Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 4



Category:Dutch-language LGBT 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.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep, as those opposing deletion have presented substantial evidence for the notability of this intersection as a topic. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting dutch-language lgbt writers


 * Nominator's rationale: While are appropriately subcategorized by nationality, we do not currently have any consensus to also subcategorize them by the language in which they wrote — or, indeed, any other "LGBT writers by language" siblings for this at all. Delete, though some caution is warranted to ensure that people aren't getting removed from the more appropriate  and/or  in the process. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this may not be the right place to discuss a very fundamental issue, namely: in literature, a categorization by language is much more relevant than by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * However it is the correct place to discuss the deletion of a category. If others need to be invited to this discussion in a neutral manner, then you have the right to do that. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I posted such invitation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Dutch-language writers. Oculi (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Upmerge Actually, nationality is a stronger common ground than language in some cases. It is clearly a more common way to identify people. C. S. Lewis is more likely to be described as a "British writer" than an "English-language writer", and Jules Verne as French than French-language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * These are trivial examples. Classification by language would have been very relevant if C.S. Lewis, as a British writer, would have written only in French, and if nobody would have bothered to translate his works from French into English. That's a (hypothetical) example that is similar to this category discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Jules Verne comparison ("French" rather than "French-language") is inadequate on several levels:
 * "French" implies both country and language, so no need to bother for the longer version. If the language isn't French that would need to be specified, much like "...who was a Fleming, but wrote in French..." is specified in the first sentence of the article on the only Belgian author ever to win a Noble Prize.
 * We're talking LGBT categorizations here. I couldn't find a single external source identifying Belgian LGBT writers culturally significant in WP:EGRS sense (see quote below). What I could find is a literary prize for gay (=LGBT in the context: "") French-language novelists (""), from a list of countries where French is at least one of the spoken languages (excuse my French ""). Culturally significant if you ask me.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the tree was for occupational diffusion of  categories — so it's valid on size management purposes regardless of whether you think it's the most culturally relevant distinction or not. The problem with grouping LGBT writers by language, apart from the fact that there aren't any other siblings for it, is that it's not a useful point of categorization in combination with LGBTness — the language in which a writer happened to write about LGBT issues doesn't change the nature of those LGBT issues in any notable or significant way. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this ruffles your feathers on idealised categorization schemes.
 * Again, I'm not speaking about English-language LGBT writers. No clue what works best there.
 * Re. "the language in which a writer happened to write about LGBT issues doesn't change the nature of those LGBT issues in any notable or significant way." — For Dutch-language LGBT writers maybe not the nature of these issues, but certainly the way they wrote about it. Please catch up on your reading before attempting to tear down the level of this debate in such way. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The insinuation that my happening to disagree with you on the utility of this category implies that I "haven't caught up on my reading" is unwelcome, uncivil and inappropriate. I'm quite well on top (have been for twenty years or more) of any and all reading that I have any obligation to undertake on "educating myself on LGBT issues" grounds, thank you kindly. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "the language in which a writer happened to write about LGBT issues doesn't change the nature of those LGBT issues in any notable or significant way" is imho a platitude that doesn't help this discussion in any way.
 * The issue discussed here is whether there is a strong link between Dutch-language authors writing on LGBT issues, and whether such linking is stronger than links across the French/Dutch language border in Belgium, on these same topics. Catching up on my reading, on LGBT topics the links within the Dutch-language group appear to be stronger than those between Flemish and Walloon authors, much more than I had imagined when entering this discussion. I was wrong to direct the invitation to catch up on reading exclusively @, I should have written: "let's catch up on our reading" as an open invitation (no obligation of any kind intended). If this came over in a wrong way, or if it appeared I was insinuating something I wasn't intending to insinuate, please accept my apologies: there was no such intention on my part.
 * Maybe there are strong sources indicating links between Belgian LGBT writers (or LGBT writing) across the French/Dutch language border but I haven't found them although looking for them. The strongest I could find was the first Belgian LGBT organization (modelled on COC from the Netherlands) which existed a few years and published a few French/Dutch bilingual texts, until COC Flanders split off (for an episode that lasted many more decades), and the overarching Belgian organisation dissolved. As for the actual writers I could find no names establishing links between Flemish North and Walloon South of Belgium regarding what was written on LGBT topics. So please, for me it makes no difference if these are found in old or (re)new(ed) reading, if there is something outweighing the abundant evidence from my updated reading below, just mention it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This one may be a good start: http://scripties.let.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/root/Master/DoorstroomMasters/Nederlands/2013/DuisJ.ten/ — it compares the reception history of the English-language The Well of Loneliness with that of 7 Dutch-language lesbian novels by writers from Flanders and the Netherlands. For instance, "In Nederland was de ontvangst van De bron van eenzaamheid positiever dan in Engeland." (p. 26 - In the Netherlands The Well of Loneliness was more positively received than in England), etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional sources that show that no overview of LGBT writers in the low countries ever limits itself exclusively to what was published in the Netherlands or alternatively exclusively to what was published in Flanders/Belgium:
 * Saskia Geurds and Thomas de Heide Waarom zijn er meer homobladen voor mannen dan voor vrouwen?. Fontys Hogeschool Journalistiek, Tilburg (27 mei 2013)
 * Gert Hekma. Homoseksualiteit in Nederland van 1730 tot de moderne tijd. narcis.nl (1 January 2004)
 * &rarr; This one is particularily interesting: it purports to discuss homosexuality in the Netherlands exclusively (see introduction), and indeed it does so, *except* for literature, where, as always, the Flemish authors are included.
 * Adriaan Venema. Homosexualiteit in de Nederlandse literatuur Amsterdam/Brussel, Paris-Manteau (1972). ISBN 9022303063
 * Jos Versteegen. "Nederlandse gay literatuur in de tweede helft van de jaren '90: Een overzicht" in Gay 2000 (1999)
 * Hans Warren (editor). Herenliefde (1995) — a selection of homoerotic stories by, , , , , and.
 * &rarr; for your convenience I used two coulours: and
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:EGRS:"Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. (...) Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources."


 * "distinct and unique cultural topic" by external sources:
 * Madelon Meester. "Voorvechters gezocht" in De Volkskrant (1 August 2012), an article about gay authors in the "Nederlands taalgebied" (=Dutch-language area)
 * Dutch and Flemish Literature at www.glbtq.com
 * Head article has been written: LGBT writers in the Dutch-language area
 * Comparisons to English literature are meaningless. Flanders and the Netherlands are, of course, a close-knit group when it comes to literature and writers (for those who know anything about it), more so than Dutch (Flemish) and French (Wallon) literature in Belgium. E.g., generally literary prizes are for Dutch-language authors accross the Belgium/Netherlands border, while there are few (if any?) literary prizes for "Belgians" independent of language. (all of this and much more is explained in the LGBT writers in the Dutch-language area article). That the LGBT writers are a specific group within this Dutch-language group of writers is exemplified by the external sources quoted above, and again by further referenced content of the head article.
 * I oppose the idea that reality should adapt to pre-conceived ideas about English literature, and to Wikipedia categorization pigeonholes for other cultures derived from it, very much. WP:EGRS establishes the reasoning behind this, not comparison to other languages (which is merely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See also mirror discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 19 --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, on the basis there is a head article LGBT writers in the Dutch-language area which seems acceptable to Wikipedia (though in my opinion its another ugly synthesis of sources which barely manages to show any evidence of discussion of the topic). If someone has a strong issue with the topic being notable, they should tackle the head article first. Sionk (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Hispanic people of Converso descent

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Hispanic people of Converso descent to Category:Latin American people of Converso descent
 * Nominator's rationale: If I understand the correctly, the term "Hispanic" is mainly used within the United States. However, the single articles in this category are for people in other (Latin American) countries than the United States, so "Hispanic" seems to be less appropriate and "Latin American" may be more appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This refers to ancestry often hundreds of years before the time of the subject with no relevance to their work. This is categorization by trial minor fact of their ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Deletion makes sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities members

 * 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. For reference, in case further similar actions are needed, the parent of this category is Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by association. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting national association of independent colleges and universities members


 * Nominator's rationale: Which associations a university/college is a member of is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic (I checked a sample of articles in this category and not one mentioned this association in the article text, let alone in the lead). For info: This is part of a series of CFDs for membership of university associations (e.g. see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_15). For info: According to the NAICU article, this association has over 1000 members. DexDor (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Categorizing universites by organization belonged to is not a good idea. Many belong to several organizations, with no limit to how many, with little required to be in them, and with ease of moving between organizations or to new ones as time goes on. This is especially true since universities have no limit to how long they can function.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent. We should not categorise them by association membership.  Several similar CFDs on other associations have been (I think) deleted before.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:East Lancashire Coachbuilders

 * 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: split to Category:East Lancs buses, rename the other two. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:East Lancashire Coachbuilders to Category:East Lancashire Coachbuilders and Category:East Lancashire Coachbuilders buses
 * Propose renaming Category:Optare to Category:Optare buses
 * Propose renaming Category:Plaxton to Category:Plaxton buses
 * Nominator's rationale: Split. Most sub-cats of Category:Buses by manufacturer end in "buses". The second and third nominated categories do not have sufficient content to justify an eponymous category. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Question If Optare and Plaxton are changed, would you remove the main article from each category?RevelationDirect (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes; they will be linked from the category page as the main article anyway, so there will be no loss of navigation links. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment/Weak Support So this isn't so much just a rename as moving the categories from Category:Bus manufacturers (a broader company category) to a more narrow Category:Buses by manufacturer (including only bus model articles) and purging articles that don't fit in that tree. Since the only difference between these two groups is the main article, I don't think that's a problem though.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Although it makes some sense - anyone visiting cat:Bus manufacturers should obviously know what they're looking at, and since the main articles don't end in "buses" It's gonna be somewhat confusing in the end, Seems more sensible to leave it IMHO. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support proposal as discussed. We've never taken the approach that we can let clarity for individual categories slide because they will be seen in the context of the overall category tree, since many users encounter categories at the bottom of articles as opposed to browsing the category tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support with modification: judging from the category content, the brand name for the buses is/was "East Lancs". There is currently a discussion on whether Category:Buses by manufacturer should be renamed to Category:Buses by brand. I think the "East Lancs buses" category would fit there. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: there is currently a discussion on vehicle categories at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree to modification (as nominator). Note: The discussion on whether buses should be "by manufacturer" or "by brand" was aborted . – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Follows well established precedents in this area.  When a category is correctly named, it does not have to completely align with a parent category, or the parent article name for said category if it does not exist. As to the issue of manufacturers v brand.  If that proposal gains consensus, the bot can do the moving.  I don't see anything there that should delay a decision here given that this discussion has been open for 2 months. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Fictional Baltic people

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Fictional Baltic peoples to Category:Fictional Baltic people
 * Nominator's rationale: non-controversial/naming-consistency. --108.38.70.215 (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is no parent for real-life Category:Baltic people. Perhaps it should be created, to separate biographies from the articles on ethnic groups in Category:Baltic peoples. Note that these terms are less ambiguous than the article name, "Balts", and therefore desirable as category names. However, I have never heard the expression "Baltic people" for individuals; if it is not widely used, I suggest renaming to Category:Fictional people of Baltic descent. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC
 * Does that mean we should consider renaming "Fictional people" to "Fictional people of descent for consistency? And if we do that, shouldn't "people" be dropped in favor of "character"? --71.107.35.42 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * People of x descent are not the same as X people. A fictional Latvian, is a character who lives in Latvia, a fictional character of Latvian descent would live elsewhere but have Latvian ancestors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I drop the "descent" suggestion. As for "characters", the sibling and sub- categories use "Fictional Fooian people". – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Question Delete Do we need Category:Fictional Baltic peoples at all, or can we simply use only its child categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC) (changed question into delete) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an unneeded level of fictional people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename I think this is referencing that this is the only name in the Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity or nationality to have an "S" at the end. --71.107.35.42 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment based on the name, this should have articles on groups like the Livormani, a fictional people I just made up who at one point lived between the Latvians and the Lithuanians and spoke a Baltic language. It should have articles on ethnic groups that did not exist, not on fictional characters, but fictional ethnic groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Question -- We are trying to rename a redlink. Has it been deleted under a SPEEDY?  It might be legitiamte to ahve a cateogry for fictional people of unspecified baltic ethnicity, but I find it hard to belive that it would be useful.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This was a contained category for fictional Lithuanians, Latvians and maybe Estonians (although are not Baltic by all definitions). It was evidently deleted at some point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this. Why would anyone delete it while there is a discussion going on? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh bother. It was deleted under WP:G5, as a contribution by a banned editor. These things happen. The category included Category:Fictional Latvian people, Category:Fictional Lithuanian people, Category:Fictional Estonian people and Category:Fictional Baltic-German people as part of Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity or nationality. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Baltic Germans says that they are ethnically German, so I think they should not be categorised as Baltic people, despite coming from the Baltic region. If there was a category:Baltic people for biographies, it should correspond to Category:Baltic peoples for ethnic groups. However, there is no consensus here to create it, nor a corresponding "fictional" sub-cat. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Biblical coins

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Biblical coins to Category:Coins in the Bible
 * Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Coins in the Bible. Not eligible for speedy renaming as the article was just moved recently, and without an RM. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename, matching a couple of sibling categories and several articles in Category:Biblical topics. Thanks, Armbrust. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support rename per nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 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:Unmanned spaceflight task force

 * 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'll also delete the subcategories per WP:UCS. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting unmanned spaceflight task force


 * Nominator's rationale: Housecleaning deletion. The entire task force was abolished in 2011 but this category and subcategories remain. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete category and all subcategories. This also removes potential confusion with article-content categorizationfor taskforces established by space agencies concerning robotic spaceflight. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all sub-categories, upmerge to Category:Project-Class spaceflight articles, otherwise two project pages would become uncategorised. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedural note Only categories which are listed on this page and are tagged can be deleted through this discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The empty ones can be speedily deleted, and as each subcategory that is empty is deleted, their parent category becomes empty as their only content was the empty subcategories... thus enabling deleting the entire tree (except those two pesky pages and one category.) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO WikiProject categories are not eligible for speedy deletion. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.