Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:50, 26 September 2015

Contents of this category

This category should include only articles which specifically refer to the term "Southern Levant". At the moment it is just a random hotchpotch. I intend to clean this up.

Pinging Drsmoo.

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, It should contain articles that mention the term Southern Levant as well as geographical articles related to areas within the region (ie, the article for Jordan) and articles related to archaeology within the region. Drsmoo (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though it is disputed that the majority of Jordan (which is >50% desert) is in the Levant?! Categorisation should not be used to advance a POV.

Including archaeology is duplicative (see all the subcategories at Category:Archaeology of the Near East) and wholly imprecise (archaeology articles should be in archaology categories).

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no POV being advanced here, it is clear that you perceive one, but you are not correct. Jordan is considered to be part of the southern levant by multiple reliable sources Ultimately though, the editors of individual articles are and should be the ones that describe what categories are used. It's not appropriate for two editors to make wholesale changes. As was pointed out in the Administrator's Noticeboard, widespread category changes are "at least" subject to enhanced scrutiny. Drsmoo (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And multiple reliable sources do not include Jordan, and many others only include a small part of it. So it is disputed.

You are wrong to say that the editors of individual articles are and should be the ones that describe what categories are used. That is a recipe for chaos and disorganisation. WP:CAT says clearly that: "...the desired contents of the category should be described on the category page, similar to how the list selection criteria are described in a stand-alone list. The category description should make direct statements about the criteria by which pages should be selected for inclusion in (or exclusion from) the category. This description, not the category's name, defines the proper content of the category. Do not leave future editors to guess about what or who should be included from the title of the category. Even if the selection criteria might seem obvious to you, an explicit standard is helpful to others, especially if they are less familiar with the subject."

So, do you want to make a proposal for the category description? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully the category is already clearly described on the category page. "The history, geography, archaeology, and people associated with the southern region of the Levant." Drsmoo (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CAT says: "The category description should make direct statements about the criteria by which pages should be selected for inclusion in (or exclusion from) the category."

The description needs to be specific and clear, so it is obvious what should be included and what should not.

Will you make a proposal or should I? I am happy to, but I don't have enough information to know what would satisfy you.

Also pinging @Laurel Lodged: who originally started this category and wrote the current description.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll wait for Laurel Lodged to reply, I agree with your idea to ping her, thank you. Otherwise I'd be fine with modifying the category page to being with "This category includes the history, geography, archaeology, and people associated with the southern region of the Levant." Drsmoo (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Great. I propose the category description states: "This category should include articles and subcategories which specifically relate to the region of the Southern Levant. It should not duplicate other similar regional categories such as Category:Israel and Category:Palestine, which are the primary categories for those regions." OK? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll wait for Laurel Lodged to opine, looking at the category page as it is now, it is completely in line with other category pages content wise and stylistically though it would be fine to have "This category includes" (would be preferable to "should include). There is also the issue of Western Jordan vs Jordan. Drsmoo (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Laurel Lodged: again in case he would like to comment. The question is what should be the scope of this category and how do we avoid needless duplication with Category:Israel and Category:Palestine? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd go with "This category includes articles and subcategories which specifically relate to the region of the Southern Levant. It should not duplicate other similar regional categories such as Category:Israel and Category:Palestine, which are the primary categories for those regions." Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

On this basis, I propose to thin down the articles and subcategories here. @Drsmoo:, can you let me know which specific articles and subcategories you would like to keep here? I would like to proceed with your support. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I say that all articles related to the history/archaeology and geography of the Southern Levant should be kept. I will also add additional relevant articles to this category. Be sure to keep in mind that Levant and Southern Levant are the scholarly terms for the field of research dealing with the history/archaeology of the region, so it is important that the category be robust and meaningful. Drsmoo (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how you are defining this - it doesn't feel very precise. Can you give me an example? And can you propose an amendment to the category description to incorporate this? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, it's quite precise actually. "All articles related to the history/archaeology and geography of the Southern Levant" That is accurate and to the point. It also goes nicely in line with the original category description written by Laurel Lodged "The history, geography, archaeology, and people associated with the southern region of the Levant." In fact, it's unclear why you felt the category description needed changing? Could you also clarify in what sense "specifically relate to the region of the Southern Levant" is more precise than "The history, geography, archaeology, and people associated with the southern region of the Levant."? Because "specifically relate to the region of the Southern Levant" is certainly not clearly defined (specifically relate in what sense?). Also, the category must definitely include archaeology and history, as Levantine Archaeology is a major academic field of study. Drsmoo (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, when starting this discussion, you wrote that the category should only include articles that specifically refer to the Southern Levant. (I presume you mean in the text) It's worth pointing out that this is not acceptable and not the way Misplaced Pages categories work. If you instead meant "refer" as in articles that are specifically dealing with the region of the southern levant, then that makes total sense. But just as a ground rule, and in the interest of making this go more smoothly, the terms Levant and Southern Levant are significant and commonly used throughout archaeological literature. They're common, notable not going away, and have been that way for a long time. Additionally, do you only see yourself removing articles from this category, or will you be adding articles as well. Which articles do you plan to add? Drsmoo (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drsmoo, I don't disagree with what you have said. I think the "specifically relate" is something that we'll know when we see, but "All articles related to" is much much more general or broad. As an example, 6th Airborne Division in Palestine, which obviously should not be categorized here, clearly doesn't fit into the "specifically relate", but it could be argued to fit into the "All articles related to" wording.

On a related point, I think this category's primary function should be as a WP:SUPERCAT, much like Category:Israel or Category:Jordan or even Category:China. It's clear this category has been used too liberally when you compare that there are 40 pages directly linked here, which is about the same number as those other three much higher profile country categories combined!

Are you ok for me to get on with trying to tidy this all up on this basis? Clearly we can continue to discuss.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Most usage of the term levant seems to be in reference to archaeology and geographical features. I think that should be the primary focus. I don't see an issue with for example, an archaeology article being in multiple categories. Drsmoo (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)