Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 6
July 8 >

July 7

Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism

Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge), it is unclear how these two categories are different from each other. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 20:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Support merge. I think that converts from FOO is supposed to model other religion converts categories. I'd be interested in anyone from the religion/athesist categories chiming in in case we're missing something. Mason ( talk) 02:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep It's part of an overarching category sceme with a certain logic. Former Fooians can become converts to some other religion, e.g. Barism.
  • But if the new religion or lack thereof of the former Fooians cannot be determined, we cannot diffuse them to a subcategory called converts to Barism from Fooism.
  • Or, it may be that a former atheist or agnostic has embraced some form of theism, but not converted to a specific institutionalised or traditional form of it. Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism is a containercat that currently only allows us to diffuse former atheists and agnostics as converts to Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. But of course, those are far from the only options on the 'market', so to speak.
I think this indeterminacy, as well as lack of options to diffuse to, is what requires these categories to remain separate. (Honestly, I understand where the idea to merge them comes from, and I had to think for quite some time before figuring out why I had a hunch that it might not be a good idea, and writing this down haha). NLeeuw ( talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
PS: A good example of a former Fooian whose current religion or lack thereof cannot be determined is Wesley Snipes. Raised as a Christian, converted to Islam, then left Islam, and we don't know what he considers himself these days. The default assumption may be that he is therefore an atheist or agnostic these days, but no RS says that, so such a conclusion is OR.
Similarly, there has been quite a lot of controversy around Antony Flew, a life-long atheist who appears to have embraced some form of theism just before he died and co-wrote a book titled There Is A God with a Christian. That Christian co-author has claimed that Flew converted to Christian theism just before he died, and that the book is "evidence" of Flew's wholehearted, sincere embrace of the Christian religion. Meanwhile, several atheists came out and called foul play, alleging that the co-author put words in Flew's mounth in order to construct a deathbed conversion story that is really convenient for propaganda purposes, and that Flew seems to have not embraced Christianity specifically, but a more general vague theism. Who can say? Flew is not there anymore now to explain. That's why he is in Category:Former atheists and agnostics, but not in Category:Converts to Christianity from atheism or agnosticism, as his religious views just prior to his death cannot be precisely determined, and thus diffused. NLeeuw ( talk) 17:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose or widen the scope of the merge. The category Category:People by former religion has quite a few categories in it, including this one, of people by former religions or former non-religion. If we merge this one it would make sense to merge all of them. However, I feel like both categories are useful, as "Convert" categories show what they converted too, while the "Former" categories (which include the Converts as a subcat) are for those where the conversion "destination," for lack of a better word, is unknown. Relinus ( talk) 15:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
It's also worth noting categories like Category:Converts to Christianity, or Category:Converts to Islam, etc. all have many subcategories named "Converts to ____ from ___" which include the subcategories of Category:Converts from atheism or agnosticism, namely Category:Converts to Buddhism from atheism or agnosticism‎, Category:Converts to Christianity from atheism or agnosticism, Category:Converts to Hinduism from atheism or agnosticism‎, Category:Converts to Islam from atheism or agnosticism, and Category:Converts to Judaism from atheism or agnosticism‎. It's not clear how this would be dealt with in the merge proposal. Relinus ( talk) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Well said. You explain some of what I was trying to say better than I could. NLeeuw ( talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I do not understand the logic. Of course there are people who do not fit a "converts to" subcategory deeper in the tree. But how does it matter whether these people are in a general "converts" category or in a general "former" category? They are both general categories. In terms of widening the scope of the nomination, I am definitely planning to follow up with sibling categories if this goes ahead. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Because the discussion is on merging the convert/former categories into one category even though they are both needed for the reasons stated above, namely that, as you say, "there are people who do not fit a 'converts to' subcategory deeper in the tree" but who would still fit into the "former" category. Since every religion/non-religion has both a "former" category and a "convert" subcategory, removing one or both for only atheism/agnosticism doesn't make sense. You would need to do the same for all religions, ie. merging Category:Converts from Buddhism and Category:Former Buddhists, etc. (That was what I meant by widening the scope of the merge, however, I would actually oppose that too, since it doesn't make sense either.) Relinus ( talk) 19:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • @ Relinus: until your bracket we seem to agree. I already mentioned I will do a follow-up nomination for all religions if this goes ahead. I do not understand why within the brackets you suddenly jump to a different conclusion. Why doesn't that make sense either? Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Jurists from Denmark–Norway

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining for the only person in here. Extremely small category with only 1 person, who doesn't have any mention of Denmark–Norway in the text. I urge the category creator to stop making categories that only have one person in them. Mason ( talk) 22:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Arab businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: Yet another Arab category that incorrectly conflates ethnicity with nationality. I am not opposed to the general notion of an Arab businesspeople category, but the current contents are only nationality subcategories and Khadija bint Khuwaylid. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Split per nom. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Palestinian bedouins

Nominator's rationale: Effectively redundant. Will require manual addition of parent categories to the target, for it is a downmerge. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Shrines dedicated to empress Jingū

Nominator's rationale: The "e" in "empress" needs to be in capital to bring consistency with the article on Empress Jingū. MOS:JOBTITLE can be used as a guide to determine when such titles need to be in upper case. Keivan.f Talk 20:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Urban development in Ethiopia

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory and there is no tree for Category:Urban development by country. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: I had used Category:Urban development in India > Category:Urban planning in India as templates when creating these. Gjs238 ( talk) 20:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Video games with expansion packs

Nominator's rationale: Last year, on May 7, 2023. A similar category "Video games with downloadable content" was deleted, and expansion packs are pretty much the same as downloadable content. In turn, this category is probably non-defining. Expansion packs are as common as DLC, and are essentially the same. QuantumFoam66 ( talk) 20:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'd agree with the nominator - having an expansion pack does not always modify the base game, so it's hard to call it a defining feature. Categories should be defining aspects of the subject, not something tangential. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose because there are several other potentially non defining categories like "Video games with alternate versions" that I would have put under discussion in the same nomination or whatever. QuantumFoam66 ( talk) 21:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • That is not a reason to oppose. Just discuss with nominator whether the other categories should be included in this nomination or else you can nominate them separately, then you can support both nominations. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Urban projects in Ethiopia

Nominator's rationale: No such category tree. Merge to Category:Urban planning in Ethiopia Gjs238 ( talk) 20:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Brainwashing theory proponents

Nominator's rationale: Whatever the difference is supposed to be between these two categories is beyond me. As far as I can tell, both categories are about people notable for writing works promoting the legitimacy of the sociological concept of brainwashing/mind control (which are more or less the same thing). This just seems like a slightly less neutral version of the other category made by a banned sock. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 19:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Bedouin businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: Not necessary to subcategorize the target category this way. Also contains only 2 articles. Gjs238 ( talk) 17:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Just delete, the articles are already in Category:Egyptian businesspeople and Category:Syrian businesspeople, which should suffice. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Delete per Marco. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 22:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Isn't there some benefit to categorising by ethnicity and nationality? Anecdotally, every Bedouin I've ever met would say that they're a Bedouin first and their nationality second. –  Joe ( talk) 06:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • merge I will nominate Category:Arab businesspeople shortly because it conflates ethnicity and nationality, like so many similar categories that have been brought to CfD. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Does it conflate them or just set up a parallel scheme for ethnicity, i.e. Category:Businesspeople by ethnicity? Do you also object to Category:African-American businesspeople and Category:Jewish businesspeople? –  Joe ( talk) 06:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Category:Jewish businesspeople is a recreation of a previously deleted category, so it is at least controversial. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      But it exists now. And Nyttend recently declined a CSD nom with this enlightening edit summary: We're no longer in the same situation as before — the recent "keep" for Jews by occupation (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 26) means that there's recent support for categories of this type, and speedy-deleting just this one would be absurd. I don't have a dog in this fight, but wouldn't it make sense to establish a consensus for or against categories by ethnicity, rather than seeking to delete individual ones here and there? –  Joe ( talk) 11:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Retain I can list quite a few reasons for this: Bedouins have a distinct cultural, historical, and social identity within the Arab world. Merging their category into a general "Arab businesspeople" category could be seen as diluting the unique aspects of their cultural heritage. A specific category helps represent their unique challenges and contributions which might not be adequately covered. The Bedouin community has a history of nomadic trade and business practices that differ significantly from other Arab groups. A specific category preserves this historical context. Bedouins have distinct social structures and community dynamics that influence their business practices. Specific business strategies, success stories and challenges faced by Bedouin businesspeople can be studied with the help of a dedicated category. For cultural studies research, having a specific category can help in drawing more nuanced conclusions about the Bedouin way of life and their integration into modern economies. Furthermore, Wikipedia claims to be an inclusive platform representing diverse perspectives and communities. This category aligns with the principle of giving minority groups adequate representation. Merging the category marginalizes the Bedouin community within the larger Arab context.-- Simxaraba ( talk) 08:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Video games based on Fantastic Four films

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, it only contains two articles. Should also be merged into Category:Video games based on Marvel Comics films and Category:20th Century Studios video games. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 16:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Clone High characters

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Unopposed to a split if more come in the future. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 16:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:S.L. Benfica (table tennis)

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge No evidence that it can be expanded. Most other subcategories are similarly small and should also be merged. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding small siblings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 20:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on GiantSnowman's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Mosques by decade 620s-970s

Nominator's rationale: merge, sparsely populated category tree, many decade categories do not exist at all, not the least because exact dates are often unknown. It will become a lot easier to navigate between mosques articles when they are moved to century level. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:WikiProject Colonialism participants

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Colonialism was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym ( talk) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:WikiProject Dacia participants

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia was redirected and is no longer a project or task force. Gonnym ( talk) 09:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Counts of Geneva

Nominator's rationale: delete, the category consists of two very different sets of medieval ruling counts of Geneva, who are already in Category:House of Geneva and for early modern members of the House of Savoy for whom this was merely an empty title. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't believe the above summary to be quite right. Several members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county and they are not going to be recorded in 'house of Geneva'. There is also the house of Thoire that controlled the county briefly in the late medieval period who presently lack articles but would be members of the category if they didn't. Moreover even after the city of Geneva slipped from their grasp (they maintained control of other parts of the county such as Annecy) the county remained prominent among their titulary (several of the sons of the dukes of Nemours were called the prince de Genevois until the death of their fathers) and is featured in the leading sentences of many of the articles. sovietblobfish ( talk) 08:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I do agree some form of re-allocation needs to happen from Jacques on down. Especially given the county was raised to a duchy by the duke of Savoy in 1564. Perhaps they should be migrated to a category called something like 'Prince de Genevois' or 'Prince of the Genevois'. sovietblobfish ( talk) 08:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Of course members of the house of Savoy enjoyed practical control over the county because it was part of the Savoyard state and the rulers of the latter were the ones enjoying practical control. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      At times yes, however the county (-1564 duchy) was under the authority of the cadet branch Savoie-Nemours for the majority of the 16th century and parts of the 17th century, and they were primarily French princes.
      Irrespective of whether they or the dukes of Savoy enjoyed practical control, this surely challenges the notion that it was an 'empty title' and it is therefore meaningful to keep it. sovietblobfish ( talk) 12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Pioneers of Israel

Nominator's rationale: This seems like it could plausibly renamed, refocused, or deleted. Obviously it's a coherent group, but is it an encyclopedic one as it stands? Remsense 诉 03:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Read the Encyclopedia of the Founders and Builders of Israel by David Tidhar. This category is a gold mine of information. It will help numerous people interested in studying the development of the state of Israel. These are the pioneers. Dag21902190 ( talk) 03:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
A lot of the issue is that "pioneer" is generally a term of adulation. I think at a bare minimum, the name of the category needs to be changed in order to conform with our policy concerning neutral point of view. Remsense 诉 03:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Dag21902190 Another issue is you seem to be treating this category page like it's an article, which is not correct. Remsense 诉 04:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Categories are meant to have a summary explaining what is in the category. Dag21902190 ( talk) 04:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, a one-sentence summary usually. Remsense 诉 04:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Pioneer has a definition, and just like the pioneers of America, these are the pioneers of Israel. It is not a term of adulation. It is a fact. Dag21902190 ( talk) 04:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Could you cleanly define it in one sentence for me? Categories are meant to be fairly self-evident: if you need to write an article to fully flesh out your definition, it might not be a good category. It seems like you want to write a list article, which would need to stand up to our policies about verifiability, notability and neutral point of view. Your present prose does not, it is very much adulatory. Remsense 诉 04:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
“Pioneers” are people who are among the first to explore or settle what becomes a new country or area. For example, a colonist/colonizer. Just because you interpret the term as adulation, doesn’t make it adulation. Best regards. I deleted the additional summary because of what you said. Dag21902190 ( talk) 04:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Just because you interpret the term as adulation, doesn’t make it adulation

Unfortunately that tends to be how language works, as we're talking about the connotations of language.
I don't quite understand your definition in any case, as none of the people in the category were among the first to explore or settle what is now Israel. Remsense 诉 09:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Do you know what a colonizer is? What do we call the first Europeans to settle and develop America? Were they the first people to explore or settle America? Obviously they weren’t. You cannot take a long-used term, and pretend it can’t be applied to the very thing it defines. I hate to break it to you, but you sound like an anti-Israel shill. I understand if English isn’t your first language, but just because you interpret the word “pioneer” as adulation, doesn’t mean it should be changed. Dag21902190 ( talk) 13:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

“Pioneers” are people who are among the first to explore or settle what becomes a new country or area.

None of the people in the category were among the first to explore or settle what is now Israel. Your definition doesn't work, is my point.

just because you interpret the word “pioneer” as adulation, doesn’t mean it should be changed.

Correct: it should be changed because it's not just me. As a verb, pioneer absolutely has distinctly positive connotations; some related, more neutral verbs are colonize, settle, construct, and establish. The interplanetary space probe was named Pioneer 6 and not Colonizer 6 or Establisher 6 for a reason, I'm afraid. Remsense 诉 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
It’s very clear that you don’t want the word pioneer being used because you don’t view the early settlers in a positive light. I will maintain, despite your attempt to bring in the naming of a satellite, that pioneer is the correct word to be used. American pioneers weren’t the first to settle America, yet they are defined as pioneers. All you have to do is search up the definition of pioneer on Google, and the first two examples of synonyms are “colonist” and “colonizer”. Your interpretation of the English language does not, and should not, mean you can redefine a word, because you view it as adulation. Dag21902190 ( talk) 21:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

American pioneers weren’t the first to settle America, yet they are defined as pioneers

There's been plenty of ink spilled about how "pioneer" is also wrong in an American context for exactly the same reason. Academic use sharply declined as a result.
I also shouldn't have to ask you not to accuse me of behaving in bad faith without a lick of evidence, as I've given you no reason to assume my motives are anything but what I've already said they are: Wikipedia has content policies. Remsense 诉 20:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  1. Aaron Aaronsohn is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  2. Sarah Aaronsohn is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  3. Baruch Agadati is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  4. Gershon Agron is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  5. Israel Aharoni is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  6. Abba Ahimeir is in Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine
  7. Akiva Aryeh Weiss is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  8. Yigal Allon is in Category:Ashkenazi Jews from Ottoman Palestine
  9. Binyamin Amirà is in Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine
  10. Divsha Amirà is in Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine
  11. Zalman Aran is in Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine
  12. Meir Argov is in Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine
  13. Haim Ariav is in Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine
  14. Yitzhak Arieli is in Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine
  15. Haim Arlosoroff is in Category:Jewish National Council members
  16. Ami Assaf is in Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine
  17. Daniel Auster is in Category:Jews from Mandatory Palestine
  18. Genia Averbuch is in Category:Immigrants to Ottoman Palestine
  • Comment Can the scope be simply defined first, before we consider if the category should be retitled, merged, or deleted? I think an issue with the term "pioneer" here is that it can be unclear and may be applied to many individuals that aren't intended. Kingsif ( talk) 11:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Everyone here needs to take a deep breath. This is Wikipedia. Accusing people of anti-XYZ bias or destroying hard work is unproductive and does nothing to strengthen your point. With that out of the way, there is clear consensus that this category needs to change. Whether that change is in the form of deletion or not is to be determined (hence relisting), but if it is kept we need a defined scoped and potentially a better name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 05:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs

Nominator's rationale: Recommended by Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_11#Category:Government_of_the_Almohad_Caliphate:

Category:12th-century Almohad caliphs‎ (4 P) and Category:13th-century Almohad caliphs‎ (10 P) are probably best upmerged to Category:Almohad caliphs, and to Category:12th-century caliphs + Category:12th-century monarchs in Africa & Category:13th-century caliphs + Category:13th-century monarchs in Africa, respectively. A subdivision by century for a dynasty that lasted just under one century and a half tends not to aid navigation very much. But I suggest that for a follow-up.

– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 12:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Triple merge. The important thing is that the Almohad caliph category includes these 14 entries and no others, and dividing that category further by 2 centuries doesn't seem necessary. JoeJShmo 💌 10:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:Green Party of England and Wales donors

Nominator's rationale: Donating to a political party is rarely if ever defining. There is only one article in the category. ( t · c) buidhe 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Category:18th century in Mozambique

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, redundant category layer, there isn't any content here that doesn't fall under Portuguese Mozambique. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm fine with it, but can we leave this as a redirect to resolve the template from breaking? Mason ( talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting pending Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 3#16th to 19th century in (Portuguese) Mozambique.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, House Blaster ( talk · he/they) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_July_7&oldid=1234206023"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE