Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 3 July 5 >

July 4[edit]

Category:Dutch-language LGBT writers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep, as those opposing deletion have presented substantial evidence for the notability of this intersection as a topic. – Fayenatic London 15:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While Category:LGBT writers are appropriately subcategorized by nationality, we do not currently have any consensus to also subcategorize them by the language in which they wrote — or, indeed, any other "LGBT writers by language" siblings for this at all. Delete, though some caution is warranted to ensure that people aren't getting removed from the more appropriate Category:LGBT writers from the Netherlands and/or Category:LGBT writers from Belgium in the process. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this may not be the right place to discuss a very fundamental issue, namely: in literature, a categorization by language is much more relevant than by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Dutch-language writers. Oculi (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Actually, nationality is a stronger common ground than language in some cases. It is clearly a more common way to identify people. C. S. Lewis is more likely to be described as a "British writer" than an "English-language writer", and Jules Verne as French than French-language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are trivial examples. Classification by language would have been very relevant if C.S. Lewis, as a British writer, would have written only in French, and if nobody would have bothered to translate his works from French into English. That's a (hypothetical) example that is similar to this category discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Jules Verne comparison ("French" rather than "French-language") is inadequate on several levels:
      • "French" implies both country and language, so no need to bother for the longer version. If the language isn't French that would need to be specified, much like "...who was a Fleming, but wrote in French..." is specified in the first sentence of the article on the only Belgian author ever to win a Noble Prize.
      • We're talking LGBT categorizations here. I couldn't find a single external source identifying Belgian LGBT writers culturally significant in WP:EGRS sense (see quote below). What I could find is a literary prize for gay (=LGBT in the context: "le genre ... des auteurs ne rentrant évidemment pas en ligne de compte,...") French-language novelists ("ces romans seront de langue française originale"), from a list of countries where French is at least one of the spoken languages (excuse my French "Belgique, Bénin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, République démocratique du Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, France, France métropolitaine et outre-mer, Gabon, Guinée, Mali, Monaco, Niger, Sénégal, Togo, Belgique, Burundi, Cameroun, Québec, Nouveau-Brunswick, Yukon, Nuvanut, République centrafricaine, Comores, Djibouti, guinée équatoriale, Haïti, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Maurice, Mauritanie, Rwanda, Seychelles, Suisse, Tchad, Vanuatu, Louisiane, Vallée d'Aoste").[1] Culturally significant if you ask me.
    --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the Category:LGBT writers by nationality tree was for occupational diffusion of Category:LGBT people by nationality categories — so it's valid on size management purposes regardless of whether you think it's the most culturally relevant distinction or not. The problem with grouping LGBT writers by language, apart from the fact that there aren't any other siblings for it, is that it's not a useful point of categorization in combination with LGBTness — the language in which a writer happened to write about LGBT issues doesn't change the nature of those LGBT issues in any notable or significant way. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this ruffles your feathers on idealised categorization schemes.
Again, I'm not speaking about English-language LGBT writers. No clue what works best there.
Re. "the language in which a writer happened to write about LGBT issues doesn't change the nature of those LGBT issues in any notable or significant way." — For Dutch-language LGBT writers maybe not the nature of these issues, but certainly the way they wrote about it. Please catch up on your reading before attempting to tear down the level of this debate in such way. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The insinuation that my happening to disagree with you on the utility of this category implies that I "haven't caught up on my reading" is unwelcome, uncivil and inappropriate. I'm quite well on top (have been for twenty years or more) of any and all reading that I have any obligation to undertake on "educating myself on LGBT issues" grounds, thank you kindly. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the language in which a writer happened to write about LGBT issues doesn't change the nature of those LGBT issues in any notable or significant way" is imho a platitude that doesn't help this discussion in any way.
The issue discussed here is whether there is a strong link between Dutch-language authors writing on LGBT issues, and whether such linking is stronger than links across the French/Dutch language border in Belgium, on these same topics. Catching up on my reading, on LGBT topics the links within the Dutch-language group appear to be stronger than those between Flemish and Walloon authors, much more than I had imagined when entering this discussion. I was wrong to direct the invitation to catch up on reading exclusively @Bearcat, I should have written: "let's catch up on our reading" as an open invitation (no obligation of any kind intended). If this came over in a wrong way, or if it appeared I was insinuating something I wasn't intending to insinuate, please accept my apologies: there was no such intention on my part.
Maybe there are strong sources indicating links between Belgian LGBT writers (or LGBT writing) across the French/Dutch language border but I haven't found them although looking for them. The strongest I could find was the first Belgian LGBT organization (modelled on COC from the Netherlands) which existed a few years and published a few French/Dutch bilingual texts, until COC Flanders split off (for an episode that lasted many more decades), and the overarching Belgian organisation dissolved. As for the actual writers I could find no names establishing links between Flemish North and Walloon South of Belgium regarding what was written on LGBT topics. So please, for me it makes no difference if these are found in old or (re)new(ed) reading, if there is something outweighing the abundant evidence from my updated reading below, just mention it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This one may be a good start: http://scripties.let.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/root/Master/DoorstroomMasters/Nederlands/2013/DuisJ.ten/ — it compares the reception history of the English-language The Well of Loneliness with that of 7 Dutch-language lesbian novels by writers from Flanders and the Netherlands. For instance, "In Nederland was de ontvangst van De bron van eenzaamheid positiever dan in Engeland." (p. 26 - In the Netherlands The Well of Loneliness was more positively received than in England), etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources that show that no overview of LGBT writers in the low countries ever limits itself exclusively to what was published in the Netherlands or alternatively exclusively to what was published in Flanders/Belgium:
  • Saskia Geurds and Thomas de Heide Waarom zijn er meer homobladen voor mannen dan voor vrouwen?. Fontys Hogeschool Journalistiek, Tilburg (27 mei 2013)
  • Gert Hekma. Homoseksualiteit in Nederland van 1730 tot de moderne tijd. narcis.nl (1 January 2004)
→ This one is particularily interesting: it purports to discuss homosexuality in the Netherlands exclusively (see introduction), and indeed it does so, *except* for literature, where, as always, the Flemish authors are included.
  • Adriaan Venema. Homosexualiteit in de Nederlandse literatuur Amsterdam/Brussel, Paris-Manteau (1972). ISBN 9022303063
  • Jos Versteegen. "Nederlandse gay literatuur in de tweede helft van de jaren '90: Een overzicht" in Gay 2000 (1999)
  • Hans Warren (editor). Herenliefde (1995) — a selection of homoerotic stories by Louis Couperus, Tom Lannoye, Maarten 't Hart, Gerrit Komrij, Eric de Kuyper, A. F. Th. van der Heijden and Bas Heijne.
→ for your convenience I used two coulours: LGBT writers from the Netherlands and LGBT writers from Flanders
--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:EGRS:

    Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. (...) Generally, this means that the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources.

  • Oppose, on the basis there is a head article LGBT writers in the Dutch-language area which seems acceptable to Wikipedia (though in my opinion its another ugly synthesis of sources which barely manages to show any evidence of discussion of the topic). If someone has a strong issue with the topic being notable, they should tackle the head article first. Sionk (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2014 (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:Hispanic people of Converso descent[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If I understand the correctly, the term "Hispanic" is mainly used within the United States. However, the single articles in this category are for people in other (Latin American) countries than the United States, so "Hispanic" seems to be less appropriate and "Latin American" may be more appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2014 (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:National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities members[edit]

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. For reference, in case further similar actions are needed, the parent of this category is Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by association. – Fayenatic London 07:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Which associations a university/college is a member of is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic (I checked a sample of articles in this category and not one mentioned this association in the article text, let alone in the lead). For info: This is part of a series of CFDs for membership of university associations (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_15#Category:Worldwide_Universities_Network). For info: According to the NAICU article, this association has over 1000 members. DexDor (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorizing universites by organization belonged to is not a good idea. Many belong to several organizations, with no limit to how many, with little required to be in them, and with ease of moving between organizations or to new ones as time goes on. This is especially true since universities have no limit to how long they can function.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. We should not categorise them by association membership. Several similar CFDs on other associations have been (I think) deleted before. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2014 (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:East Lancashire Coachbuilders[edit]

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: split to Category:East Lancs buses, rename the other two. – Fayenatic London 07:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. Most sub-cats of Category:Buses by manufacturer end in "buses". The second and third nominated categories do not have sufficient content to justify an eponymous category. – Fayenatic London 15:47, 4 July 2014 (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:Fictional Baltic people[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 14:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: non-controversial/naming-consistency. --108.38.70.215 (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2014 (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:Biblical coins[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Coins in the Bible. Not eligible for speedy renaming as the article was just moved recently, and without an RM. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:30, 4 July 2014 (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:Unmanned spaceflight task force[edit]

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. I'll also delete the subcategories per WP:UCS. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Housecleaning deletion. The entire task force was abolished in 2011 but this category and subcategories remain. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_4&oldid=1090391844"