Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 11: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 34: Line 34:
*::Tagged for G7. <sup>[[User:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred">Queen</span>]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contribs/Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred">of</span>]]</small><sub>[[User talk:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred">Hearts</span>]]</sub> 22:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
*::Tagged for G7. <sup>[[User:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred">Queen</span>]]</sup><small>[[Special:Contribs/Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred">of</span>]]</small><sub>[[User talk:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred">Hearts</span>]]</sub> 22:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 21:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 21:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''comment''' creator of the category has G7'ed it. —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


==== Category:Wikipedians supporting social democracy ====
==== Category:Wikipedians supporting social democracy ====

Revision as of 22:42, 11 April 2024

< April 10
April 12 >

April 11

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Canadian people of Arab descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, the content of this category is not only about ethnic Arabs but also about all sorts of other ethnic groups in the Middle East (Coptic, Assyrian etc.), to such an extent that it almost resembles the Middle East category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians whose articles for creation was denied

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who never listen to country music

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#not-based * Pppery * it has begun... 20:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have been abducted by Thebiguglyalien

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#jokes WP:OC/U#Personal userspace categories. I hope you enjoyed April Fools Day 2024 everyone (I didn't, because it keeps leaving messes I have to clean up), but there's no reason for this category's continued existence. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but don't take this as G7, as I created to fix a redlink. Courtesy ping: Sawyer-mcdonell, who was the first to add this to his userpage. QueenofHearts 20:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    fine with me ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagged for G7. QueenofHearts 22:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment creator of the category has G7'ed it. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians supporting social democracy

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#Advocacy * Pppery * it has begun... 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians loving software updates

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#Irrelevant likes * Pppery * it has begun... 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians with blue-linked categories on their user page

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC/U#All-inclusive WP:OC/U#jokes * Pppery * it has begun... 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish communities in Palestine temporarily abandoned during the mandate period

Nominator's rationale: I don't know what to name these categories, but I think they needs more clear names. Mason (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Qwerfjkl:, I request that you reopen this case. No rationale at all was provided for "Jewish villages depopulated in Mandatory Palestine", and it seems like nobody actually checked what the category represents. What this rename means is that almost all the articles in the category will have to be removed from it because these places were only abandoned for a short time before the inhabitants returned. They were not "depopulated". The category will end up with only one or two entries. Zerotalk 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Qwerfjkl: by all means reopen/relist the discussion. For the record, the objection only applies to the first nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natural history

Nominator's rationale: delete, Natural history used to be what we call Natural sciences today, the umbrella term of biology, physics, chemistry etc. The current meaning of natural history is very fuzzy. The content of these categories largely overlaps with Category:Environment of Afghanistan, Category:Environment of Albania etc. If consensus about this is likely I will also add the other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Words and phrases by language

Nominator's rationale: Many subcategories in it have the 'statute', like, ""This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves. Please keep this category purged of everything that is not actually an article about a word or phrase". However I checked a couple and see that people dont care and put there items that are just about subjects that have title in foreingn language, such as e.g. Goralenvolk, Gokenin, Gradonachalnik.
  • Shall we undertake a really massive cleanup (and put these cats on watchlist to prevent from "contamination", since it will most surely happen )
  • or change the 'statutes' to reflect the status quo? I do feet that catigories, like, category:Russian terms to describe Russian culture are of value.- Altenmann >talk 19:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. While we are at that, it will make sense to double-check the ledes for proper "XXX is a term for YYY" vs. "XXX is YYY". For example two articles about basically same concept but in different cultures introduced dirfferently:
    • Mazhory (from majors; roughly translates as "the superior ones"[1]) is a slang term used in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet countries for children of privileged people,
  • vs:
    • Princelings (Chinese: 太子党), also translated as the Party's Crown Princes, are the descendants of prominent and influential senior communist officials in the People's Republic of China.
- Altenmann >talk 20:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we drop the requirement that the categories only contain articles about words themselves, then they just wouldn't be useful. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A category containing every article that is a word in a specific language would be far too inclusive.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont think WP:NOTDICTIONARY is applicable here. Besides, We have articles such as Yiddish words used in English. Shouldn't the list items with articles be in a matching category?- Altenmann >talk 20:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not necessarily, I don't think so. The article you mention already fulfills that exact purpose. Essentially my point is that if we drop the requirement in question then articles would be categorised purely based on their titles and not their scope, which I think is overcategorisation. It's not a very strong example of it, so I understand your concern, but I still think it's better if these categories of words and phrases only contain articles about words and phrases.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ETA: I think list articles, like Yiddish words used in English, are a much better idea actually. I would be completely fine with list articles like those instead of putting non-word articles in the words categories.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The instruction on these category pages isn't clear at all. We should either remove the requirement or delete the categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: out of interest, what about it do you think is unclear?  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Words exist for the very purpose of referring to a concept or thing. It is not very well imaginable that we have articles about words that do not also discuss the meaning of the words. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fair. Almost every article should have a definition of its title but most articles are much more than just the meaning and usage of the word. In that case, the header should read "articles about the usage of the word in language" or something else to that effect.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dummelaksen: let me rephrase this slightly: "articles mainly about the usage of the word in language". The question is how much % of the article should be about the usage of the word in language in order to qualify for the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        A good article should be about one thing and one thing only, i.e. an article should be about the word itself, or not about the word itself. So ideally, 100%. In reality a lot of articles in these categories aren't written well so are about the concept, but are inappropriately written like dictionary definitions.
        I've been very conservative thus far, and only removed articles that are clearly about concepts, but many of these articles should be rewritten to avoid WP:NOTDICT and WP:REFERSTO.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 05:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this category continue to exist? If so, how should it be organized? Specific proposals on the latter point would be appreciated!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Basically there are only two options: do nothing or delete. In the first option we may remove the requirement but even when the requirement is kept it will be ignored so the result is the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A rule (for lack of a better word) being ignored isn't reason to just give up and delete the categories though.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Habitats Directive Species

Nominator's rationale: While "HD" is a proper noun, "HDS" is not. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characterstic. If kept, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vaisala Prize Laureates

Nominator's rationale: The name of the prize is Väisälä Prize with umlauts. See the official webpage: https://acadsci.fi/en/grants-and-prizes/vaisala-prize/ Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Dakota state representatives

Nominator's rationale: this category is relatively small and redundant to the much larger Category:Members of the South Dakota House of Representatives.--TommyBoy (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czech saints

Nominator's rationale: WP:CROSSCAT. Not sure if this phenomenon has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the CFD archives. I'm nominating this to initiate a preliminary discussion on the wider Category:Christian saints by nationality tree, as I see several issues with the selection criteria in many parts of this tree, and this particular category exemplifies them well.
A. Objectivity and verifiability: Whoever is considered a "saint" or not is inherently subjective and WP:POV. If this is even the 'job' of Wikipedia to start with, the only way to objectively categorise saints is by the authority of a relevant religious organisation (in this case a church or denomination), which has officially canonised a person as a saint in verifiable publications (WP:V + WP:RS). Perhaps one person is canonised by multiple organisations, and perhaps lots of individuals in a community or society unofficially believe in a person's sainthood, but we may assume that the rest of the world, by default, does not accept anyone's sainthood, especially not of anyone in a religious denomination other than their own (if any). Certain denominations such as Calvinist churches even vehemently oppose the very idea of sainthood as blasphemous, and don't recognise the saints of any other church either. It's always a saint according to church X. I think we can all agree on that.
B. Relevance of nationality: "Nationality" seems irrelevant. Generally speaking, secular authorities like states and governments are not in the business of canonising saints. It might be that the feasts of certain saints are established as public holidays (say, Saint Patrick's Day in Ireland and some other jurisdictions), and that there is some official symbolism devoted to a saint, but it's not the Republic of Ireland's business to say who is a saint and who isn't. (Proclaiming "national heroes" maybe, but that's a separate issue). Similarly, it's not the Czech Republic's business to accord sainthood to, say, Jan Hus. There seems to be no particular connection between sainthood (a religious legal status) and nationality (a secular legal status). This is why I'm leaning towards regarding the whole saints by nationality tree an inappropriate WP:CROSSCAT.
C. Original research: Finally, even if nationality somehow were an appropriate attribute of a saint, a great number of these saints lived at a time when the present-day states did not exist yet. The Czech Republic wasn't founded until 1993, the Republic of Ireland not until 1922/1937/1949 (depending on one's view), the Netherlands not until 1581/1648/1813/1815 etc., so how could there be such a thing as medieval "Czech", "Dutch", "Irish" etc. saints? This seems obvious WP:OR, driven by modern nationalism to arbitrarily claim various elements of the past for a modern political entity. The catdesc of Category:Christian saints by nationality seems to confirm this: This category is for articles about saints by the country they were from or are associated with. That's a textbook example of WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH. Given that the relevance of "nationality" is already shaky, this seems even more reason to get rid of this kind of WP:ARBITRARYCAT.
I don't rule out the possibility that this category tree may be legitimate and useful after all. But I think we should at least discuss why we should have it or not. I'm also not picking on Czech saints in particular, it's just a very good example to illustrate the issues I'm seeing across the tree. (E.g. with "French saints" I wouldn't be able to raise point C. very well, as France's statehood arguably goes much further back and could arguably capture most medieval saints.) I would love to hear your thoughts. This is a large tree, we shouldn't be making rash decisions. NLeeuw (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nederlandse Leeuw I don't have time for a full response now, but WP:CROSSCAT is about articles and refers to Wikipedia:Overcategorization for categories, so I suggest that arguments should be based on WP:OVERCAT, rather than WP:CROSSCAT. TSventon (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but you'll notice I've invoked many more specific guidelines in my rationale: WP:POV, WP:V, WP:RS (these 3 issues can be overcome within the Category:Saints by religion tree, but not, I think, in the Category:Saints by nationality tree), relevance (I think nationality is WP:NONDEFINING for saints, because sainthood is not established through secular law, but ecclesiastical law, and denominations such as the Catholic Church and Constantinople Patriarchate operate internationally), WP:OR, WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH, and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. NLeeuw (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia categories exist to help readers navigate the encyclopedia and I think Category:Christian saints by nationality is justified on that basis.
    A. Objectivity and verifiability: I agree that you can argue there is a legitimate POV concern about Category:Christian saints.
    B. Relevance of nationality: Category:Christian saints is a large category, so it is useful for navigation to WP:DIFFUSE it. Nationality is an accepted basis for diffusing large categories, so I would suggest keeping national categories unless a better method can be found. Nationality is relevant as churches such as the Catholic Church and Constantinople Patriarchate are divided into national units, such as the Catholic Church in the Czech Republic and the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. It is therefore not a WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Until the French Revolution, churches and secular governments in Europe were closely integrated and monarchs had an interest in who was canonised in their realms. Sometimes a saint would be canonised after being killed on behalf of a monarch. However sainthood should be a defining characterstic members of Category:Christian saints. If this is not the case for Jan Hus, he should not be in the category.
    C. Original research: This is an issue for Category:Czech people, rather than just Category:Czech saints. I would argue that both categories are useful for navigation and that nationality is just as WP:DEFINING for saints as for other human beings. Category:Czech people by century, for example goes back to Category:9th-century people from Bohemia. If the catdesc of Category:Christian saints by nationality says This category is for articles about saints by the country they were from or are associated with. then the words "associated with" could be removed. TSventon (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Medieval Roman Catholic dioceses in the Low Countries, Germany and France, with modern borders in red
    I agree with you that diffusing large categories is important for smooth navigation, but I agree with Marcocapelle below that Christian saints [should] only be diffused by century and no longer by nationality.
    I'm afraid the ecclesiastical organisation argument shoots itself in the foot. Church provinces coinciding with national borders is a very modern phenomenon, and not even the Catholic Church has enough adherents in every country to have a province for each of them. Take the example of the map on the right there, showing that in the Middle Ages the borders of archdioceses in the Low Countries almost completely ignored the country borders that exist today (because those country borders didn't exist at the time either).
    Evidently, Jan Hus was executed by the Catholic Church, which up until today regards him as a heretic and an enemy, whereas some but not all Orthodox and Lutheran denominations have canonised Hus as a saint. The sources provided - 64 and 65; two copies of the same 2011 interview with Christopher of Prague - state that Jan Hus has been canonised as a saint by the (Orthodox) Church of Greece, Church of Cyprus, and the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. Only the last one is relevant if we are to decide whether Hus is a "Czech" saint or not, and according to the 2021 Czech Republic census, only 0.4% of the population is a member of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. The Czechoslovak Hussite Church bears his name and acknowledges him as their predecessor, but There is no veneration of saints as practiced in the Apostolic Churches, and they constituted only 0.2% of the Czech population in 2021. In fact, we might look at Religion in the Czech Republic as a whole and see that almost half of Czechs have no religion at all, fewer than 10% are Catholics (who officially regard Hus as a heretic), and the few who hold Hus in high regard don't even show up in the piechart. Besides, the two categories declaring Jan Hus a "Lutheran saint" are not backed up by sources at all. So, all religious denominations in Czechia today who recognise Hus as a saint combined barely represent the Czech population. Who are we Wikipedians to say that Hus is their "saint"? The Orthodox Greeks and Cypriots who nominally believe in his sainthood probably outnumber the Czechs who do. Nationality is just completely irrelevant here.
    If anything, we should have a Category:Saints in the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia as a child of Category:Eastern Orthodox saints. If we can't find enough to populate that category, then maybe we should listify them and make them a separate section in the main article Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia or something. Or, add Jan Hus to List of Eastern Orthodox saints with a source stating in which 3 orthodox churches he is currently recognised as a saint. Whatever we do, categorising as "Czech saints" is one of the worst options we could take here. NLeeuw (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NLeeuw I am arguing that we usually categorise people by nationality, so it helps navigation to categorise saints by nationality as well.
    Church provinces coinciding with national borders is not a modern phenomenon: the original dioceses were based on Roman dioceses. I will agree that the borders church provinces did not always and immediately change to follow state boundaries. However, as I argued earlier churches and secular governments in western Europe Europe were closely integrated, this can be seen in the History of Christianity in the Czech lands. Differing boundaries are an issue for subcategories of Category:Czech people and Category:Dutch people in general, not particularly for the saints categories.
    As to Jan Hus, the sourced text of the article should show that being a saint is a defining characteristic, which it apparently doesn't, so he could be removed from the category. Most of the contents of the Czech saints category is in Category:Czech Roman Catholic saints. Should that be nominated for deletion as well? Most of the members of that category are clearly connected to Bohemia and Moravia. TSventon (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Czech Roman Catholic saints is more specific, because that has a denomination or religious organisation behind it. I'm still not sure about the "Czech" part, but on the whole it is indeed less problematic.
    I think you may be right that Jan Hus should be removed from all or some saints categories, especially the Lutheran ones as long as the article doesn't say anything about it.
    For nationalities categories, we've been having a lot of constructive dialogue and agreements in recent years, including Category:People from the Kingdom of Bohemia, where Hus probably belongs. NLeeuw (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A is not so much a problem because Christian churches have set procedures for sainthood attribution. For more clarity the category may be renamed from "saints" to "Christian saints" though. B is a problem not in itself but because of C. For that reason I would suggest Christian saints only to be diffused by century and no longer by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your last suggestion is a rather useful one. (Although the earliest people later canonised as saints often have unclear lifespans; I'm thinking about Alban of Mainz, for example). Even if C weren't a problem, saints and nationality are still a contestable intersection as long as nationality is WP:NONDEFINING with regards to sainthood. The very nature of Christianity as a missionary religion with universal aspirations (that is, it seeks to convert all humanity, not just all members of the tribe / ethnicity / country / polity etc. it originated in) makes it arguably "internationalist", and nationality an irrelevant, modern invention. For navigational purposes we might have been pragmatic if "national" borders had been stable for the past 2000+ years (B), but they haven't (C), so... NLeeuw (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of Category:Christian saints by nationality, a large category tree. May not always be strictly accurate, but modern nationalities are commonly used for saints (i.e. they are especially venerated in the current countries from whose territory they originated). Categorisation of saints is clearly useful and it would not be advantageous to Wikipedia if we decided for NPOV reasons that saints weren't saints, as that is generally why they are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The size of a category tree is irrelevant if the tree itself is inappropriate to Wikipedia standards. It just means we need to be careful when dismantling or reorganising it.
    • As explained above, less than 1% of Czechs seems to venerate Jan Hus as a saint. (Nominally, there are probably more Greeks and Cypriots who do than Czechs). His main notability stems from the fact that the Hussite Wars are named after him (as his religious teachings ideologically influenced the conflict), not that a fringe church in the 20th or 21st century canonised him as a saint.
    • Categorisation of saints may be useful, but categorisation by what? E.g. we could categorise them by their favourite colour or their astrological sign, but those wouldn't be useful. Categories need to be WP:DEFINING.
    • As explained above, sainthood is always a POV. Some points of view are worth noting, but others are WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not in the business of extensively documenting the beliefs of very small religious, political or other groups with near-zero cultural impact. NLeeuw (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: The last point is related to WP:COATRACK#Some Famous Dude Did It so It Must Be Good. NLeeuw (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete primordialism is not a point of view that is widely accepted in the nationality studies field. Wikipedia should certainly not take it for granted with ill advised categories that project the current state of the Czech Republic beyond the 19th century nationalist movement into the medieval past, when modern nationality just didn't exist. "Saints from Bohemia" would be OK but non-defining, for the reasons explained above. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent with other "from Bohemia" categories, and also e.g. with "from Georgia (country)" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have taken a closer look at the interview with the archbishop of Prague about Jan Hus, and it seems that even the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia has not yet canonised Jan Hus and his follower Jerome of Prague as "saints" or "martyrs". There is only lobbying going on for them to be canonised at some point in the future, which the archbishop supports. The interviewer asks: Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague died a martyr's death for Christ's truth. Their memory lives on not only in Czechia. Your Beatitude, why have they not been canonized as saints? The archbishop gives various reasons why they haven't yet been, and then gives various reasons why they should be: ...Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, died for the undistorted faith, for the pure faith of Christ—that is, for Orthodoxy. Therefore we are completely justified in canonizing them as saints. This has already been confirmed by the Church of Cyprus and the Greek Church. Other Orthodox Churches also support us. The penultimate sentence there is ambiguous: it could be read as that the Church of Cyprus and Greek Church have already canonised Hus and Prague as saints, or it could merely be a formal expression of support for the idea to canonise them as saints. This seems to be the core of the misunderstanding that Hus and Prague are already saints in those Orthodox Churches (which until now I also thought), but the interviewer's question indicates otherwise. (Incidentally, the archbishop saying that Hus and Prague died for "Orthodoxy" is his personal interpretation; some Protestant theologians may say they died for "proto-Protestantism", see below).
Second, I did find that there is some historical evidence that the Utraquists in the 16th century believed, described and praised them as saints, but they existed when there was no Czech Republic yet, and now that there is the Utraquists no longer exist. They were also a completely different denomination that is usually considered Protestant or "Proto-Protestant". Category:Hussite martyrs is a child of Category:15th-century proto-Protestant martyrs, which I find to be quite WP:SUBJECTIVECAT as well. I think this a good demonstration of how arbitrary and messy thus sainthood stuff can get, especially when we mix it up with nationality rather than by denomination (which is already messy enough). NLeeuw (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crafts deities

Nominator's rationale: Just plain better English. PepperBeast (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I think what is meant here is wikt:craft#noun meaning #7 plural: A branch of skilled work or trade, especially one requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill, but sometimes applied equally to any business, calling or profession; the skilled practice of a practical occupation. So it's a bit like a patron saint of a branch of handicraft professions. I worry that by making it singular, "craft" can be misunderstood for any of its many other meanings, such as "vehicle" (aircraft, spacecraft etc.; I wouldn't be surprised if some religion came up with that if Pope John Paul II in 1997 could retroactively declare Isidore of Seville the "patron saint of the internet"), or as a colloquial conjugation of the verb "to craft", "craft(ed) gods", compare "graven images", human-made "idols" of gods. But I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not sure if this is a significant risk. NLeeuw (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of see your point, actually, but 'crafts' is not the solution. I'd be ok with, say, handicraft deities. PepperBeast (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it not? I suppose it reads a lot better with 'the': "the crafts", just like "the arts", "the humanities". Some things are better in plural. Then again, "deities of the crafts" sounds a bit cumbersome. At any rate, would "handicraft deities" be correct for the contents of these categories? NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think handicraft fits pretty well, going by the articles I had a look at. Sorry, I ama native speaker, and I can't tell you why some noun modifiers can be plural and some not, but "crafts Gods" is just not normal English. Probably the same reason we don't have cars mechanics or brains surgeons :-) PepperBeast (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little worried that handicraft has connotations of a hobby or at best "artisanal" activity, distinct from mainstream manufacturing. In a pre-industrial society, activities like weaving and smithing are mainstream, the only ways clothes and metal objects are produced. Does it help that the ancient Greek word is τέχνη, techne, (the root of technical, technology and technique and by no means merely a philosophical concept as our article claims), translated as skill, craftsmanship, art, craft, technique, design and other such, rather than as handicraft? NebY (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, too, but none of those suggestions strikes me as a really superior choice. A few years ago, I would have said artisan was perfect, but it seems to have gone all lumpy socks and unsliceable bread. Artificer seems too stilted. PepperBeast (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pepperbeast Ah! But you do have sales managers, liberal arts professors, arms dealers... ;) But alright, I'll drop my Weak oppose. It's probably okay. NLeeuw (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm fretting about this very small point. "War gods" is clearly better than "wars gods"; the singular stands for the general. But Hephaestus, for example, was a smith god, not a god of all craft/handicraft, so is a member of the set of deities of various crafts.... Aargh. NebY (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find "gods of handicrafts" in the authoritative standard text Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, translated from the German by John Raffan. I often got the impression that Burkert's phrasing was better in German than could be translated but still, it seems "handicrafts" may be the best English term a good translator could find. Reckon I should stop worrying and accept it! It's better than either "craft" or "crafts". NebY (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but what are you proposing as an alt rename then? Handicraft deities or Handicrafts deities?
    And does choosing handicraft mean excluding larger-scale construction works in stoneworking/stonecraft such as bridge-building and, well, "building-building", as well as woodworking / carpentry such as shipbuilding? Because that would mean a significant narrowing of the scope, and I don't think any of us is advocating that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We currently include deities of shipbuilding and bridgebuilding? I'm beginning to think it's too complicated for me to suggest anything. NebY (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I was just being hypothetical, but if we look at some random examples:
    • Arazu a god of construction who built and restored temples.
    • Coyotlinahual a god of featherwork
    • Athena a goddess of handicraft
    • Brigid a goddess of smithing
    • Maliya a goddess associated with gardens and with artisanship, specifically with leatherworking and carpentry.
    • Mama Ocllo a goddess of weaving, sewing, and household duties.
    • Hedjhotep a god of fabrics and clothes and, to a lesser extent, of weaving and the deceased
    • Nunura a god of pottery
    • Ptah patron deity of craftsmen and architects
    • Vishvakarma deity of craftsmen, architects, crafters of chariots and weapons, city-builder.
    • Quetzalcoatl related to wind, Venus, Sun, merchants, arts, crafts, knowledge, and learning.
    • Uttu a goddess of weaving
    • Minerva a goddess of wisdom, justice, law, victory, and the sponsor of arts, trade, and strategy.
    • Ninmug a goddess of artisanship, especially with metalworking, as evidenced by her epithet tibira kalamma, "metalworker of the land."
    I don't see a really clear pattern here. Some articles do not seem to mention anything to do with "the crafts" at all (like Minerva being responsible for lots of things, but not really "the crafts"), and might have to be Purged from this tree. Part of them could reasonably be called deities of handicrafts like Athena, Nunura, and Hedjhotep. Others seem to be about larger structures, buildings, cities even. Architects design buildings, not decorative small objects normally associated with "handicrafts". I guess it was my mistake thinking that "handicrafts" and "crafts" meant the same, but evidently handicrafts are a subset of the crafts. NLeeuw (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing the legwork! I am uncertain that users of English distinguish handicrafts from crafts consistently. I haven't tried a survey; serendipitously, last night I read "the development of farming techniques, building skills, craft traditions such as pottery, trade networks" (Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East). NebY (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand NebY's reaction. Shouldn't we rather split this to handicraft on the one hand and building/construction on the other hand? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, if the literature supports such a division. But lots of articles in this tree do not seem to mention any "crafts" at all, or I just don't properly understand the term. NLeeuw (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think such a split would make sense. We can easily conceive of a set that includes all of building, construction, weaving, smithing and pottery, and in at least one language it can easily be given a name. I fear that in English it can't and so en-wiki can't usefully have such a category. NebY (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meitei Brahmins

Nominator's rationale: Categories are identical PepperBeast (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular reason- it's just the one I spotted. PepperBeast (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to have this discussed in broader context. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shumang Kumhei

Nominator's rationale: Tiny category of just two articles (that are mutually linked). PepperBeast (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meitei script

Nominator's rationale: Grab-bag of stuff defined by some use of a particular writing system... WP:TRIVIALCAT PepperBeast (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Purge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-binary people by sexual orientation

Nominator's rationale: To be similar with Category:Non-binary lesbians and Category:Transgender bisexual people, for example, among others. --MikutoH talk! 02:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly delete as a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support rename, and neutral on delete. But if we do delete we ought to manually merge the pages to the respective parents. Mason (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining intersection. (t · c) buidhe 01:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shabbat observant businesses

Nominator's rationale: I think "Shabbat observant" is a compound adjective that should have a hyphen. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_11&oldid=1218475781"