Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 54: Line 54:
*:::::@[[User:Smasongarrison|Smasongarrison]] @[[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] What do you think of my analysis above? I've clearly not examined the category well, the original proposal I submitted won't really work. But what about my alt proposal to manually merge everything along the lines of what I have suggested upon closer inspection? Would love to hear your feedback, because without the remarks both of you made I wouldn't have spotted the issues with my original proposal. Cheers, [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|Nederlandse Leeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw|talk]]) 19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:Smasongarrison|Smasongarrison]] @[[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] What do you think of my analysis above? I've clearly not examined the category well, the original proposal I submitted won't really work. But what about my alt proposal to manually merge everything along the lines of what I have suggested upon closer inspection? Would love to hear your feedback, because without the remarks both of you made I wouldn't have spotted the issues with my original proposal. Cheers, [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|Nederlandse Leeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw|talk]]) 19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Your analysis seems reasonable; I had to reread what you wrote a couple of times to process it. I think it would be really helpful to map out a workflow/logic for specific classes of manual merges. So I think if you can make a tiny table with common merge/reparent cases that would help others get a good handle of what this merge would look like. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 19:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Your analysis seems reasonable; I had to reread what you wrote a couple of times to process it. I think it would be really helpful to map out a workflow/logic for specific classes of manual merges. So I think if you can make a tiny table with common merge/reparent cases that would help others get a good handle of what this merge would look like. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 19:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', [[Shemaiah_Angel]] for example is not a religious worker. What does religious worker even mean? Is it that they work for the rabbinate? Is it that they are religious Jews who come from specific countries? In both cases, the proposed cat would be wrong. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


==== Category:Italic art ====
==== Category:Italic art ====

Revision as of 19:27, 22 August 2023

< August 21
August 23 >

August 22

NEW NOMINATIONS

Texts in Fooian

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C, most siblings of the nominees in Category:Texts by language are already named Texts in Fooian. Some children/nephews of the nominees such as Category:Jewish texts in Aramaic also follow this naming convention already. Follow-up to recent renaming of child/nephew Category:Songs in Latin, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Category:Latin-language songs Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec, Jc37, and Marcocapelle: pinging participants from previous discussion for follow-up, for your consideration. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: About Category:Ugaritic texts (main article Ugaritic texts) and Category:Hittite texts (Hittite texts redirects to main article Hittite inscriptions) I'm not so sure. WP:C2D favours those names remaining unchanged. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: Category:Irish texts had only been renamed to Category:Irish-language texts on 5 July 2023, but with minimal participation. The only participant was jc37, who also recently favoured renaming Category:Latin-language songs to Category:Songs in Latin. So that's not a particularly strong consensus, and should be open to reconsideration now. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely rename Latin, because as noted in the previous discussion "Latin" as an adjective is ambiguous. I do not know if the others are ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latin-language Christian hymns

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C, parent Category:Songs in Latin and child Category:18th-century hymns in Latin. Follow-up to recent renaming of parent Category:Songs in Latin, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 11#Category:Latin-language songs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec, Jc37, and Marcocapelle: pinging participants from previous discussion for follow-up, for your consideration. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian countesses by marriage

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT 1 P, O C. Upmerge for now, with no prejudice against recreation (NPAR) if at leasy 5 items can be found. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jews by country

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 10#Category:Christians by country, which renamed Category:Christians by country to Category:Christian religious workers by country, and re-parented it to Category:Christian religious workers. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italic art

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to:
WP:NARROWCAT. Redundant layer. It has only 1 subcategory, and 1 item (Warrior of Capestrano) which is already in the parent category (the target category).
Also WP:NONDEFINING; whoever made the Warrior of Capestrano, the fact that they were a native speaker of a language that was probably a member of the Italic languages family had no significant bearing on their career as a limestone statue artist (WP:OCEGRS). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italic archaeological sites

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to:
WP:NARROWCAT WP:NONDEFINING WP:CROSSCAT. The fact that the inhabitants of these ancient settlements spoke a wide range of Italic languages is WP:NONDEFINING. The practical scope of the contents is essentially is already the same as in the target category, and there is a lot of overlap with the target category already (e.g. Pompeii). Some contents are not in both yet (e.g. Category:Latin cities, Category:Sabine cities, although these are already siblings of target cat's grandchild Category:Etruscan cities in Category:Pre-Roman cities in Italy), and should therefore be merged. Category:Roman sites should be purged; its relevant grandchild Category:Roman sites in Italy is already in the target cat. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel

Nominator's rationale: This category should be named according to the contemporaneous geographical terminology (not religious terminology), as per the other sub-categories of Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel (suitability of the parent category aside), e.g. Category:Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine‎, Category:Rabbis in Mandatory Palestine‎, etc. By my estimation, about 95% of these entries pertain to 3rd and 4th century Syria Palaestina, while a handful of entries pertain to the subsequent split geographies of the 5th and 6th century Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda, but these appear to be the extreme minority, and I'm not sure if it would be worth splitting the category any further - I suspect very few readers would be familiar with the fine detail on this and appreciate the further subdivision of the category into the subsequent split components of the post-Syria Palaestina period (although a split is theoretically and technically mangeable if that is the determination here). Iskandar323 (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. 95% is fine.
Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missing person cases by country

Nominator's rationale: The current tree mixes up the nationality of missing people (almost always children, but sometimes adults) and the country where they disappeared (were last seen alive). The general structure goes like this:
Explanation
  • Category:Missing person cases in Fooland (=country of disappearance)
    • Category:Missing Fooian children (nationality of the missing people/children)

In many cases, those are the same: a Fooian child goes missing in Fooland. But Fooian children who went missing while on holiday in Barland are not "Missing person cases in Fooland"; they are "Missing person cases in Barland". Of course, both categories are defining for the missing child, so it should be in both "Missing Fooian children" and "Missing person cases in Barland". The point is that "Missing Fooian children" shouldn't be a subcategory of "Missing person cases in Fooland". But I do recommend a Template:Category see also at the top of every category to make this distinction clear and help navigation.

Although I could technically build up a Category:Missing children by nationality by myself, and then re-parent all the "Missing Fooian children" subcategories to it, and only request a renaming of Category:Missing person cases by country to Category:Missing person cases by country of disappearance after this process is completed, I thought it might be wiser to explain my thinking first, and establish consensus here at CFD first. This is a sensitive topic, and I don't want to upset fellow editors who do not understand that I'm trying to correct a (relatively unimportant) categorisation error that might not be obvious if they don't see the whole picture.

Therefore, I'm submitting this now here for everyone's consideration to reach agreement first. I presume everyone will understand my caution. Good day. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the likely huge overlap between the two trees, would it be an alternative idea to leave this ambiguous on purpose? We can leave an instruction in the header that e.g. a French person who went missing in Brazil may be put in both the French and Brazilian category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. WP:SUBCAT: If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second. For example, Cities in France is a subcategory of Populated places in France, which in turn is a subcategory of Geography of France.
    It's not logical to say that when a French person went missing in Brazil, this is a Missing person case in France. It is a Missing person case in Brazil, and we are talking about a French missing person. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom and oppose ambiguity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The House of the Dead character redirects to lists

Nominator's rationale: This category only has one member, and I doubt it will be expanded much any time soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 4 members currently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:13th-century Russian women

For reference: this is what the region looked like in the 13th century
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 30#Category:9th-century churches in Russia. WP:ARBITRARYCAT / WP:OR: there was no "Russia" yet in the 13th century. Eupraxia of Ryazan was from the Principality of Ryazan (categorised as such), Xenia of Tarusa was from the Principality of Tver and from Vladimir-Suzdal (categorised as such), and Xenia of Yaroslavl was from Yaroslavl, an appanage of Vladimir-Suzdal (categorised as such). Finally, Onfim was from the Novgorod Republic, and is already categorised as Category:People from medieval Novgorod. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After the fall of Kievan Rus, the principalities in modern-day Russia are usually referred to as Russian principalities in contrast to the western "Ruthenian" ones as they developed differently. Mellk (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is true for especially later times, or they are referred to as "northeastern Rus' principalities". But that is mostly an umbrella term for what were functionally independent states. "Vladimir-Suzdal" or "Suzdalia" may still be called a single state that gradually fell apart (just like Kievan Rus' before it), so Suzdalians, Rostovians, Vladimirians, Tverians, Muscovites, Nizhegorodians, Yaroslavlians etc. may all be categorised as "People from Vladimir-Suzdal" if there is no more specific category. People from the Principality of Ryazan, the Novgorod Republic, the Pskov Republic, the Principality of Smolensk etc. are not from Vladimir-Suzdal, so I wouldn't categorise them as such. Similarly, I prefer categorising people from Halych-Volyn as Category:People from Galicia–Volhynia rather than Category:Ruthenian people (let alone "Ukrainian people") if possible. "Ruthenians" is something for the 14th century onwards; the 13th century is probably too early for that term, and perhaps a bit anachronistic. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, though in this case this is probably defining for those people. Similarly we have "People from Kievan Rus'" for what were independent princedoms. Mellk (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, well it depends (no pun intended) what you mean by "independent". I think Vladimir-Suzdal was just as (in)dependent on/from Kievan Rus' around 1160 as Muscovy was (in)dependent on/from Vladimir-Suzdal around 1300; you can tell they are rising powers, but not yet powerful enough to challenge their suzerain's supremacy. The difference that I see is that Vladimir-Suzdal, Ryazan, Novgorod etc. were all under Kievan suzerainty in 1160, but Ryazan and Novgorod were not yet under Suzdalian, let alone Muscovite, suzerainty in 1300. This is important, because it is Muscovy that eventually becomes "Russia", arguably in the late 15th or early 16th century, but not yet in the 13th or 14th. Moreover, I think the literary evidence shows it's a bit too early to be calling them "Russian". The translatio imperii of the Rus' land from the Middle Dnieper to Suzdalia is a long-standing problem in historiography (and a very interesting one, so I wrote about it in the linked section), but there is consensus that the 13th century is too early. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, they were not independent at the beginning and this varied, for example Novgorod was independent by the early 12th century. But I do not see what the term "Rus land" has to do with it, since we just use "Russian" and "Ruthenian" to replace "Rus" to differentiate between the west and north/east. For example the split of the common language is often dated around the 13th century (sometimes 14th). But it is not so black and white so it leads to confusion. Mellk (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now as those "people from x" categories only refer to former countries. Mellk (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian trade unionists of Italian descent

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for a trivial triple-intersection of unrelated characteristics. There's no concrete evidence that being of Italian descent has any special meaning or status in trade unionism over other ethnicities per se, but there are no other categories for "Canadian trade unionists of [anything else] descent" sistering this -- so there's no compelling reason why just two people would need special treatment denied the German-Canadian and French-Canadian and British-Canadian and Polish-Canadian and Finnish-Canadian trade unionists. (Upmerging directly to Category:Canadian trade unionists not needed, as both people here are already in other appropriate subcategories of that.) Bearcat (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding further, let's look at how The Canadian Encyclopedia has to say: In the introduction to the article on Italian Canadians, it states "Italian Canadians are among the earliest Europeans to have visited and settled the country. The steadiest waves of immigration, however, occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries. Italian Canadians have featured prominently in union organization and business associations. In the 2016 census, just under 1.6 million Canadians reported having Italian origins." Lower in the article, it continues "Comprising a conspicuously large proportion of the labour force in both the construction and textile industries, Italian Canadians have been especially prominent, for example, in the International Labourers Union and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America."--User:Namiba 21:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing further, Category:American trade unionists of Italian descent was well-populated but (in my opinion) mistakenly deleted back in February.--User:Namiba 00:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the number of articles in this category has doubled (from 2 to 4) since it was nominated. Clearly, there is potential for growth and SMALLCAT does not apply. Nor can it be considered a trivial intersection given the existing literature on the subject.--User:Namiba 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medieval Ukrainian people

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. One may argue that "Ukraine" as known from later times did not yet exist in medieval times, but Name of Ukraine#History does say that Ukraina has sometimes been applied to Halych-Volhynia. Therefore, I propose upmerging only Category:People from Galicia–Volhynia to Category:Ukrainian people by period, while leaving out the princes of Chernigov (Chernihiv) and Kiev (Kyiv), who are already in Category:Princes from Kievan Rus' and should stay there. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any sources for that change, or is that your own WP:OR? Marcelus (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it make more sense for Category:People from Galicia–Volhynia to be a subcat of Category:Ruthenian people instead? Mellk (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, probably yes. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was plenty of Jews in Galicia-Volhynia are they also Ruthenian? Marcelus (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we regard "Ruthenian" as a "nationality" synonymous with "Galician-Volhynian" (as I propose), then yes. If we were to define "Ruthenian" as an ethnolinguistic/religious grouping (which I do not recommend), then no. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be an ethnic category. There could also be a geographical Category:People from Ruthenia.  —Michael Z. 21:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"People from Fooland" is generally limited to former countries, not geographical regions. I think Category:People from Galicia–Volhynia already serves that function.
I did recategorise one 14th-century woman from Vitebsk who was called a "Russian princess" to "Ruthenian nobility". It's a slight improvement, but not yet ideal, I suppose. If she had been from Smolensk, I probably wouldn't have changed it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It was Maria of Vitebsk, who married Lithuanian grand duke Algirdas (Olgerd) around 1318. The Principality of Vitebsk is defined as a Ruthenian principality centered on the city of Vitebsk in modern Belarus, that existed from its founding in 1101 until it was nominally inherited into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1320. I suppose her marriage to Algirdas is exactly how Lithuania acquired Vitebsk then. It was never a "Russian" principality, it was a (Kievan) Rus' principality and then a Ruthenian principality, first independent, then under Lithuanian suzerainty, then annexed in 1501, and then the area became part of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. I suppose if she had lived after 1569, she would have fitted in Category:Ruthenian nobility of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
At any rate, I recategorised Maria of Vitebsk from "Category:Russian princesses, Category:14th-century Russian women and Category:14th-century Russian people" to Category:Ruthenian nobility, because that is more fitting.
Incidentally, I'm not sure its child Category:Belarusian nobility is a legitimate category, that seems like an anachronism. (As far as I know, the Belarusian Democratic Republic is the first state calling itself 'Belarusian'; before that we only had non-political geographical usage of "White Ruthenia" etc.). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It occurred to me that Ruthenia (Rus) was at its root an ethnolinguistic territory, but continued to be established geographically and politically as Black Ruthenia, Red Ruthenia, White Ruthenia, and Carpathian Ruthenia, from medieval times into the twentieth century.  —Michael Z. 14:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I cannot directly contradict that, I shall quote Charles J. Halperin on how the term "Rus' land" (Old East Slavic: ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́, romanized: rusĭskaę zemlę; Russian: Русская земля, romanized: Russkaia zemlia) has been used in primary sources: Charles J. Halperin (2016) summarised the scholarly debate so far: 'Application of the term "Rus" to Muscovy has always been a bone of contention, especially to Ukrainian historiography. Nasonov and others noted that in Kievan Rus' "Rus" originally meant the Dnieper (Dniepr’, Dnipro) River triangle of Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereslavl', not Vladimir–Suzdal'. (...) "Rus'" was not an ethnic term, it was a political term. By the late fourteenth century Rus' meant Moscow, Kolomna, and Serpukhov.' (bold by me, italics in original). Now there are some who disagree with Halperin on exactly when this happened (Ostrowski and Plokhy think it was in the late 15th century rather than 14th), but the point remains it was a political term rather than an ethnic term.
This is also how Rus' was eventually replaced by Rossija for political reasons.
I haven't studied it too much in-depth yet, but I think the same is true for Ruthenia. It came to signify the areas of the former Kievan Rus' principalities within Lithuania and later the Commonwealth. And what we sometimes call the Ruthenian language was actually more like Chancery Slavonic: a southwestern written standard of late Church Slavonic for purposes of civil administration rather than ecclesiastical and literary ones. That's what Casimir's Code and the Statutes of Lithuania were written in; not because the Lithuanians and Poles suddenly started self-identifying as Rus' or Ruthenians and speaking that language in everyday life, but because Chancery Slavonic was useful for codifying laws. In other words, for political reasons, not ethnolinguistic ones. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was speaking of the post-medieval period in what we call Ruthenia, precisely where the name was not replaced by Rossiia. Certainly the peasantry of southwestern Rus called themselves rusyn or rusnak in ethnic terms from long, long before modern nationalism was conceived and up to the beginning of the twentieth century.
This has little or nothing to do with the courtly use of rusʹskaia zemlia in medieval Kyiv or later in Muscovy (nor does the modern use of Ruthenia). And it is far detached from Yaroslav the Wise trying to widen the use of Rus Land to broaden the idea of a Scandinavian domain in Slavic lands.
Nor was the Ruthenian language wasn’t handed down by God. It was used in Lithuania because it was the native language of a significant segment of the population and the nobility in Ruthenia, or Rus.  —Michael Z. 19:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was speaking of the post-medieval period... Okay, but our topic here is Category:Medieval Ukrainian people. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, right, and I see all of the affected subcategories are full of medieval people. I was focussed on Ruthenian people.  —Michael Z. 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Yorkshire Naturalists' Union

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC & WP:NONDEFINING
The Yorkshire Naturalists' Union is an English membership-based organisation founded in 1861. According to their their membership page there are a variety of levels to join at including £25 for individuals, £30 four couples, and £15 for students or people with low income/unwaged. Paying dues online or mailing in a cheque is not defining. There is already a list of prominent members throughout it's long history, right here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mere membership of an organization is hardly ever a defining characteristic of an article. Renaming to "presidents" and purging the category is perhaps an alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - category creator here. In defence of this Category - whilst the current membership page has costs of joining on it etc. the vast majority of the people currently categorised under this Cat are historic members, for whom the modern membership process simply doesn't apply. Members were elected by other fellow members into the Union and their association with it was historically regarded as a significant thing. It's not like being a member of the RSPB or something. In the 19th and early 20th century there was kudos associated with memberships like this. Categorising them together creates links between these people which would otherwise be lost - their memberships means they were likely to join together on field meetings or for lectures and contributed to the journals and aspects of wildlife recording. The "Notable members" title in the current article as this is a completely undefined idea. Surely every member who has a WP biograph is notable based on their inclusion critera in the Wiki? Arbitrarily listing notable members under this page would be daft - categorisation is a much neater way of collating them together. Zakhx150 (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakhx150: To avoid WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, we usually rely on the main article to help define inclusion criteria but there is not currently anything there to distinguish between the current wide open membership structure versus a historical one that was more rigorous. If there are reliable sources that this used to be more selective like a learned society, I'm totally open to a narrower historical category. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archaeology of Southwestern Europe

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 31#Category:Archaeological cultures of Western Europe (all Upmerged). I had tagged this category but forgot to list it as part of the bundle, so formally it was never voted on. Take no. #2. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British female artists

Nominator's rationale:
Category:British female artists is not necessary when Category:British_women_artists already exists. Rynb99 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:KOICA's fellowship program

Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C2F, one eponymous page, and potentially WP:OVERLAPCAT
The Yonsei-KOICA Master's Degree Program is a Korean scholarship that help students from other countries study at Yonsei University. That is the only article in this category and, if you populated it with recipients, that would overlap with Category:Yonsei University alumni. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very unlikely that it will be populated any better. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fellows of the Chartered Institute of Journalists

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING, WP:OCAWARD, and WP:V
Fellow of the Institute of Journalists is a redirect that points to Chartered Institute of Journalists which makes no mention of a "fellow" program. This was my search result on the organisation's web site which didn't help. Two of the 3 articles mention the award in passing (1) (2) and the third doesn't mention it at all (3) so it's not generally treated as defining. I was going to create a list on the main article but I couldn't verify any of the citations (A) (B) so I copied the contents right here so no work is lost if anyone wants to find reliable sources and create a list. (Alternatively, if kept, we should merge to the one with "Chartered" in the title to match the main article.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_22&oldid=1171708506"