Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 16



Ancient Romans by city and province‎

 * 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.  delldot   &nabla;.  07:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ancient Romans by city of birth‎ to Category:Ancient Romans by city‎
 * Propose renaming Category:Ancient Romans by province of birth‎ to Category:Ancient Romans by province‎
 * Nominator's rationale: rename to more conventional scope and format, I've never seen "people from city" categories or "people from province" categories that are restricted to birth only. (Side issue, the city child categories are pretty small, so I'm also wondering if they'd better be proposed for upmerging so that the by city parent can entirely be deleted.) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. City categories should also include people associated with the city through means other than birth. Including long-time settlement, elevation to local positions of authority, etc. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- Those who were not Roman citizens but free would probably be citizens of a particular city (civitas), an area similar in scope to a county, sometimes based on pre-Roman tribal structures. You were not necessarily a citizen of the city in which you lived, but probably inherited that from your father.  The difficulty is thus going to be of proof.  For modern people, we have categories "People from foo", allowing the "from" qualification to be somewhat fuzzy.  The same should apply here.   Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Place of birth is non-defining to most individuals (although it may in some views be defining to Teb Cruz, but no one would call him a Canadian because of it). While often the place an individual was raised coincides with place of birth this is not the case for lots of other people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2016 (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:Ancient Roman provincials‎

 * 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.  SQL Query me!  00:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ancient Roman provincials‎ to Category:Roman-era people by ethnicity‎
 * Nominator's rationale: rename, more conventional category name, similar format as Category:People by ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. This would make the scope clearer. Dimadick (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- This more clearly defines its scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not convinced the present name is a good one, but the target is worse. Ethnicity is a more recent concept and it is extreme anachronism to use it for these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion that's better than both the current and the proposed name? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By lack of a better alternative, I'm maintaining the nomination. While ethnicity is indeed a modern term, it does cover the contents of the category well. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2016 (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:People from the City of Fairfield

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from the City of Fairfield to Category:People from Sydney
 * Nominator's rationale: The City of Fairfield is not actually a city but one of 40 local government areas of Sydney. This would be better served by merging into the broader Category LibStar (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, whether right or wrong, Category:People from Sydney does have multiple child categories of people by subdivision of Sydney. It may make more sense to nominate all of them together. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is people from eastern suburbs or North shore these are much larger geographic areas. The city of Fairfield is tiny in comparison nor a major suburb like Parramatta. LibStar (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * City of Fairfield seems to have some 200,000 inhabitans. That's not tiny. I'd rather expect there are quite some people in Category:People from Sydney who could belong in this category. However, I don't oppose this nomination, since I'm not sure to what extent subdivisions of Sydney (in general) are sufficiently defining to categorize people. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If this is kept it needs to be disambiguated. My wife is from the city of Fairfield and she's never been to Australia. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sydney parent. This level of sub-division does not make sense to Australians. I think it makesabout as much sense as a cateogry for people from a specific area of New York, like Category:People from the Lower Bronx.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2016 (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:Benedictine mathematicians

 * 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 both.  delldot   &nabla;.  07:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Benedictine mathematicians and Category:Benedictine scientists
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:TRIVIALCAT
 * This category is for Benedictine monks who are also mathematicians. The Benedictines value education but grouping mathematicians by religious order seems trivial. In practice, it's a narrow category with only two members, one of which was actually a numerologist. Both of the articles are already in Category:Benedictine writers and the one actual mathematician is in Category:17th-century Italian mathematicians, so there's no need for a merge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Daniel the Monk as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Mathematics. – RevelationDirect (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty to add a similar category in the nomination, I hope you don't mind. Merge both to Category:Benedictine scholars. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Noella Marcellino is the only article in that one and she is already in Category:American scientists and Category:Benedictine nuns. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this category is too narrow, but a category for persons who were simultaneously mathematicians and Catholic priests might contain dozens of names. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we aslo have dozens of articles on Presbyterian elders who also happen to be lawyers. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose provisionally I think that keeping the category of "scientist" as distinct from the general category of Benedictine scholars is worthwhile as the majority of those in that category fall in what would be called the liberal arts. This category serves to show the diversity of fields of notability within the Benedictine Order. It might have a small number of listings now, but the concept of scientist is a fairly new one, compared to our history of 1,500 years as an organization, and the potential of growth still exists, given our deep involvement in education, as noted above. As mentioned by Michael Hardy, there is a substantial group of priests who were also scientists listed in Wikipedia, so the potential clearly exists. Using that grouping for us, however, is problematic as a significant number of us are not priests, but rather lay brothers, and as such would not qualify for that category.
 * Given this, I put out the question as to whether or not mathematicians and scientists would be considered the same field. If so, then I have no objections to merging mathematicians into the other category. I do question the logic that, because an entry is listed is certain other fields, it doesn't deserve listing in an unrelated category. Daniel the Monk (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There may be a misunderstanding because it is no problem at all to have one or more Benedictines in Category:Mathematicians or Category:Scientists. The problem being discussed here is whether or not we should have an intersection category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The one scientist is a nun. I am far from sure that this is a notable intersection.  I have not looked at the mathematicians but am equally suspicious.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-defining intersections. We are best off avoiding such categories covering very specified intersections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2016 (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:ABC Family shows

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:ABC Family shows to Category:Freeform (TV channel) shows
 * Nominator's rationale: match new parent article name ViperSnake151   Talk  03:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks like the other prior names (Category:Fox Family shows & Category:The Family Channel shows) have been maintained as subcategories. Certainly, Category:Freeform (TV channel) shows needs to be created as a parent category to both of those but, if we followed the current structure, Category:ABC Family shows would become a third historical subcategory. I'm not sure if the channel format has changed enough each time to justify these subcategories though; what do  think? RevelationDirect (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hierarchically, Category:The Family Channel shows and Category:ABC Family shows are not parent–child but they are siblings, because The Family Channel shows are not ABC Family shows in general. Their parent would be "Shows by The Family Channel and its sucessors" or something similarly awkward. So those should not be kept as subcategories, but they could link to each other in the category description as "related".–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: There already exists Category:Freeform shows which could be renamed to Category:Freeform (TV channel) shows.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There are categories for the previous channel names Category:The Family Channel shows and Category:Fox Family shows. The fact that ABC Family was renamed in 2016 does not mean that, e.g., Lincoln Heights, or Twisted would now become Freeform shows, or that the brand name ABC Family which has existed for 15 years must be eradicated from Wikipedia. Freeform will never produce any new episodes for the majority of the articles in Category:ABC Family shows and categorizing them as such would be misleading. I count only 13 shows that were carried over from ABC Family to Freeform.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2016 (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:ABC Family

 * 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.  delldot   &nabla;.  03:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:ABC Family to Category:Freeform (TV channel)
 * Nominator's rationale: Match new name of parent article ViperSnake151   Talk  02:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Per WP:C2D. Facilitating concordance between a particular category's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2016 (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.