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:Not renamed; no prejudice against a new nomination to an alternate title. There's a clear problem with the current title but the proposed alternative is considered worse and no clear counter-proposal has yet emerged. Timrollpickering21:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
tentative oppose. In a multi-polar civil war with a collapsed state (which Lebanon was for ~2 decades), the term "rebel group" seems wrong. Several of these factions were the de facto rulers of parts of Lebanon. "Irregular military" isn't a great label either, but it seems better than "rebels". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nom but rename somehow -- I think we might take a lead from the French WP, cited above, by using the neutral Category:Armed factions in Lebanon. Lebanon has a government where the Christians and Muslims are in approximate balance, but destabilised by Palestinian exiles (without votes) and Hezbollah, one of the Muslim factions. However that sentence expresses a POV. Each party tends to have is own military wing. The Paramilitary cat seems largely to be political groupings with military wings, whereas this one is for the military wings. However, there may be some mis-categorisation in each direction. I am opposing the nom, because they are not necessarily "rebels"; some will be the military wings of government parties. "Armed factions" has a NPOV feel about it, but should exclude official government forces. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Irregular military by country is not helpful. In fact I find it hard to see any useful distinction between irregular military and paramilitary, though usage of all these terms varies a lot in time and place. But the term Rebel Groups is also a bit difficult. Most of the articles are about armed rebel groups, but I can't see that you need to be armed to be a rebel. And of course over time a rebel group may take power which can cause even more confusion. My view is that the term paramilitary is the least ambiguous and subjective of all the overlapping terms in this area. Rathfelder (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Rebels is a subjective definition, whereas in Lebanese Civil War at some point the Lebanese Army collapsed, with militias dividing the country; there cannot be only rebels in such case.GreyShark (dibra) 11:27, 30 May 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.
Category:American bisexual men
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: It is not useful to subdivide Category:Bisexual men by nationality. There is no other sibling category for any other country, and other comparable categories (e.g. Category:Gay men, Category:Lesbians, Category:Bisexual women, etc.) are not (and should not be) subcatted by nationality at all. In the "LGBT people" tree, it is not useful or productive to crosscategorize the "LGBT people by nationality" subcategories with the "People by combination of orientation and gender" subcategories — it is not useful to isolate American bisexual men from American gay men and American bisexual women and British bisexual men. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, while an American subcategory may soon become a well populated category and there seems nothing inherently wrong with it, a serious risk is that it will soon be followed by other nationality subcats and ultimately by many single-article or two-article categories for the smallest countries - which would be highly undesirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 31 May 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.
Category:Native American LGBT-related films
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: This category was originally created to contain just one film. I was aware of just two other films I could add to it (and even one of those two is technically stretching it, because while one significant character in the film happens to be Native American the film isn't really about that) -- but even a comprehensive category comparison between Category:American LGBT-related films and Category:Films about Native Americans in AWB failed to turn up even one other film besides the two I already knew about. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much more knowledge about this subject area can populate the category over the WP:SMALLCAT barrier -- but three films isn't enough to warrant this yet, and I've been unable to find any others. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Thank you for your feedback. I'm not sure how many Native American LGBT films exist. I would like for Native American LGBT films to have their own Wiki page if possible so that Native American LGBT people can easily search for their own films. While one could collapse these films into American LGBT films, if someone just wants to view culturally distinctive LGBT films, especially those pertaining to Native American culture, where one or all protagonists are LGBT, they can do so. Or, if this is more so related to the lack of the number of known Native American LGBT films, perhaps it would be better to create an Indigenous LGBT films page, to encompass Native LGBT films not just from the United States, but also from Canada, Latin America, and other parts of the world."
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:18th-century Belgian artists
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 noting this only contains one subcategory so this is not a clear precedent for more populated categories. Timrollpickering22:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wide deletion. On the narrow issue, there is now only one artist, who was Flemish. So that can be merged to Category:18th-century Flemish painters; it was only set up on the 24th May. On the broader issue, you might as well tackle Category:Belgian people (before 1830), the head of the tree (since 2010), (where Category:18th-century Flemish painters is also parented). But this is far smaller than Category:Flemish people and Category:Walloon people. We don't have categories for artists or other people by occupation from "another region or country" ie non-Flemish Belgium, except for 3 Walloon cats. Obviously, deleting all these would be really stupid and the question is how to rename them, if a rename is needed. This is a somewhat thorny question, about which Belgians have strong views, and where the terminology in English differs from the local one (on defining "Flemish" for example). "Southern Netherlands" might be best. Personally I could live with "Belgian", which is at least clearer, but it might be better to merge all lower categories to Flemish or Walloon, which I think works in English, but not locally (Bishopric of Liege etc), and just have a "Belgian" container cat above that. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with "pre-1830" Belgian people, where there is modern Belgium flag in the category. This is an attempt to create anachronisms and impose modern Belgian identity on past.GreyShark (dibra) 11:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the parenting problem discussed by Johnbod, but I disagree with the suggestion. As far as I can discern by reading our article on Belgium, there was no independent Belgium prior to 1830. There were various polities of varying borders prior thereto none well mapping to today's Belgium; the closest antecedent appears to be the Southern Netherlands stemming from 1556 to just prior to Belgium's independence. Again, the borders shifted between 1556 and 1814, and at various times included not all of Belgium, but included parts of modern-day Luxembourg, Germany, the Netherlands, and France. To call someone who lived in the 18th Century a "Belgian" is ahistoric. Using a term such as "Low Countries" may work better as a naming compromise as those borders are less precise but are more akin to what the categories may contain; and under such parentage each phase can have "people from XXX" where XXX is whatever polity existed during the period. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not the ones who were Walloons - a minority but a large one. That's taking the English definition - to the Belgians themselves Dutch-speaking people from Antwerp etc at this period were not "Flemish", but we should ignore that. But French-speakers from Brussels etc were never "Flemish", even in English. Mostly Walloon painters followed French styles rather than being part of "Flemish painting". Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That depends. Many people who would currently be described as Walloon or Brussels are considered "Flemish" painters anyway (and in Belgium, Rubens and other painters from outside the county of Flanders are also considered "Flemish" painters by everyone but the most hardline reductionists). "French-speakers from Brussels etc were never "Flemish"" is not true (well, Brussels was largely Dutch-speaking anyway, but French-speakers from e.g. Tournai or Maubeuge were seen as Flemish painters for many centuries. Fram (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good question. I hadn't checked if we have categories for other types of artists from 18th-century Southern Netherlands. Since we do not have that, an extra parent category is premature. So it can be deleted for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the category by itself is clear, but within 18th-century Southern Netherlands we currently don't have any artists but painters, so that artists is a redundant layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We have a problem over what to call this country. It was Spanish Netherlands c.1570-c.1713; Austrian Netherlands c.1713-1790s; absorbed by France 1790-1814; part of United Netherlands 1814-30; then Belgium. My dates are a little imprecise as there may be issues of de facto control and de jure. Using Flemish as a demonym is inaccurate as part of the country is Walloon, not Flemish. However with two languages distingushing the two communities, there is no reason why Flemish categories and Walloon ones should not be kept, but we need to parent these with Category:18th-century artists from Austrian Netherlands, with a preceding Category:17th-century artists from Spanish Netherlands. I know that the change of control of the polity was in 1713 (or perhaps in practice a little earlier), but 13 years is much less than a lifetime. This can be a container for Flemish and Walloon categories where appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:16, 27 May 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.
Category:Monroe Twins
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.
Delete as too narrow to serve a navigational function. @WilliamJE: the players subcat was not connected for some reason. I've done that now, but still agree with the nom. SFB20:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would go against current conventions. We have more than 4000 players categories and only some 1000 team categories, so there are must be many players categories around that do not have a team parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 29 May 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.
Category:Sports players and officials awarded knighthoods
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.
Support, though it's a tricky one, covering three distinct types of people: people awarded knighthoods for sport (e.g., Sir Stephen Redgrave); people awarded knighthoods largely for another reason after rising to fame in sport (e.g., Sir John Kirwan); and people who were already knights who then found additional fame through sport (e.g., Sir Hugh Robertson). Grutness...wha?02:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ALT-2 is fine too, assuming this will be equally effective in excluding people awarded knighthoods for another reason after rising to fame in sport and people who were already knights who then found additional fame through sport. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle and Grutness: My alt proposition is actually a new variation narrowing the scope to focus on the reason for knighthood, rather than the occupation. If the concern is that simply being a sportsperson who has a knighthood for some reason is trivial, then I suggest we could review the tree to this effect. For example, Roger Moore is in Category:Actors awarded British knighthoods, but this is merely coincidental as those two facets of Roger Moore have very little to do with each other. The non-trivial intersection for Moore would be Category:People awarded knighthoods for charitable services. I think it can be a very important distinction from those who have actually received the knighthood for services in the occupational field, such as Patrick Stewart. SFB20:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That could be just as messy - a lot of people who have been awarded knighthoods largely for work outside the sporting field are listed as having received the award "for sport and Foo" (the example I gave of Sir John Kirwan is one such). I still think that Category:Sportspeople awarded knighthoods is the way to go, since it matches the rest of the Category:Knights by occupation tree. If you want it to match the one and only "Dames by occupation" category, then change that latter category to Category:Sportspeople awarded damehoods". That would also remove any sportswomen who are simply damed by dint of marriage or heredity. Grutness...wha?02:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: Should this be Category:People in sports awarded knighthoods? Note the ongoing discussion about lack of clarity of the word "sportspeople" meaning by some measures narrowly understood as "athlete" or broadly understood as any person in the sports industry. That was another intention of the change to match sporting dames. SFB15:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise there was such a discussion (nor was I aware of the narrower understanding of the term), but if the consensus there is to move all categories to "People in sport" or the uglier "People in sports", then sure, that would make sense. Grutness...wha?19:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wording in the prior two comments doesn't distinguish between those awarded a knighthood for contribution to sport(s), rather than someone who has done any number of things among which sport(s) is included, who gets a knighthood (perhaps for charity, broadcasting, political office, or marrying into a noble family)... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 29 May 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.
X
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
