cats; the keep result on the parent shows that these were winners by said nationality not winners of contests in said nation.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
02:38, 7 August 2011 (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.