Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Fayenatic london (talk | contribs) at 21:47, 22 May 2016 (CFD closed as Merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

This category was nominated for deletion on 16 March 2016. The result of the discussion was merge to Category:Levant where necessary. The closer then converted it to a disambiguation page..

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)

Sure, but it would be better for the project if we created a more specific category such as Category:Levantine Archaeology, and made that a subcategory of this and other categories. There's a reason that Category:China has so few articles. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drsmoo, please note that I am going to start thinning down the articles in here (I haven't progressed this since the above discussion). As you suggest, I will retain articles "in reference to archaeology and geographical features". Oncenawhile (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are not in accordance with our discussion. Geography entailed countries. The Southern Levant category should of course include countries within the Southern Levant.

My guess is that the only reason this conversation is proving difficult is because you do not assume good faith with respect to my edits. On the other side of the coin, I do actually assume good faith with respect to your edits and your intentions. That was what I meant by my "not a polemicist" comment - in good faith I simply meant that I trust your underlying intentions to be good.

Can you please trust that I believed my edits to be in accordance with our discussion above. Clearly you disagree so we need to continue discussing. Can you clarify your position please? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the category to the relevant pages, some articles had already been reverted by other users, countries located within the region of the Southern Levant should be in that category. Drsmoo (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Coming late to this discussion, I agree with Drsmoo in his objection to narrowing of articles and subcategories that come under Southern Levant. I don't see why the same articles cannot appear in multiple categories if they legitimately fit into those categories, and I am unaware of any Misplaced Pages policies that discourage this from happening. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield, what about WP:SUBCAT:

"A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below – or eponymous). For example, the article "Paris" need only be placed in "Category:Cities in France", not in both "Category:Cities in France" and "Category:Populated places in France". Because the first category (cities) is in the second category (populated places), readers are already given the information that Paris is a populated place in France by it being a city in France."

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

But Southern Levant isn't a subcategory, it's a content category. And Paris is in lots of content categories. Though the term Southern Levant itself might be a bit antiquated, I think its advantage is its neutrality regarding current ethnic and political issues, and its encompassing nature. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield, per WP:CAT, all non-administrative categories are "content categories". So Subcats are content categories. If you meant WP:DIFFUSE, I don't think that we have any categories that would warrant use of the {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}. Would you mind clarifying? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield:, just checking you saw this? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw it, but did not understand the point you were making. All subcategories are content categories, but not all content categories are subcategories. Southern Levant is a content category but not a subcategory, so it can contain articles that are also contained in other content categories, just like the Paris example does. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield, thank for your reply. I don't understand either! Perhaps we are both using the terminology differently. For example, when you say "Southern Levant is a content category but not a subcategory", I don't understand what you mean. In my mind, Category:Southern Levant is a subcategory of the five categories listed at the bottom of the page (Categories (++): Levant (−) (±)Near East (−) (±)Geography of Western Asia (−) (±)Ancient Levant (−) (±)Ancient Near East (−) (±)), and a parent category of the 14 subcategories listed as well. What I think WP:SUBCAT is saying is that, apart from certain exceptions, an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. So, for example, Archaeology of Israel should be in Category:Israel, but it should not also be in Category:Southern Levant or Category:Near East or Category:Middle East or Category:Levant.Oncenawhile (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything seems to be a subcategory of something else! I think Archeology of Israel is going to be a POV-laden category and is arguably POV-worded - whereas Levant, or Southern Levant, is both politically and ethnically neutral. So if it were a choice of having either one of the other I think the majority of archaeological sites within the territory of the current state of Israel would be better included in the southern Levant category rather than the Archeology of Israel category. But I do not think we need to make such a choice, because I do not see why the same article cannot be in two different but related subcategories if these subcategories help readers in the ordering of and locating of related articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield, ok, understood. Just to be clear on our joint interpretation of WP:SUBCAT - do you agree that putting "the same article... in two different but related subcategories" would contravene the guidance that "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category"? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it contravenes but should be an exception on the basis that it may "help readers in the ordering of and locating of related articles"? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Tiptoethrutheminefield, i'm sure you want this conversation to end as much as I do(!), but would you mind confirming re my last question above? Oncenawhile (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)