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. ℯxplicit 04:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge or reverse merge, "Egypt" en "Roman Egypt" coincide during the centuries that Egypt belonged to the Roman Empire. (Note: after this merge, Category:Years in Roman Egypt and subcategories can be deleted as empty.) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for Category:1st century BC in Roman Egypt and Category:7th century in Roman Egypt. For the majority of the first century BC and the seventh century AD, Egypt did not belong to the Roman empire, and so "in Roman Egypt" makes sense as a subcategory of "in Egypt" for those cats. No objection for the other categories. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as many nations have experience military occupations and government paradigm shifts. Examples: Vichy France, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omanyd (talk • contribs) 00:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a wrong analogy, because Category:Roman Egypt hasn't been nominated. The right analogy would be if Category:1943 in Vichy France would be proposed to be merged into Category:1943 in France, which would be equally justified as the above nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Egypt is an entity that has existed along the river Nile for 5000 years. Its boundaries have varied, extending further upstream at times or incorporating land in the Levant. There is no equivalent non-Roman Egypt, so no need to include "Roman" in the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - this is exactly the opposite to the mainstream opinion that anachronism should be avoided. Egypt article is dealing with the Arab Republic of Egypt (Jamahuriyya Mizr al-Arabiya), and thus using "in Egypt" for pre-modern categories creates the impression that it was the same Egypt during the classic era, whereas in reality it was a very different Roman Egypt (different ethnicity, different religion, different culture, different political system). We have plenty of precedent discussions which had the overwhelming consensus to use contemporary entities for categorization - see the cases of Ottoman Syria and Mandatory Syria discussions as fair examples.GreyShark (dibra) 05:56, 20 June 2017 (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:Female characters in television
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. ℯxplicit 04:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Male equivalent categories should be subject to the result of this discussion as well.— TAnthonyTalk 19:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This new category seems too general to be of any use. I'm opening this discussion before its creator adds it to all female TV character articles. — TAnthonyTalk 18:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed: We have categories for 'female characters' in film, television, comics, literature, animation, anime and manga but television is "too general"? - User:Kjell Knudde 20:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I'm adding them all to promote discussion. I'm noting creation dates and editors because it would be inappropriate for Kjell Knudde to use categories he/she created rather recently to justify each other's existence unless there has been discussion elsewhere. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 18:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only refer to those other 'female characters' categories because they are on this site too. I didn't start the "Category:Female characters" categories either. I only created a few categories more in that field because there were already several in existence, without anybody complaining about them before. That's all there's too it. In my opinion listing articles about female characters would be useful since this is a topic that has been subject of many articles, essays, books and documentaries. Not only in studies about feminism, but also as part of sociological studies. Categorizing them in a certain way would make sense. I actually am in favor of putting them more in subcategories as well. For instance: distinguishing soap opera characters from sitcom characters. If you want to open up a discussion about the use of these categories, feel free to do so, but throw in Category:Male characters in video games, Category:Male characters in comics and Category:Male characters in anime and manga in there as well. To me that category seems far more "too general" to be of any use. Also ponder on the question why we have a Category:Female supervillains, but no Category:Female superheroes? - User:Kjell Knudde, 20:47, 6 June 2017.
Kjell Knudde, it's no coincidence that these categories are all only a couple of years old or less, there have been old discussions about these kind of categories, which are not so useful when they apply to half of a given category of character articles. It's a good thing that we're discussing this again, to confirm consensus.— TAnthonyTalk 19:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, we only split categories by gender if the topic is gender-related. Male sibling categories should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added, thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 19:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There do seem to be a lot of these cropping up, as well as related container categories.— TAnthonyTalk 20:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:OCEGRS, "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should only be created 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. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one." I have done search engine tests on several of these categories' keywords and have found coverage that reflects likely articles, like this for female characters in film. Of course, not all characters are notable enough to have their own articles, but when they do, these categories should be available for them to fall under. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The implication of this and Kjell Knudde's above re: the male categories seems to be that female characters are still in a notable minority. I would argue that this is patently untrue in the current era, except perhaps in certain genres; but I see significant representation even in video games, which you might expect to be male-oriented. I see your point though, and it's something to think about. I'm just not sure that a potential article about how women are represented in film necessarily needs to spawn gender categories.— TAnthonyTalk 15:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stand-alone articles about fictional characters require enough notability to transcend being covered in a broader article (e.g., one about the given work or one listing multiple characters), so I do not think indiscriminate categorizing is a concern. There will always be many more female (and male) characters in media than what we will actually categorize here. Also, I believe there is ample coverage of gender portrayal in different media. Male categories would work here too because portrayal of men is covered too. For example, this book lends credence to having Category:Male characters in television. It does not necessarily mean every categorized character would be mentioned in a head article about the grouping, but the availability of these categories would allow readers to explore examples which are hopefully well-written enough to show how a character fits or defies conventions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Erik. The representation may be better in terms of numbers but the nature of said representation is still questionable, a concept that is discussed in reliable sources with enough frequency that it can and does come into play in articles about fictional women. While WP:WAW is merely an essay, I think it contains a lot of useful guidance, some of which may apply here. Millahnna (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Erik. Female characters and their depictions are both a distinct and unique cultural topic, as reflected by published sourced. Dimadick (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It may well be that some of these categories have not been sufficiently populated but as a keen member of WikiProject Women in Red, I frequently compile lists, enhance articles and try to improve categorization in areas such as these. The categories are not only useful for the EN wiki but for those creating articles in other languages on the basis of the English ones. Categories in relation to women often prove extremely useful.--Ipigott (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categorizing fictional things by attributes that are in the author's hands is really too far. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2017 (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:2nd century BC in Tunisia
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:merge and delete as nominated, with the exception of Category:140s BC in Africa. ℯxplicit 04:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:2nd century BC in Tunisia to Category:2nd century BC in Africa and Category:Ancient Tunisia
Propose merging Category:140s BC in Tunisia to Category:2nd century BC in Africa and Category:Ancient Tunisia
Propose merging Category:146 BC in Tunisia to Category:2nd century BC in Africa and Category:Ancient Tunisia
Propose deleting Category:Years of the 2nd century BC in Tunisia
Propose deleting Category:Years of the 2nd century BC in Africa
Propose merging Category:140s BC in Africa to Category:2nd century BC in Africa
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, small and isolated ancient century category (the next Tunisian century category is the 10th AD). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We have about three articles on the Roman conquest of Carthage; and one article on a mesa, on which there was a fortress that allegedly played a role in resisting Roman conquest. That is not enough for a category. However, I am unhappy with Africa as a merge target, and would suggest instead North Africa, defined as north of Sahara, covering Libya to Morocco, with an Egypt sub-cat. I very much doubt whether we will ever get much that it specific to the rest of the continent at that remote period. As far as I know, we have no surviving annals from Carthage and are wholly dependent on Roman sources. This means there is little scope for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Especially in ancient times, there is definitely a case for splitting by region instead of by continent. As another example, Middle East would make a better target than Asia. However, this would be a whole new discussion and I would suggest to finish merging the year by country categories before entering a new discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - i would generally be in favor of such proposal, but i do not like the zealous deletion, therefor - support regarding merging Category:2nd century BC in Tunisia, but merging Category:140s BC in Tunisia and Category:146 BC in Tunisia to Category:140s BC in Africa (not century-level). Delete Category:Years of the 2nd century BC in Tunisia as proposed due to anachronism.GreyShark (dibra) 06:01, 20 June 2017 (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:Works about Christiaan Huygens
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. ℯxplicit 04:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Works about Christiaan Huygens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT pretty much. I'm also quite puzzled at the inclusion of Revolution in Time as a work about Christiaan Huygens. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Revolution in Time doesn't mention Christiaan Huygens and the other article Travellers' Tales is a redirect to a series of 13 episodes in which he is mentioned (briefly) in just one. Oculi (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2017 (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.