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.
Not many. If you think it's deletable as a SMALLCAT, then by all means go right ahead and vote that way — the real issue here is that the creator went on a bender of trying to create a comprehensive "broken down by nationality" tree, creating separate SMALLCATs for every nationality that had even one Arabist to categorize at all, and then doing the same for Orientalists (and, in the process, leaving a vast trail of completely empty categories in their wake as well, though I've already speedied all of the ones that I've found.) If somebody wanted to take on batching them all for a comprehensive deletion discussion, I'd support it — but it would involve more work than I feel motivated to take on for a topic of so little interest to me. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia has a standing consensus that due to the non-trivial possibility of erroneous confusion with the American state of Georgia, for categories relating to the Caucasian country we use the form "X from Georgia (country)" rather than "Georgian X". Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Wallachia and Moldavia were the two traditional countries that merged to form Romania; by and large, inhabitants of both countries were to at least some degree ethnic Romanians, and this goes for the chroniclers included there. While Wallachia did use "Romania" as an alternative name for itself (a tidbit that its presently quite obscure), this category clearly was intended to group writers most often referred to by their citizenship/nationality, defined in non-ethnic terms; we consistently refers to people of those respective citizenships as Wallachians and Moldavians. The category as a whole belongs in a "Romanian historians" tree, indeed, but the name used here is confusing. (Please don't repeat here the mistaken assumption that Moldova and Moldavia are the same. Moldova is the successor state of Bessarabia, which was a province of Moldavia annexed by Russia in 1812. Moldavia continued to exist as a state and was merged into Romania in ca. 1860. All Moldovans are Moldavians, but not all Moldavians are Moldovans). Dahn (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split. There's no indication that the chroniclers saw themselves as part of a common tradition. Reference of Moldavians to Wallachians and viceversa were mostly incidental, with Moldavians actually refering more often to their Hungarian and Polish counterparts.Anonimu (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split may also work as an option, I guess. But the claim that there is no proof of them having a common tradition is somewhat exaggerated, and not only because the entirety of sources in secondary literature treat them as belonging to a single category. While most early chroniclers did not leave us any clue on the topic, consider that the tradition of writing chronicles continued well in to the 1830s, with most preserve3d writings dating to after 1700. These authors often had a quite clear notion of a single tradition, as for instance with Moldavia's Alecu Beldiman, whose chronicle depicted events in Wallachia, whose language was very much based on the Wallachian standard, and who wrote his chronicle in a house that he bought from a Wallachian boyar active in Moldavia. Dahn (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: There's a lot of "article" already in this category and I think we would benefit from having an umbrella article for this series. Struggling to come up with a name for the article though. The category needs a rename too, to match, and "historic" isn't really appropriate. --woodensuperman15:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read what this discussion is about? I think you're just stalking my edits and opposing them without bothering to even read them. This is about creating an umbrella article and moving to a more suitable title? Not deletion. --woodensuperman15:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's about deleting the categorization for this set of articles.
Read the above again. I'm proposing we convert the text here into an umbrella article and rename the category to something more appropriate to match the new article. --woodensuperman16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If all you're after is to change "historic" to "historical" then that's fine (and perhaps more accurate).
But you're also either advocating converting a category to an article (which implies removing the categorization) or else creating a new and pointless article, in addition, out of almost nothing. Neither of those are justified. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of deleting the category. But I came to this category when clinking on what I thought was an article link, which fails WP:EGG and the table here is overkill for a category and is more appropriate for an article. To my mind, an umbrella article would be preferable (even as a stub), but rather than take the bold move, and as the current title is inappropriate and would also need a rename, I thought it best to open a dialogue to see what the community consensus is. Apologies if you were confused by this. --woodensuperman17:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is very definitely an attempt to use the category page as a misplaced article substitute, which is not what category pages are for. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(re)move text from category page (e.g. to a draft article page). However, apart from this text, I think the category as such is valid and does not require deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It's hardly acres of prose. We have clearly established precedent for descriptive, defining and clarifying paras on categories. The table is in the nature of an index. This is far more readable as part of a category page than any separate article would be. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is so much text that initially you don't even notice the articles that are in the category, while these articles of the category are its main purpose. One line to explain the scope of a category should be enough, any further elaboration belongs in an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards oppose: As the creator of this category, I considered possibly creating an article instead. The downside of that option was that I wasn't an authority on the entirety of these shows, and I thought more might exist or even be produced. Linking an existing page or a new page to the category for easy connection to its peers, rather than edit the "collective" article. Some other related shows just do a K(n) graph of "See Also" links amongst the show pages. I dislike that alternative, and a category seems nicer.
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.
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.
NOTE: several related categories have been added to this nomination – see below, after the Relist banner.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by WP:SHAREDNAME. We categorize newspapers on characteristics like their publication location or the nature of their content, not on how they happen to be named. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category (and delete the rest of Category:Entities with Celtic names e.g. in a subsequent CFD) per nom. It is often useful to do a small CFD and see how that goes before going to the effort of tagging a wider group of categories and constructing a large CFD nom (and some people may still argue that the chosen group is too large/small). DexDor(talk)21:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like a proper explanation of why these categories are been targeted for deletion. They have existed for a while now and they are perfectly appropriate in my opinion. I think a wider consensus, especially from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland needs be sought before any drastic decision is made. Irish language names and titles are widely used in Irish English to the point were the English language version is not used at all. A simple vote by editors who know little or nothing about the issue would be totally inappropriate. DjlnDjln (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have anything to do with the Irish language in particular, it would equally apply to any other language. We categorise things by what they are, not how they are named. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the greatest of respect, the above explanations are about as clear as mud, little more than jibberish and waffle. No proper reason for deleting this categories has been provided. DjlnDjln (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that, for example, "Avoid categorising ... by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself" and "We categorise things by what they are, not how they are named" are not clear? DexDor(talk)06:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Adding the rest of the hierarchy to the nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – FayenaticLondon10:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- I am slightly troubled by this nom. Scottish Gaelic names will normally only occur in Scotland and Irish language names only in Ireland. It may well be useful to WP users to identify the language of a name as indicating its origin, particularly as those languages are rarely taught away from areas where they are indigenous. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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.
(as nom) I do not have a substantive problem with the alternative, but all siblings in the Ottoman tree have a different format. If desired, it would be more sensible to nominate all these Ottoman categories simultaneously. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.