Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 1
February 3 >

February 2

Vendée Globe sailors categories

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/merge. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Propose deleting
    • Category:Austrian Vendee Globe sailors (0)
    • Category:Chinese Vendee Globe sailors (0)
    • Category:Dutch Vendee Globe sailors (0)
    • Category:Irish Vendee Globe sailors (0)
    • Category:New Zealand Vendee Globe sailors (0)
    • Category:Polish Vendee Globe sailors (0)
    • Category:South African Vendee Globe sailors (0)
  • Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: One-entry categories that does not aid navigation and that are WP:NARROWCAT. The next event is in four years. Possibly non-defining intersection by nationality and competition as the competitors are not chosen to represent a national entity. Almost all other Category:Sports competitors by nationality and competition are competitions where a NOC or similar send a delegation. Three articles are not in other Fooian sailors (sport) categories and therefore merge proposals. If kept, rename as the article is Vendée Globe and not Vendee Globe. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge per nom. Categories to be deleted contain an article that is already in a male sailor category by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
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:LessWrong

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary Gjs238 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, the articles already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
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:Years in New York (state) politics

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 15#Category:Years in New York (state) politics

Category:Museums in France by department

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
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:Châteaux in France by department

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
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:Churches in France by department

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
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 venues in Flemish Brabant

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Each contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
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:Christian monasteries in Luxembourg (Belgium)

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Contains 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
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:Canals in Belgium by province

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
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:Airports in Walloon Brabant

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Contains 1 article. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
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:Buildings and structures in Albania by populated place

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
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.

Redundant WP:RUSSIA categories

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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: More redundant categories; all categories, templates, etc. are of NA-importance to WP:RUSSIA. Delete them as redundant to e.g. Category:Template-Class Russia pages. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 22:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. This appears to be the only WikiProject that uses this unique categorization format. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • No, WP Russia is not the only project to use intersection categories by quality and importance, and at least WP:COMICS also has cats for NA-importance, which were nominated two days ago at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_13#Redundant_WP:COMICS_categories. Ah, you can see at a glance at Category:NA-importance pages which projects have subcatted these, e.g. 20th Century Studios, Africa, amphibian and reptile, Animation, Archaeology, Astronomy, Australia etc. – Fayenatic London 14:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      I stand corrected. It appears that these eight Russia categories were renamed from "Foo articles" to "Foo pages" as part of a broader mass-renaming, but it was premature to include them. The other intersection categories you cite were not similarly renamed. Would it be a problem to move the category pages back to their old titles? (I don't want to upset any apple carts while this CfD is pending!) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      If kept, we should send them back to the original name until the templates are updated. However, I still maintain that they are redundant to the generic, importance-less class categories. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the contents are still at the previous names using "articles", e.g. Category:NA-importance FM-Class Russia articles (0), pending further changes to templates. If you still want to delete, please list those category redirect pages as well so that participants can see the contents. – Fayenatic London 14:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Fayenatic london: Added them to the nomination; is your oppose just that they were not included (a mistake on my part) or that you believe these categories are useful? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment What code changes are needed to implement these? Note to closing admin Please do not list these on the automatic working page until the code changes are made. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Timrollpickering: None; Module:WikiProject banner already uses the Lua version of {{#ifexist}} on the category outputs. In fact, the closer should not list these at CFDW and instead delete them directly; the contents will be automatically emptied. Best, BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, the only person who has expressed a clear opinion on the nominator's substantial proposal (eliminating the NA-importance categories in favor of categories specifying only class) is the nominator himself.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. "NA-importance" is implied for these namespaces. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
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:Alumni lists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Category:Alumni lists

Category:Murdered American gangsters by criminal organization

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 11#Category:Murdered American gangsters by criminal organization

Medieval events

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: manually merge, the word "events" is used here as "anything that happened" in this period, and is thus a rather meaningless distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Manually merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
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:Scholars of Precolonial East Africa

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 10#Category:Scholars of Precolonial East Africa

Category:Works set in prison

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Category:Works set in prison

Category:Experts on refugees

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: no consensus. Making a concrete proposal might find consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: I stumbled on this category when I stumbled on the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Gardner (migration expert), and I saw a tangent about this category. While it is true that many people on Wikipedia are widely considered as experts in their subject, there are only three categories named "Experts on...": those are for terrorism, North Korea and refugees. Other categories on specialism would be like Category:Psephologists (not "experts on elections") or Category:Seismologists (not "experts on earthquakes") I looked at the articles in this category, and there is a mixture of activists and academics. Both of these can be problematic when we have a category on expertise. If the category was named "pro-refugee activists", that seems better to me, because it is about their position, rather than expertise. If a pro-refugee activist is not academically qualified, I feel that opens the way to having anti-refugee activists also having to be in the category of "experts", as both will be known for activism on the subject, and both will have no academic credentials to prove it. When it comes to academics, obviously they do not pin their colours to the mast quite like activists, but there are also highly qualified people who are known for writings that criticise migration and asylum. Those would fall under the banner of "experts on refugees", and would probably lead to edit wars on exactly who qualifies as an expert. TLDR: Category mixes activists and academics. Should they be separated? Category is based on expertise, which is subjective. In the case of unqualified activists, the category could also be applied to anti-refugee activists, as the category only mentions unquantifiable "expertise", not position. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • There unlike Seismology, there is no Refugelogy, hence the name is fine. As for how to populate it, the only criteria is whether a person is called "expert on refugees", exactly in the same way as other experts are identified. BTW, this term is used in Wikipedia: Nora Sveaass (born 11 December 1949) is a Norwegian psychologist, and an expert on refugees, human rights violations, and psychological consequences of torture --Altenmann >talk 22:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Second issue: there is an official term "migration expert", the term used in Wikipedia, but it looks like it is a more general term. --Altenmann >talk 22:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • At the same time, from the bio "Nora Sveaass (born 11 December 1949) is a Norwegian psychologist, and an expert on refugees, human rights violations, and psychological consequences of torture" it would be tempting to introduce category:Experts on torture, etc. Hence my suggestion:
  • create category:Experts on human rights and merge the discussed one there. We have plenty experts on human rights in Wikpedia as well, such as Cecilia Bailliet (born 24 April 1969) is a Norwegian/Argentine/US professor of law who became the United Nations Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity in 2023. --Altenmann >talk 22:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't see a problem. "Scholars" categories may also contain non-academics, depending on context. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will note that creating a category does not need discussion, but merging a category does.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete, or rename pro-refugee activists. Calling someone an expert is POV, and even worse almost no one in this category is even described that way. It's an arbitrary assortment of people Campaigning on something does not make you an expert, and I'm not sure if there is a relevant academic field. In any case, only one or two of the people here would fit in an academic category. Our two other "Experts on" categories are misnamed and have also been nominated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree that human rights activists do not belong in this category. But most articles aren't about human rights activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Marcocapelle But what do they have in common? Nothing really, besides some sort of affiliation with any aspect of refugees, which is not really defining. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    • They (the ones that should stay) are academics with a specialization in the topic of refugees. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
      So are you advocating renaming this like "Scholars of refugees" or something? Experts is not workable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I am not advocating it per se, but I would not oppose it either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
        I am for anything that does not have "experts" in the name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the discussion between PARAKANYAA and Marcocapelle?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

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:Setians

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 to Category:Temple of Set occultists. The consensus here is fairly weak, but that seems like the slightly-more-prefereed name and nobody likes the current name. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Propose renaming Category:Setians to Category:Temple of Set
Nominator's rationale: The title and description is confusing, but every item listed is affiliated with or is the Temple of Set. Non-Temple of Set Set affiliations are not included. Category should thus be renamed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Alternative: Stephen Flowers and Nikolas Schreck aren't clearly affiliated and the others can be put in a Category:High priests of the Temple of Set. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think Schreck is fairly affiliated (flowers probably is but it's not mentioned in the article now, so, fair). It also, IMO, makes little sense to have a category of high priests excluding the actual main Temple of Set article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
    • The main Temple of Set article can still be mentioned in the category description. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
      I would oppose this for the reason that as this category expands I think most of the topics included would not be high priests. And it makes sense to deal with as an eponymous category. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
      • At least we need something else in order to keep the category in the tree of Category:Occultists by religion. It is a people category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
        It's also in some non-people cats, like "New religious movements established in the 1970s" and "left-hand path". So we could just remove that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs third-party opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Rename to Category:Temple of Set occultists, per Category:Occultists by religion. After looking through other such categories, only the large religions that need diffusing seem to split out their members. However, this one is only the main article and people. And we tend to keep people cats separate, per WP:SEPARATE. And this name should makr it less ambiguous as to what the category holds. - jc37 23:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
    That is fine with me as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
    @PARAKANYAA: Thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
    I still don't like this because if we were to cover all the notable topics related to the Temple of Set it would mostly contain not people - if that happens, what do we do with this? People affiliated with the organization seems a fairly pointless category if we lack one for the organization. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
    The rename reflects the category's current contents. If there is a sudden outbreak of non-people articles related to the topic, then Category:Temple of Set could then be created, and this one would still need to exist to keep the articles about pople separated per WP:SEPARATE, as noted above. But regardless, that's not the current situation. The category only has thhe main article and people. The main article itself is already categorised in the non-people catgories.- jc37 20:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
    @PARAKANYAA: any reply? it's lio! | talk | work 15:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
    @Jc37 Fine I suppose, but "Temple of Set people" is better. Occultists is ok. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
    @Jc37: would you rather go with "occultists" or "people"? it's lio! | talk | work 02:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
    Occultists, to match the other subcats of Category:Occultists by religion, and because we aren't including just any person WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH the topic. For example, if there was a journalist that had done in-depth research on the topic, they would fall under "people", but not under "occultists". Also similar might be family members (or other personages) affected by, but not members of. - jc37 02:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
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.

Theatres by populated place

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/delete as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Merge. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Merge per nom but without prejudice towards recreation at a future date if a sufficient number of theatre articles are created in a given location to have a separate cat.
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:Polish engineers who worked in Azerbaijan

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between nationality, occupation, and place of work. already added members of the category to Foo-th century Polish engineers SMasonGarrison 02:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Merge per WP:OCEGRS. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
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:Scholars of Precolonial West Africa

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: isolated category. Category:Precolonial West Africa doesn't exist SMasonGarrison 02:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Merge The commonly accepted definition of West Africa is based on the modern countries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
There are archaeological categories which have been accepted for years which delineate by region. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge, anachronistic distinction as both north and west precolonial Africa were under Islamic influence. By far the most entries are Islamic scholars. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
    By far the most entries are Islamic scholars, because I am busy and do not have time to trough through Wikipedia to find every scholar who ever lived in West Africa. The point of this category is for other people to add to it over time, so that it would comprise a thorough list of scholars from relevant regions for those interested. The regionalization schema is chosen because it tends to reflect how people, including Africans, tend to concieve of the continent. Not that this would matter anyway - we wouldn't merge every islamic scholarly history related section simply because the scholars invoked are muslim. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
    I will also note that the distinction is a historic one as much as a contemporary one. There are substantive distinctions between the histories of even the islamic regions of North Africa, and the islamic regions of West Africa -- including the circumstances within which islam spread, the cultures which practiced the religion, and the scholarly movements which developed in each region. There is no Muhammed Bello in North Africa; no 18th-century islamic abolitionism (that I know of) in Morocco, and so on. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
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:Scholars of Precolonial North Africa

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated cateogry SMasonGarrison 02:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Merge The commonly accepted definition of North Africa is based on the modern countries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Merge, anachronistic distinction as both north and west precolonial Africa were under Islamic influence. The only entry is about an Islamic scholar. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
    The only entry is about one islamic scholar because I am the only person working on this category, and I am busy. Obviously, there are dozens of scholars who could be added to this category, including Ahmed Baba, Al-Kanemi, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Battuta, etc. Not to mention, pre-islamic scholars (ie: Augustus of Hippo, Hypatia, possibly Cleopatra (who may have written on hair care), and so on. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Combining people from the Roman Empire with medieval Islamic scholars in one category would be very odd. Categories are meant to facilitate navigation between related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
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.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks