Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 21

< July 20 July 22 >

July 21

Category: Category:Transsexual female adult models and Category:Transsexual adult models

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. Renaming of the Category:Adult models hierarchy would have to be considered as a whole. (Meanwhile, Category:Transsexual adult models has already been speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G5.) – Fayenatic London 17:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Right now, there is this organization Category:Transgender and transsexual models > Category:Transsexual adult models > Category:Transsexual female adult models (this is the only item listed under higher category).
There is also Category:Transgender and transsexual female models and Category:Transgender and transsexual male models. Since I think it is highly unlikely that there will be Transsexual child models categories, I think the adult categories are easily subsumed under the regular TG/TS female and TG/TS male model categories. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not the existence of a transsexual model category. As I stated above, there already exist Category:Transgender and transsexual models, Category:Transgender and transsexual female models and Category:Transgender and transsexual male models.
The question is does there need to be transsexual ADULT model categories. Considering that we don't have transsexual CHILDREN model categories, it's just a duplication of the larger categories.
If you are arguing that those who are Transsexual and those who are Transgender ought to have completely separate categories in all areas, that is a larger discussion. That would require more wide-spread shifting and creation of TG/TS categories and recategorization.69.125.134.86 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding what 'adult' means here - which is not about age, but about style of modeling. We have this division for male/female models so no reason to not maintain it for transsexuals. Some transsexual models never do 'adult' themed work (eg erotica, nudity, etc)Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
  • Comment is "adult" being used euphemistically for "pornographic" or to distinguish from "child". Methinks based on the items, the former. If so, then why don't we just use "pornographic"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to use "pornographic". Using "adult" as a euphemism is just way to confusing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest a broader discussion of this then over at the erotica/sex project - there is a diff between an adult model and a porn star, so it's not just a euphamism. Take Catherine D'lish for example, who has a quite different career from Asa_Akira. Plus, we have whole category trees of adult models, and there is *already* a category tree for porn actors/actresses. Thus, I think we should keep here, and if you want to rename all adult models into porn models, start a different discussion as that impacts dozens of categories at least.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obi-Wan Kenobi, I'd really welcome you bringing the discussion over to that erotica/sex project (and maybe the LGBT project as well). I think using "adult" not to mean "a person over the age of 18" but as "erotic" or "pornographic", is problematic. The whole LGBTQ area has a lot of problems as sometimes the categories are separated out (L-G-B-TG-TS-Q-GQ) and sometimes they lumped together in different combinations (and sometimes a few are combined--LGBT--while others-Q-are kept separate).
I know that "naming" categories based on sexual orientation and sexual identity can be a minefield so I'd welcome those who a) are more invested in the results than myself and b) care about working on some clean-up of categories, to look over the proposal. Thanks! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adult vs porn vs erotic has nothing to do with LGBTQ, as we have the same categories for female/male models as well, and it should be consistent. I personally don't have an issue with the word "adult", any uncertainty could be cleared up in the category header, and I think classifying Catherine D'lish as a porn models is giving the wrong impression.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading over that person's bio, she seems like more of a performer/dancer/entertainer than a model. It also wasn't clear that she was TG/TS. But I don't want to argue over individual cases. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, was any decision made here? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2013 (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:Napoleonic forts in England

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To me, the current name makes it sound like the forts were built by Napoleon rather than as a defence against his planned invasion. Tim! (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but better, let's go the whole hog & rename to Category:Napoleonic era coastal defences in England since many seem less than "forts". NB the mis-capitalized "Beacons" sub-cat. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2013 (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:Roman-era pagans

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. There was no consensus to delete. There was consensus to do something other then delete. The suggestion to rename to Category:Byzantine-era pagans appears to address some of the concerns about the current name. I have no objection to a follow on nomination after the rename and cleanup if there are still issues or a better idea. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Invalid form of categorization. Read Paganism and Religion in ancient Rome (the introduction at least) for why. "Pagan" is a term of Christian polemic in antiquity that is non-informative and non-encyclopedic; it does not describe the religious affiliations of anyone in Classical antiquity. The emperor Julian, for instance, defined himself in his writings as a "Hellene" in matters of religion. Cicero was an augur of Roman state religion and at the same time a religious skeptic. None of this is intelligently conveyed by the Christian umbrella term "pagan". The instruction for Category:People by religion is that religious categorization is for Living or deceased people for whom their religious association is or was a defining characteristic or related to their notability. Since there was no such thing as "paganism" in antiquity, and the term is used in contemporary scholarly discourse only as shorthand for "not Christian or Jewish", "pagan" can't be a defining characteristic of any ancient person. And since everybody except Jews and Christians could be called "pagan" from that perspective, if populated such a category would have thousands of pages that would only need to be diffused. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: the specific rationale, which I failed to make clear, is WP:EGRS, and the principle of "defining characteristic". Since there was no such religion as "paganism" in classical antiquity, it cannot be an accurate or defining characteristic to assign a person to the category "Roman-era pagans". Cynwolfe (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I understand that "paganism" is an exonym, we really could use categories covering historic Paganism (see listing) ans its proponents. And last I checked the categories on Jews and Christians have thousands of pages. Why not having developed categories on their opponents? Note that Category:Paganism already covers Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman religion. Dimadick (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, I don't think that's useful either. "Paganism" isn't exactly an exonym; the Latin term pagani was adopted to mean "non-Christians" by Latin-speaking Christians living in the Roman Empire. They too were Romans. Rather, it's an obscurantism that creates categorical error: all religions practiced under Roman rule are placed in the same category as if they are one thing like Christianity or Judaism. They are not. The religion of the Carthaginians, still practiced in the Roman era, was Semitic; Roman religion was Indo-European. Mystery religions are not the same thing as "ethnic" religions. Category:Religions of the Greco-Roman world seems sufficient. Or Category:Religions of antiquity. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the proposed category name, though well-intentioned, shows the problems of viewing ancient religions through a Christian or "-ism" lens. In the early Republic, every ethnic Roman shared in the communal religion, and every Roman head of household (paterfamilias) was in a sense the priest of the domestic religion practiced under his roof. There was no "church" or congregation of which one might be a member; as an individual, you would visit various temples, depending on the occasion, or what kind of divine aid you sought. Ancient Roman religion was a praxis, not a creed, orthodoxy or "faith"; that's why "pagan" is not a descriptive or defining characteristic in the same way as "Christian" or "Jewish". Under the Empire, every inhabitant of the Empire was thought to be under the umbrella of state religion; see Imperial cult (ancient Rome). At the same time, all the peoples of the Empire continued to practice their own ethnic religions: Syrians, Egyptians, Celts, Carthaginians and so on. These are the religions of the gentes, the "nations", which is the term Christian writers used instead of pagani when they included non-Christians in their intended audience. The multiplicity of religions that aren't related to each other is the reality that the terms "paganism" and "pagan" obscure. The concept of membership is more like the mystery religions, which required a process of initiation. It would be possible to categorize a person in the ancient world as a Mithraist, or Eleusinian initiate, or Augustalis, or mater of a religious association, or augur, or haruspex and so on. In the case of the emperor Julian, we have someone who described himself, and who is described in RS, as a "Hellene" in matters of religion. But "pagan" just means "somebody who wasn't a Christian or Jew". It doesn't provide any information about religious affiliation. There are editors who have worked for years to provide accurate scholarly coverage of topics in Roman religion on its own terms (Aldrasto11 and Haploidavey, to name two), and as a result our articles about Roman religion don't blather vaguely about "paganism". They draw on a precise vocabulary. I feel like this kind of categorization is a step backwards. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This category is clearly over-broad and serves no useful purpose. Even taking the word "pagan" as non-pejorative (which implies a 21st-century perspective that's still far from universal), all Romans who weren't Jews or Christians were pagans. And until the 4th century, that's nearly all Romans, dating back over a thousand years. We might as well have categories such as "Byzantine Christians" or "Italian Catholics" that get added automatically to all Byzantines or all Italians who weren't Jews. A category entitled something like "late Roman pagans," explicitly covering only those with explicitly non-Christian, non-Jewish religious beliefs after the death of Constantine, might be useful. But as it stands now, it's not. P Aculeius (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, but like P Aculeius, I think a PC version of a "late Roman pagans" category woyuld be useful. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Paganism in Ancient Rome wasn't a religion. The argument per EGRS holds here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:Byzantine-era pagans and split off subcat. Remaining pagan in the Byzantine era is generally notable, and I note that the immediate members are all from that era. Mangoe (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Mangoe and purge out the Roman subcat. Pagans in late antiquity were unusual. Following the Roman religion in republican and imperial Rome was normal (ie NN); hence not noteworthy. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2013 (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.