Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging[edit]

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: 

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 01:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC). Currently, there are 58 open requests (refresh).

Current requests[edit]

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

List of around 13 categories
    • Comment/Oppose I'm not sure that it's a good idea to combine professional and college baseball for a few years in the same category if the majority of years they are kept in separate categories. It looks like you selected the years where there was one article in the season category and skipped over categories for years when they held more content. That doesn't seem logical. There should be consistency in categories, if, for most years/seasons, college and professional sports are kept in separate categories, then they should for all seasons, even when there might be just one article in the category. Also, a lot of recategorization has occurred recently with college baseball categories without the participation of the editor who created all of these categories in the first place and I think a CFD disussion would be useful to assess the sweeping changes that have been occurring. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opposed requests[edit]

Other linguists and grammarians


On hold pending other discussion[edit]

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion[edit]

List of around 70 categories for Deaf and Deafblind


Current discussions[edit]

Shortcut

January 10[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

January 9[edit]

Category:Grammarians of Romanian[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge, renaming the page over the newer "Linguists". See the Yiddish nomination below for the 2015 precedent about of these category names. This category has 3 members: Alexandru Graur, whose article says he was a Romanian linguist; Iorgu Iordan, a Romanian linguist, philologist etc; and Ion Heliade Rădulescu, prolific translator of foreign literature into Romanian, also the author of books on linguistics. Evidently "linguists" would serve perfectly well. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Grammarians of Yiddish[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect. The parent Grammarians was merged to Linguists in 2015, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 17#Grammarians categories, but we have not followed that up until now. Please see that CFD for SMcCandlish's explanation of the ambiguities and problems with the term "grammarians". In most cases by language of study, we have a category either named linguists or named grammarians, but Yiddish has both. Category:Grammarians of Yiddish was created by user:In ictu oculi in 2011; Category:Linguists of Yiddish is older and larger. Only 4 are currently categorised as grammarians: Solomon Birnbaum, whose article describes him as a Yiddish linguist; Dovid Katz, a scholar specializing in Yiddish language and literature; Mordkhe Schaechter, a leading Yiddish linguist; and L. L. Zamenhof, creator of Esperanto, who had earlier written the first grammar of Yiddish. I am not persuaded that the separate category is justified or useful, so following the precedent it should be merged. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Memorial Cup tournaments by location[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION. Events are not defined by where they are held. User:Namiba 22:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Paulo Coelho[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category named after a person, as per WP:OCEPON. This was discussed in 2017, but I feel 4 articles and a subcat is insufficient to warrant a separate category and isn't a "very notable case" as per WP:EPCATPERS. Kj cheetham (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep — still alive, still publishing, there are 2 layers of subcategories with many articles, and really should have another subcategory for videos games based upon the books.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-Muslim[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge as "non-Muslim" is not a verifiable characteristic. People may have converted to Islam without anyone knowing. While merging manually, many articles may more specifically be moved to Category:Islamic studies scholars since this is the category for academic "western style" scholars of Islam, regardless of their personal beliefs. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This proposed merging might be misleading to unsuspecting readers and researchers. The argument that "people may have converted to Islam without anyone knowing" does not resonate with the characteristics of a Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atibrarian (talk • contribs)
  • Keep -- There is a very major difference between those studying Islam from within it and those studying it from outside. I would not object to merging selectively to Category:Islamic studies scholars. I do not think the argument about unacknowledged conversion is a valid one. Most of those concerned are likely to be Christian or Jewish; possibly atheists or agnostics of those heritages. I accept that categorising by what they are not is unusual in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (added after relisting) whether they are "likely" or "possibly" something exactly summarizes the problem: this is unverifiable information (for these subjects) and OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If delete, we'll just have to manually merge them from the logs.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1850s in sports in New York[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Having deleted the 1860s categories per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 30#Category:1867 in sports in New York (state), it makes no sense to keep these earlier categories for a single article. – Fayenatic London 15:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Ottoman Baroque architecture[edit]

Nominator's rationale: New WP:SMALLCAT with only main article and one subcategory. All content is also in the one subcategory, so easiest to delete this. Since they aren't making any more of these (the Ottoman Empire is over), no likelihood of expansion. These are Category:Buildings and structures of the Ottoman Empire.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: per my edit summary here, it would be more appropriate to delete and redirect Category:Baroque mosques to this category, as it's an unnecessary subcategory but not a sufficient one on its own. Most important examples of Ottoman Baroque are mosques but the category is too narrow to accommodate non-mosque examples of Ottoman Baroque (of which there are still many) and too vaguely named to be recognized as referring to the Ottoman context ("Baroque mosques in the Ottoman Empire" is better, but still unnecessary). I've added Mihrişah Sultan Complex to Category:Ottoman Baroque architecture just now, another example of this style which isn't a mosque, and there are many other buildings which could fit here in the future if the articles either exist and haven't been sorted or don't exist but could be created in the future. Either way, it's appropriate to have a broader category for Ottoman Baroque buildings. Not opposed to a rename instead, as long it's clear. R Prazeres (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Probably should be of, but expected to be speedy later.
  2. Category:Ottoman Baroque architecture was just made (today) by R Prazeres. It was duplicative and not necessary, so I've quickly nominated it for deletion.
  3. Article Ottoman Baroque architecture was also made by R Prazeres a few months ago. The term is also called "Turkish Baroque". As centuries older style "Ottoman architecture" is rather different than 19th century "Turkish Baroque", the more descriptive name is "Baroque architecture in the Ottoman Empire".
  4. Category:Baroque mosques was made only a year ago, so it's fairly recent. These are all in the Ottoman Empire.
  5. It would be silly to delete and redirect Category:Baroque mosques, as these are by far the most numerous examples, cross-categorized under long standing Category:Mosques.
  6. These are all Category:Buildings and structures of the Ottoman Empire.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This response is astonishing, and seems to miss the point that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Why would we stick to unclear, imprecise, and potentially misleading category names, when we have the actual common terminology laid out in the main articles according to reliable sources? Why would we insist on an independent WP:OR classification in the categories just because it previously existed, with no basis in sources or even the articles?
  • To the main point: I've already explained the issue at that category's talk page here: "Baroque" architecture and "Ottoman Baroque" architecture are not the same thing, even if related. There may be actual examples of traditional European Baroque (Revival) architecture within the empire after the mid-19th century, the only relevant article currently being Cathedral of the Holy Spirit, but everything else belongs to a specific and recognizable subset of Ottoman architecture, not of Baroque architecture in the same tradition as European churches. If you need more context then read Ottoman architecture or the sources cited there; that's what they're for.
    • So if we want to use the older Category:Baroque architecture in the Ottoman Empire as the main category for Ottoman Baroque buildings, then it needs to be renamed accordingly and the single church article should move elsewhere, as it's neither the same period or same style as the mosques. If not, then by all means delete it per WP:SMALLCAT if you like.
  • Re: #3: I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. Ottoman Baroque architecture was actually created two years ago, not months ago, (and is thoroughly sourced, I might add) and is an expansion of the subtopic covered at Ottoman architecture. The "Ottoman Baroque" or "Turkish Baroque" actually corresponds largely to the 18th century, bleeding into the early 19th century, and it's part of Ottoman architecture as I already said, not a separate thing. If we do not want to have subcategories for substyles or subperiods within the 600-year history of Ottoman architecture (a reasonable option if it reduces further confusion), then we could delete the "Baroque mosques" and "Ottoman Baroque" categories altogether and move the mosques simply to Category:Ottoman mosques (for example), if we agree on that. Otherwise, it's a reasonably clear category per the articles.
  • Re: #5: I literally just explained that they not all Ottoman Baroque buildings are mosques, so why keep only the category that excludes relevant examples?
  • Either way, the solution is not Category:Baroque architecture in the Ottoman Empire as is. R Prazeres (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please learn our practices. These are not people. No matter that some literature calls it "Ottoman Baroque" as a shorthand, that usage means Ottoman Empire, not Ottoman Turks people nor Ottoman (furniture). We have naming conventions and many other guidelines that specify Wikipedia:Categorization of people by nationality demonym as a prefix, and by country "the Ottoman Empire" as a suffix. Category:Baroque architecture in the Ottoman Empire is long standing. Stop making categories that do not follow the guidelines. Enough said.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've obfuscated this question beyond recognition. This is about an architectural style, it has nothing to do with WP:PEOPLECAT, nor is this a country category. It doesn't matter where the term "Ottoman" is coming from, it's simply a label in line with common and published terminology on the topic. "Baroque architecture" on its own is absolutely not. "Some literature", as you insultingly dismiss it, is the majority of relevant scholarly literature on the topic, it's literally what Wikipedia is supposed to follow per WP:RELIABLE and WP:COMMONNAME. Your personal interpretations of these art history terms, whatever they are, are irrelevant by comparison. I see nothing in WP:CATNAME that argues in favour of this unclear point you're making, and you're requesting that we instead ignore fundamental content policies for some tenuous status quo argument. R Prazeres (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A question - are all Baroque mosques within the former Ottoman Empire, or are there also mosques in this style beyond its boundaries (e.g., in Morocco, Oman, or Iran)? If the latter, then the proposed new category might be better as a subcategory of the current category. Grutness...wha? 12:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They are all mosques built within the Ottoman Empire, yes, as reflected in the current contents. There is no such thing as "Baroque mosques" in general, in reliable sources, unless as a shorthand for Ottoman Baroque. R Prazeres (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Theatres that have burned down[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Seems like an oddly titled category. Given that other similar categories (e.g., Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by tornado, Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by flooding) use the proposed form, it would make sense for this to follow suit. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete and sort into existing categories — The "burned buildings by country" and "destroyed by arson" categories are well established. It was decided long ago that arson is defining, but general fires are too common.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


January 8[edit]

Deaf people categories[edit]

List of around 70 categories for Deaf and Deafblind
  • Rationale: opposed speedy on the grounds that 'Deaf' (uppercase) might be preferable (see eg Deaf culture). I have no views on deaf/Deaf but am opposed to the present name. Oculi (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
Discussion[edit]

Category:Protests against the islamic religious police[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Possibly WP:SMALLCAT, just one article currently. Brandmeistertalk 12:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Rage against the veil protests deaths of women[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Weird name apparently reflecting deaths related to wearing compusory hijab. Other suggested name is possible. Brandmeistertalk 12:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge to the category discussed below. So far there are two articles about individual deaths, a separate category is too premature for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Rage against the veil protests[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Weird name apparently reflecting protests against compulsory hijab or possibly other Islamic dress. The subcategory is also up to renaming. Brandmeistertalk 11:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:American gay actors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These categories such as Category:American gay actors, Category:American lesbian actresses, Category:American bisexual actors are completely unnecessary and redundant. LGBT people by occupation from any country in the world should not be segregated by individual sexuality. For example, many pages in the Category:American bisexual actors still also have the Category:American LGBT actors included in the category section and there cannot be both. The obvious solution is to remove one of them. Another example is, some categories like Category:French gay actors and Category:French lesbian actresses only had at least one or two pages in them and also included Category:French LGBT actors in the page. Again, we can’t have both. I created Category:Gay film actors, Category:Gay television actors, Category:Gay stage actors, etc as a subcategory to the Category:Gay actors page. I apologise if my edits came across as disruptive but Category:Gay actors by nationality and Category:Lesbian actresses by nationality should not be there for all the reasons I’ve listed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni 0331 (talk • contribs)
  • This requires a batch nomination. Just merging Category:American gay actors and leaving the rest untouched is not helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also the category page has not been tagged for CfD. See WP:CFD for instructions. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. With 1,184 articles across the target and its subcategories, a single merged category here would be too large, so Category:American LGBT actors requires subcategorization for size purposes — and, in fact, CFD already weighed in on this very category just over a year ago (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 21#Category:American gay actors) and landed at a keep. Nominator has also not made any serious case for why gay actors, lesbian actresses, etc., should not be subcategorized by nationality, yet somehow should be subcategorized by a television vs. film vs. stage distinction that has no relationship to sexual orientation or gender identity at all — the reasoning above boils down to "because I said so", not any actual reasons why a film/TV/stage distinction would be more meaningful and relevant than distinguishing by nationality in this context. And finally, duplicate "parent + subcategory" issues are resolved by removing the parent from the affected articles, not by completely erasing the entire existence of the subcategory — I just did an AWB run to fix the dupes, and found that to be a minor issue affecting just 32 articles total. But that's a small and insignificant percentage of 1,184, making that not a major problem — and spoiler alert, on at least two of those articles the nominator was the person who put the unnecessary duplicate category on the page, even though it was already appropriately subcategorized, in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Category:Gay actors can be subcatted by nationality and by some other property. It should be a double upmerge to a gay category as well: it is surprising that there is no 'by nationality' subcat scheme for Category:Gay men. Oculi (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Hardcore music genres[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The current name is ambiguous and could be perceived as a category combining hardcore techno and hardcore punk + other possible variants Solidest (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:1866 in sports in Wisconsin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in 1866 in American sports doesn't need to be under two layers of subcategories. Merge to 1866 in Wisconsin and 1866 in American sports. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose: While only a couple of categories in the 1860s (but not Category:1869 in sports in New Jersey are proposed; by the 1890s there are dozens of articles to be recategorised, I do not see the need for having a different structure for the 19th century, and losing the connection between Category:1866 in sports in Wisconsin and Category:1866 in Wisconsin. Keep as part of a series. Hugo999 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support — unnecessary triple intersection with no room for growth. Heck, could be the beginning of removal of the whole useless series divided by state, when there simply aren't that many states. There are even sparsely populated subcategories years in the future.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Sports venues in Bridgeport, Connecticut[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Merge all as listed above. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Don't merge to tourist attractions. While a sports venue may be a tourist attraction, it is not so by default. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Read WP:SMALLCAT again...it says not to have small categories "with no potential for growth." As long as the city is standing, there is always potential for more venues and the category's growth. Tom Danson (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, but manually to Tourist attractions with sufficient article support — growth potential is relative. We expect some indication that there is actual growth, such as census data.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, what kind of census data would be enough to satisfy you? Tom Danson (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:People from Bruceville-Eddy, Texas[edit]

Nominator's rationale: One page. Merge to county-level. Source indicates he was from McLennan County part of town here. –Aidan721 (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:People from Ingleside, Texas[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Lone article states that he coached in Ingleside, but has no claim that he is "from Ingleside, Texas" (in fact he was born elsewhere), therefore this category should be deleted. –Aidan721 (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, there is no confirmation that he really lived in Ingleside, and he worked there for a very short period anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Cultural depictions of criminals[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Time to continue cleanup we did at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_11#Category:Cultural_depictions_of_people. Cultural depictions=depictions=works based on/about. If we go down the subcategory, we end up at Category:Cultural depictions of Adolf Hitler which has Category:Novels about Adolf Hitler‎, a part of Category:Works about Adolf Hitler. So this needs renaming/merging and we should also rename/merge all child categories, as this "cultural depictions of" tree just duplicates "works about" one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per precedent, this is an unnecessary split in the category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Templates that must be substituted[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Wikipedia substituted templates. I'd weakly support a redirect, but it doesn't seem particularly plausible. Clyde!Franklin! 00:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


January 7[edit]

Category:LGBT actors by medium[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Newly created category scheme of dubious necessity. LGBT actors aren't really usefully defined by "medium" distinctions -- that is, being an LGBT television actor isn't meaningfully different from being an LGBT film actor or an LGBT stage actor, because the differences between those things are unconnected to sexuality or gender identity -- and in the contemporary media landscape, there really aren't very many actors who only act in one type of media in the first place: in the modern era, when by far the majority of LGBT actors have been able to be out at all, it's quite rare for people to do only film acting or only television acting or only stage acting or only voice acting, and instead actors quite frequently do two, three or even all four of those things. But that leads to category bloat, because now instead of being categorized as just an "American gay actor", a person may have to be in up to five separate categories for the various intersections of nationality, sexuality and medium: "American LGBT actors", "gay film actors", "gay television actors", "gay stage actors" and "gay voice actors", now requiring five categories instead of one.
Furthermore, the editor who created these has simultaneously been emptying the existing "Nationality gay actors" and "Nationality lesbian actresses" trees out of process, arbitrarily moving performers out of those categories and back to their general "LGBT" parents without establishing any consensus to zap any of those subcategories, at the same time as implementing these as a replacement.
CFD has already established a consensus, per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 21#Category:American gay actors, that categories like Category:Gay actors and Category:Lesbian actresses were getting large enough to need diffusion into subcategories -- but the "by nationality" scheme that already existed is a much more useful and relevant distinction than this, and certainly should not be getting replaced with this by a single user without establishing any sort of consensus for that first.
Some caution may be needed to ensure that people don't get entirely pulled out of the LGBT actors tree, so some manual upmerging to parent categories may be necessary — but since the nationality categories should never have been emptied out without discussion in the first place, reverting people who were formerly in those back into them, and then upmerging just the remaining stragglers, should take precedence over a blanket upmerge. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your reasoning there amounts to "because I said so", and fails to provide any actual reasons why subdividing this tree by a film vs. television vs. stage distinction, which has nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity at all, should be preferred over subdividing this tree by nationality. Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge all back to equivalent actor category. It is in the nature of an acting career that a person will take what roles are offered, so that they may appear in film in one year, TV later, and on stage on another occasion. Splitting actors by medium does not work. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Sports venues in northern Minnesota[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category:Northern Minnesota is an imprecise region with no head category. All articles are already in appropriate subcategories, therefore deletion is more appropriate than merging. User:Namiba 17:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Television by language of Nigeria[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These category layers are not useful, as they only hold one sub-cat. I could not find any other content to add to this hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 12:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Podcasts directed by Sophia Mendonça[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is no hierarchy of podcasts by director. The one member page is already in other podcast categories. User:kj cheetham apparently intended to include this at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_30#Category:Sophia_Mendonça. – Fayenatic London 11:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Germany LGBT actors[edit]

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: immediate rename, remedial to mistyped Speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 12:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a minor typo that needs to be remedied as quickly as possible as the "y" in Germany needs to be removed. Giovanni 0331 (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Ludum Dare video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The current title is a bit misleading, as almost none of those games have their current versions as part of Ludum Dare or are primarily notable for being on it. Rather, they merely originated from it at some point in their early history. Zerbu Talk 09:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Fellows of the Tanzania Academy of Sciences[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There is currently no article for Tanzania Academy of Sciences. I'm wondering if this category should exist when the related article currently does not exist yet. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a national award of the highest prestige. It is a pergect example why Africa is underrepresented, what there is does not fit in with what we expect of "our own" subjects that does have a public with an interest to write about it. So no, bad idea. GerardM (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, it is hardly mentioned in the articles that are in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


January 6[edit]

Category:National Guard of Pakistan[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Most of the sources in the National Guard (Pakistan) article refer to just the "National Guard". The relevant 1973 law refers to the "National Guards" (see citation 3 in the article). Gedrose (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Felid-human interaction[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Felid-human interaction is a synonym of Felids and humans and doesn't need to be a subcategory IMHO jengod (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, I can't tell the difference between the two categories either. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Felines and humans[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Felids seems to be the more populated category jengod (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, the articles about lions do not belong here, lions are not felines, they are felids though. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support but it will probably be desirable to define felid in the headnote as animals belonging to the cat family felidae. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Superpowers[edit]

  • or Delete
Nominator's rationale: There have only ever been 4 worldwide superpower nations, and only 1 hyperpower nation, so WP:SMALLCAT. Lately, it has been filled with historical great and regional powers. After renaming, many should be split to Category:Regional powers.
This category originated as superhuman superpowers. However, it was taken over without discussion. It has become an uncoordinated mess of barely related articles that frequently should be in more specific categories.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, marked as alternative. Delete was my initial thought, but was willing to entertain some repurposing.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was focusing too much on the subcategories alone. At second thought I am counting some 10 articles that truly are about the topic "superpower". So purge rather than delete. Possibly rename to Category:Superpower (singular). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Murder victims by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: C2C: all the subcategories are "People murdered in <foo>", match {Commons category|People murdered by country}.
Moved from Speedy.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. In fact, the subcats are all "People murdered in", which obviously doesn't apply to this container cat, which is why it has a different name. "Murdered people by country" would be better English, but, frankly, best of all is the current title, as "murder victims" is the WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Doubt "murder victims" is the WP:COMMONNAME, especially as that is contrary to the "Commons category" across all wikipedias.
  1. Opposed to renaming all the subcategories to "murder victims".
  2. Agree that "murdered people" sounds like marginally better grammar, but this is a people category.
  3. Fairly recently moved "Murdered sex workers" to "Sex workers murdered", so consensus is running the other way.
  4. Is anybody proposing renaming all these subcategories "murdered people"?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant that "murder victims" is by far the commonest name in the actual real world. The reason it's not used in the subcats is that just because someone is murdered in a country doesn't mean they came from that country (e.g. "British murder victims" and "People murdered in the United Kingdom" are not the same thing). However, see Category:Murder victims by nationality. "People murdered by country" is just not good English. As to Category:Sex workers murdered in the United States, that's clearly better than Category:Murdered sex workers in the United States. These are just not the same situations. And the parent cat is Category:Murdered sex workers in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to google ngrams, "murdered people" and "people murdered" were most common as far back as it goes. Heck, "murder victims" doesn't even show up until after 1960, and the knee of the graph is roughly 1984 (Reagan era), and it is declining. So "murder victims" is ultraconservative or reactionary verbiage. That's contrary to WP:NPOV.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: the above discussion indicates the "by country" suffix is grammatically problematic as a sentence. But that's what we've been using for nearly 20 years. I'd prefer we pick something consistent, rather than some "<bar> murdered" alternating with "murdered <baz>". Yes, I know, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Muslim scholars[edit]

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- The effect of this will be that "Muslim scholars of Islam" will be directly under "Muslim writers". This is a necessary result of having moved those engaged in Muslim studies as an academic discipline undertaken by outsiders having been moved into a different branch of the tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Historians of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

Nominator's rationale: disperse, this is a third and confusing category between Category:Historians from the Ottoman Empire and Category:Scholars of Ottoman history. The articles belong in the tree of the former. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Arab historians of Islam[edit]

Nominator's rationale: manually merge, trivial intersection between ethnicity and occupation. Note that the far amount of articles is already in Category:Historians of the medieval Islamic world, a subcategory of the target, so these articles can just be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20th-century sportsmen[edit]

  • Current status
  • Alternate proposals
  • The objection is that there was consensus twice that the category should be deleted. How much weight this has is up for discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option A The deletion was poorly thought out, and created categorization problems. Dimadick (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Option NC — no consensus to change. Agree with David Eppstein, categorizing people by cross-sections of century, sport, gender, and country is bad. Remove all those competition and venue subcategories. They belong under "by occupation", and rather far down that rathole. This will all fall apart with transgender or female FIFA players. Kill everything under Category:Sportspeople by century as well (now have 19th and 18th), otherwise we'll have 1st-century eventually.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment -- The rationale of the 2010 discussion was that it was in essence a current/past split. That was relevant in 2010, but most sporting careers only last a decade or so, so that there may be a case for allowing the split now, but "20th-century sportsmen" should only be a container. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Writers who committed suicide by nationality[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT individual categories that accidentally escaped Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 28#Category:Writers who committed suicide by nationality. Apparently, edits swapping their categories happened during the purge.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Sportspeople from Newburyport, Massachusetts[edit]

Nominator's rationale: More appropriate to merge to Sportspeople from Essex County, Massachusetts and People from Newburyport, Massachusetts. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • WP:SMALLCAT does not seem applicable here. So what is the rationale for the merge? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Do we really need to break down the people in this town by occupation? People are more likely to want to navigate between all people from this town. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep partly as creator. But mostly a keep because this is part of a much larger people from foo by occupation scheme throughout the US and I believe many other countries. Including two other such sub categories for the people from city cat here. The above arguments and similar ones have been have been rejected time and again. If I recall we had a big discussion on this like a decade ago and it was decided then that basically the last part of WP:OCLOCATION allows for this to breakdown larger categories. In essence, don't do it for three actors (since that violates SMALLCAT), but once you get to say 10 (as I have never seen a category deleted per SMALLCAT with ten entries or more), then do it, inline with WP:DIFFUSE. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge and depopulate — most don't even mention they were sportspeople in this town, instead seem to be automatically based upon birthplace. That was explicitly forbidden in WP:OCLOCATION, specifically for sport. Categorize by place they were active. A pro-baseball player who grew up elsewhere and didn't even attend high school or college here isn't "from" Newburyport. An olympic racewalker who raced elsewhere as an adult isn't "from" Newburyport.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • In principle I agree that categorizing people by city or town is not very helpful for navigation between related articles. I cannot imagine wp users reading articles about people from place X just because they are from place X. But this requires a much broader discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Depopulated. Only one was actually raised and performed here. The rest all left the county or state as children. WP:NONDEFINING WP:OCLOCATION WP:OCTRIVIA. Broad discussion was already completed years ago, see WP:COP-PLACE: The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual. The residence of parents and relatives is never defining and rarely notable. The place of death is not normally categorized....
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


January 5[edit]

Category:English-language education[edit]

Nominator's rationale: most subcats of Category:Language education by language are probably wrong. "English-language education" refers to education carried out in the english language, but not education of the english language. for example, teaching sci and math in english in malaysia is an aspect of "English-language education", but not education of the language.
some subcats correctly reflect this. Category:English-language schools contains english medium schools, but not language schools that teach english. RZuo (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep unless a better alternative can be suggested. Like many categories this one is somewhat diffuse in its scope, but that is no harm. Trying to make categories too precise tends to result in lots of small categories which them have to be merged back. English-medium Education is the gateway to well-paid work in many parts of India. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
do you know what's being discussed here?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged Category:Language education by language
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Marcocapelle and Peterkingiron: This was relisted (more than twice, contrary to WP:RELIST instructions). I'd have preferred closing keep, and starting a new broader discussion. But now we are discussing:
Note that RZuo is using a hyphen ("-language") to distinguish between education in a language and education about a language.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment -- There are several kinds of institution for which the present name may be a high level parent:
    • "English-medium education" where the instruction is given in English (or mainly so) where that is not the main language
    • "English language-schools" whose function is to teach English as a second language.
    • "schools teaching in English language", for example in French-speaking Quebec; or in Wales where some schools teach in Welsh
    • Universities teaching their courses in English (for example in Netherlands or Japan), because English is the main language of scientific communication.
To some extent these will inevitably overlap. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Anti-patterns[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "Anti-pattern" is too vague to be useful on its own. Most readers are probably looking for examples of a specific type of anti-pattern, but this category groups topics that are only vaguely related together. It's also currently a sub-category of multiple software development categories, despite not all the anti-patterns being related to software development, which only makes things more confusing. Zerbu Talk 08:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have checked a significant number of articles and they were all about software programming. Can you give a few examples of articles that would belong in Category:Project management anti-patterns? I also noted that a number of articles were not about anti-patterns but instead more generally about poor programming habits, where would they go? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Instruction creep, Law of the instrument, Shturmovshchina are a few random examples. I suggested splitting because I felt it would be better than just removing articles, but if others feel differently, an alternative could be to rename the category and remove the unrelated articles. As for the articles about poor programming habits, if the consensus is to split, then perhaps they could be moved to a third category (maybe Category:Code smells, since code smell is a common term for poor programming habits). Zerbu Talk 09:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • IP user is right, in that concepts are not necessarily using the specific term "anti-pattern", i.e. anti-pattern is not a defining characteristic in many cases. Purge the category and only keep articles for which it actually is defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wives of the Beatles[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is not a sensible grouping that meets Wikipedia:CATDEF. People here are geenrally notable for more than their marriage, perhaps with the sole exception of Cynthia Lennon. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep -- We seem to have articles on most of them, some being most notable for who their husband was e.g. Heather Mills. Some have pursued independent careers; some not. If they are NN, they should have no article, but that requires a series of AFDs first. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're kidding? I'd barely remembered that Heather Mills had ever been married to a Beatle. Her lengthy article has a long history before marriage and after marriage. My first thought was Dancing with the Stars. (I'm a US person who enjoys ballroom dancing.)
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep. I think the basic CATDEF definition of "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to" would apply to most if not all of these people. Many reliable sources talking about them will mention that they were married to one of the Beatles. Jahaza (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Beatles — this is currently the only wives for a band. Usually, all family members are included in the primary family category itself. Notability is not heritable or transferable. Yes, some of these should be taken to AfD.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historians of religion[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 or 2 articles in these categories and it does not concern a large established tree. Not all articles need to be merged to Category:Historians of religion because a number of them are already in Category:Historians of Christianity or Category:Historians of Islam. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I think most of those have plenty of potential for growth, we just don't have many articles on non-English scholars. I mean, seriously, there are likely hundreds if not thousands Chinese historians of religion. Iraqi category has interwiki with 6 entries (our smallcat has just 2). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • partial merge only -- I have checked the Iraqi, Slovenian, (identical to Austrian), and Egyptian items. I do not think any merit inclusion in an amorphous historians of religion category. We have a local historian in Kabala, Iraq; a Kurd, whose main work is on language, but investigated the links between Mithraism and the Yazidis; two Austrian historians writing about church history; a Christian monk of Alexandria. I have no objection to adding them to the relevant fooish historians, but Category:Historians of religion seems to me a poor target, which should merely be a container for Category:Historians of Christianity. The Kurdish historian would need to be in that, since there is probably no other suitable merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I agree with Peterkingiron that articles should be put in Category:Historians of Christianity if possible, hence the proposal for manual merging. As for Piotrus' comment, of course en.wiki is biased towards western historians and towards English-speaking historians in particular, that is just something we have to live with. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:National Hockey League venues by team[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These are overcategorizations based on venue per WP:OCVENUE "There is no encyclopedic value in categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there..." User:Namiba 22:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Won't contest this one if it's congruent with (policy) and fair for everyone .. Danielsltt (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objection to this.--User:Namiba 20:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I can tell, the articles are already in Category:Indoor ice hockey venues in California and other state-related categories. This is why I didn't propose merging to those destinations.--User:Namiba 14:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I checked Tampa Bay and Toronto and all articles in there are also in an indoor ice hockey venue. Nevertheless, there is nothing against adding those as merge targets too, just in case one article is not in an indoor ice hockey venue yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • delete -- I should probably have sampled further than I did, but these appear to be multi-use venues used by the team in question. This fails OCVENUE, probably usually SMALLCAT, as there are less than 5 items. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Laura Nyro tribute albums[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, only one entry ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from similar discussion on Dusty Springfield tributes from 2014:

"I would not strongly object to this, but let me explain why I created that and numerous other single-entry subcategories within Category: Tribute albums. The Tribute album category was populated with many entries, some of which were easy to eyeball and identify with the artist or band to whom the tribute was being made, but many of which were not immediately clear. The Shelby Lynne album currently in the category in question, Just a Little Lovin', is an example of this. If users were not familiar with that song, they would not be able to at a glance tell who the artist was whose work was being covered. It seemed much more browsable and user-friendly to minimize the number of album articles directly in the category for Tribute albums, and categorize them by the artist or band (or other uniting theme, such as Category:Tribute albums to music-related organizations). This allowed them to be identifiable at a glance as to who the artist was that was the subject of the tribute, and it allowed alphabetical organization by the covered artist (in this case, under "S" for "Springfield".) Now, I understand that there are also concerns about over-categorizing, and I want to be respectful of that. Additionally, this is one of those jobs that I started a while ago, and meant to come back to sooner, but got sidetracked and so put off on to the back burner. However, I still think that the general approach has merit. If the consensus on the Dusty category is to keep it, then I would return to the Tribute album category and continue work on creating subcats for artists being tributed on the individual articles remaining in that category. Please let me know if I can expand on any of these comments... ...I don't know if there are additional relevant articles, but I do want to encourage my fellow Wikipedians to ask themselves if in this specific situation (that is, tribute albums) it is of greater service to WP users to use subcategories even when there is only one article. It is my belief that it is."

Thanks to all for their contributions and let's discuss further as appropriate, whether on this or another WP talk or discussion page. KConWiki (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep and containerize Category:Tribute albums — per substantive rationale, and 2014 result of no consensus.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have left a note at WT:ALBUMS asking for comments on the principle. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: I like KConWiki's rationale a lot. If the whole purpose of categories is for increasing navigation/searchability throughout the site, and it is to my understanding that this is the case, then any little convenience like a subcategory with a name label certainly aids in that. I for one am not familiar with the Dusty Springfield song which is the namesake of that tribute album KCon mentioned (nor Springfield's discography in general), so being able to catch at a glance that it's a tribute to her rather than any old Joe can only be helpful. QuietHere (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's a list of similar nominations over the past ten years in addition to the Dusty Springfield one noted above.
I have no opinion on the matter; however, a consensus on how to handle these would be beneficial and end the need for further nominations. Note that only the most recent one resulted in a consensus to "keep" suggesting consensus could be changing. For those wanting to upmerge, how many tribute albums would it take to warrant subcategorization by music act/artist? Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would keep it to the usual number of 5 articles per category. With a lower number, the other tribute albums can be linked to directly in the body text of an article, or else added in a "see also" section. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good morning and thanks for your comments and for your many contributions to WP. Regarding the idea of the five-article guideline for category creation mentioned above; I can understand that we need to exercise some caution with things like this, for instance if we started to categorize "U.S. Presidents from Virginia", and then "20th-Century U.S. Presidents from Virginia", and then "Right-handed 20th Century U.S. Presidents from Virginia", and so on. However, I want to encourage WP editors to consider this specific situation, and ask themselves how WP would be made better by eliminating the "xxxx tribute albums" categories that have few (or only one) articles included. I have noted above why I think WP would be improved (at least marginally) by having the articles containerized (I hope I am using that term correctly) by categories for the artist to whom the tribute is being made. Let me offer this scenario: A WP user (not necessarily an editor) happens to click on a link for one of the tribute album categories, and by serendipity is exposed to other artists that they are interested in as well -- "Oh, I didn't realize that there were tribute albums to Twisted Sister, Alabama, Petra, Taylor Swift, The Eagles, and The Shaggs - Those are some of my favorite bands!". That serendipity might not occur if we were to limit the categorization of Tribute albums to one general category if there is only one or a small number of tribute albums to those artists, and the album (article) names do not give a clear indication at a glance of which artist is being tributed. Now, I noticed in one of the comments on one of these discussions, someone raised the idea of doing a subcategory by genre. That is an interesting idea to work into this discussion as well; Perhaps we could do something like "Category:Tribute albums" with a subcategory of "Tribute albums to jazz musicians" which itself has subcategories of "Duke Ellington tribute albums", "Thelonious Monk tribute albums", "Dave Brubeck tribute albums", etc.
On my user page, I have posted a number of quotes that I have come across that relate in one way or another to what motivates me to contribute to Wikipedia. Here is one from the technology writer Nathan Shedroff that I think pertains to this discussion:

"It is also useful to include indexes that organize the same items in different ways. This is important for enabling people to find things in ways that are most appropriate for the things they know or the ways they learn. All people learn differently and have varying skills. Some may be comfortable with maps while others prefer lists. Some may not understand an alphabetical listing while others can’t relate to a continuum. Multiple organizations help everyone find things easier. In addition, even if people understand the organization, they may not have the correct information. For example, they may know the street they need to go to, but not where to find it on a map (this is where street indexes come in handy). They may know that they want a recipe for a low-calorie dessert, but don’t want to search through every recipe in their cookbooks to find one. It is precisely the ability to see the same set of things in different organizations that allows people to uncover the patterns in the relationships between these things. Ideally, people should be able to rearrange the organizations themselves or be provided with different arrangements so they can begin to understand these patterns for themselves."

I appreciate the discussion and I appreciate everyone's contributions to WP, regardless of opinion on this topic. Let's continue to discuss as appropriate. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good morning and thanks for your response - The article Twisted Forever is not listed under Category:Twisted Sister albums, because it is a not in fact a Twisted Sister album (in other words, the music was not performed by Twisted Sister). To your point, yes, if someone knows they are interested in Twisted Sister, they would likely go looking at Twisted Sister-related articles and categories. And, Twisted Forever is linked on the Twisted Sister template, as it should be. But if they are interested in tribute albums in general (that is, the reinterpretation of established musical works by different artists than had originally performed them) then it seems like the absence of a prominent identifier such as a tributed-artist named subcategory would hinder rather than help users to realize that yes, in fact there is a Twisted Sister cover album article that they can peruse if interested. (The fact that the word "Twisted" appears prominently in the names of both the band and the tribute album is not something that we can rely on; There is nothing about the album name Never Say Dinosaur that immediately shows it as being a tribute to the band Petra, unless the user also happened to know that they had a song called "Never Say Die". And also, if someone was looking for a tribute album to Lambert, Hendricks and Ross, then reliance on the use of the word "Twisted" as an identifier of tributes to Twisted Sister could prove a stumbling block.) So again, I don't see what it hurts to create the single-article subcategories, and I do see scenarios where it would be helpful to users. Thanks again. KConWiki (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gambling media -> Media about gambling[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Change to more current syntax that emphasizes that the category is for media where the element is a primary factor, not an incidental one. DonIago (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: The renaming would match the syntax of other categories, like those in Category:Films by topic. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support with one change: Category:Films about baccarat doesn't need disambiguation. I doubt there are many films about fine crystal. Besides that theoretical category would be capitalized Films about Baccarat anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support and agree with Clarity. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with Clarity's suggestion. I've updated the CfR. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Baccarat is not capitalized for the game, only for the company. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, you were the one who used the capital B in your comment from 28 December...I believe I had it as a lowercase b to that point. Would you like me to change it back? DonIago (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question: if I understand correctly, the lottery game shows all included the draw of a national or state lottery (e.g. the British ones listed at The National Lottery Draws#Saturday night game shows). Does this really make them about lotteries? Is there a better name, e.g. "Game shows including lottery draws"? – Fayenatic London 16:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm open to other options. When the original discussion that spawned the paradigm shift from "X films" to "Films about X" was ongoing, I'd suggested, as a bit of a compromise option, "Films featuring X", but the feeling was that we needed to be more explicitly clear that X needed to be a primary feature of the film. To me, "including" would have the same issue. I realize "about" is a bit fuzzy too, but for the purposes of consistency and emphasizing the intention, I'm not sure there's a better option. DonIago (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Several of the articles described the show as a "lottery game show", which implies that the current category names may be fitting. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm fine with dropping them from this batch in the interest of moving things along as well. DonIago (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Irish Canadian baseball players[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The Irish influence in Canadian sports has been well-documented (see, for example, Gaelic Games Canada but not this particular intersection. Therefore, this intersection fails WP:OCEGRS. User:Namiba 14:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep -- The category has a population of 15, which suggests to me that this is a substantial intersection; hence potentially notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not every substantial intersection is notable.--User:Namiba 20:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


January 4[edit]

Category:2022 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election[edit]

Nominator's rationale: there was more than one election. 1857a (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom. Initially I was going to say, shouldn't it be split, but that would leave very tiny categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Jewish American sportspeople[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Precedent is Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 25#Category:Sportspeople by religion, with specific examples at WP:OCEGRS.
Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist.
Dedicated group-subject subcategories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. There is no Jewish method of coaching, or managing, or playing these sports.
This also suffers from Verifiability and maintenance. WP:CATEGRS requires:
Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question....
Furthermore, WP:COP-HERITAGE requires:
Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We require that the sport topic in its own right be distinct and unique to Jewish Americans.
  1. There is no distinct and unique method of playing these sports culturally or genetically inherited from their parents or grandparents.
  2. There is no distinct and unique Jewish American baseball.
  3. There is no distinct and unique Jewish American boxing.
  4. There are no distinct and unique Jewish American doctors. (previously decided)
  5. There are no distinct and unique Jewish American philosophers. (previously decided)
  6. WP:OTHERSTUFF
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Again and again, it would be helpful to actually read the text of the citations.
  1. This is not Jewish-American culture, not Jewish-American ethnicity, and not Jewish-American religion. It's merely poverty.
  2. Jews participated in boxing because they were from "impoverished urban ghettos", and "[s]hocked first-generation Jews who regarded boxing as antithetical to Jewish religious teachings and traditions."
  3. The first section is titled "The Anglo-American Boxing Heritage". Jewish-Americans were accepted by integrating with Anglo-Americans. We need to categorize that?
  4. Likewise, an entire book is written about Jews Entering the American Mainstream: "baseball became an avenue by which Jewish immigrants could assimilate into American culture." We need to categorize that?
  5. The examples of WP:OCEGRS literally say we do not categorize Jewish mathematicians, nor sportspeople by religion.
  6. This constant "othering" of Jewish-Americans is not a good look.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Albanian male cyclists born in 1995[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily specific category, that is not at all the standard on here. Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:IRL streamers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be redundant or unnecessary. Any article of a real person in Category:Live streamers or a subcategory like Category:YouTube streamers is, by definition, an "IRL streamer." Unless there are more notable fictional characters who livestream than notable real persons, I see no value in distinguishing any articles this way. inclusivedisjunction (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Sam Rivers albums[edit]

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: Dpeedy rename C2D Timrollpickering (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current category points to a disambiguation page.
Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 YouTubers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per the discussion that ruled to delete Category:Male YouTubers, its female equivalent should be deleted as well. Wikipedia:Male is not the default describes this—it reads, avoid labelling a woman as a female author or female politician, unless her gender is explicitly relevant to the article. In April 2013 several media stories noted that editors on the English Wikipedia had begun moving women from Category:American novelists to Category:American women novelists, while leaving men in the main category. Linguists call this markedness. Treating a man who is a writer as a "writer" and a woman as a "woman writer" presents women as "marked", or the Other, requiring an adjective to differentiate them from the male default. Media outlets like The New York Times and The Guardian have picked up on this, and it has been the subject of controversy. For this reason, I believe that we should delete all "female YouTubers" categories—
(I don't know how to do a nomination of multiple at once, so I just listed them all; feel free to properly reformat the nomination and remove the prose list). DecafPotato (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While I am not opposing this particular nomination, it is important to note that Wikipedia:Male is not the default is just an essay, while WP:CATGENDER is part of a guideline, and they may well contradict each other in some cases. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not saying that it's policy/guidelines (sorry if it came off that way), I'm just using it to give a more detailed version of my rationale because it's a similar perspective, and to also show that this is a thing I'm not just making up. DecafPotato (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - my recollection is that a gendered subcat was OK as long as it is non-diffusing, which this is. Oculi (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete — and I've tagged the subcategories.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete - we should either have categories for every gender of YouTuber we have articles about or we should have no gendered categories for YouTubers. I don't have a preference which, but given that the categories for male youtubers were deleted for being a "trivial intersection between occupation and gender" then the categories for female youtubers (and any categories for youtubers of other genders we have, I haven't looked) should be deleted for the same reason. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep I still stand my point that content creators should be categorized by gender, and that the deletion of the male categories was wrong. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


January 3[edit]

Category:Lists of statues of presidents of the United States[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per parent article, List of sculptures of presidents of the United States. All statues are sculptures, but not all sculptures are statues. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Films set in farms[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The clear common usage is on a farm, not in a farm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Academics in Europe[edit]

Procedural nomination for renaming categories previously discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_3#Academic_personnel_in_Europe, for all categories of academics in Europe excluding UK and Ireland.
I found consensus in favour of "academics" rather than "faculty" or "academic personnel", and closed that discussion as use names beginning "Academics of", e.g. Category:Academics of Aleksandër Moisiu University, inserting "the" in specified cases e.g. Category:Academics of the University of Paris.
Following that close I implemented renaming of countries beginning with A, but suspended implementation as the CFD close was taken to review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 October. That review partially endorsed the close and called for a further discussion to choose between Option 1 – Academics of Foo University, following the accepted format for UK and Ireland; or Option 2 – Foo University academics.
Examples for Option 1 – Academics of Foo University
Examples for Option 2 – Foo University academics
The full list of nominated categories (showing option 1) is at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 3. This now includes relisting those for Finland, as the result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 30#Faculty by university or college in Finland was overturned by the subsequent CFD & this was upheld by the Move review. – Fayenatic London 13:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: It should be taken as read that Alumni categories will be nominated to match in due course. – Fayenatic London 16:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Jc37, Piotrus, Peterkingiron, Necrothesp, Renata3, UnitedStatesian, Place Clichy, Oculi, Sharouser, David Eppstein, Marcocapelle, Oculi, Justlettersandnumbers, Santasa99, SeoR, Joy, Timrollpickering, Waggers, Jonathan A Jones, and 4meter4: ping as contributors to previous discussions. – Fayenatic London 16:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1, "Academics of ...", per previous discussion. Option 2 would perpetuate the recurring problem of the missing closing comma where the name of the institution already contains one, as in Category:Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb academics (which to be grammatically 'correct' should read "Category:Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb, academics", and that, unfortunately, is just nonsense). For a comparable blue-linked example of the problem, please see Category:Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb alumni. And yes, many of those will need to be renamed too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Refuse to participate as both options sound entirely UK-centric to me. As an American, to me "academics of University X" means the scholarly work and teaching performed at University X, as distinguished from its other activities such as sports. It does not have the intended primary meaning of "people who work as professors" to me. As such, I do not feel competent to judge how a Brit would properly order the words of American-exclusionary wording. "Academic personnel of ..." would be less ambiguous but has not been given as an option. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I mostly side with David here, I'd go with academic personel. Academics is too ambigious. We will be back fixing this issue here again. Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Outside English-speaking domain, "academic personnel" could, and in many places indeed does (in Serbo-Croatian: osoblje fakulteta/akademije), include entire staff and all servicing personnel, from doormen and genitors to deans. ౪ Santa ౪99° 14:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It would be better and less ambiguous to use "academic staff". ౪ Santa ౪99° 14:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not meaningful, because osoblje is likewise translated as "staff", and the word order matters - the term akademsko osoblje would preclude such an interpretation. In any event I don't think all this is too relevant to this discussion because we don't need the English readers to automagically get some sort of a cross-Indo-European understanding of all related terms and phrases :) we will make plenty of progress if we just avoid automatically confusing them with two meanings of "faculty" in the same context. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In fact, "staff" is a worse choice, because in US-based academia, employees are largely distinguished into "faculty" and "staff"; "staff" is the word used for those employees of a university who are not professors. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, this was commented before, that's why "academic staff" was the least controversial variant. I'm not sure if I can imagine an American reader having a problem with seeing e.g. "Category:Academic staff of the Heidelberg University" on a German professor's article. Esp. if one day there's "Category:Academic staff of the Heidelberg University Faculty of Law". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you can't imagine it, try harder.
    I think a reader familiar with American academia would be very confused with that category name and wonder "Why is there a category for the professors' secretaries, department managers, and other people who work on the academic side but are not professors themselves? How are any of these people notable?" That would be the default meaning of "academic staff" for an American. Alternatively, if they have more familiarity with other systems, maybe they would wonder "why is German nomenclature so very very British? Don't Germans use their own nomenclature?"
    My perspective on this whole discussion is that far too many participants are taking the approach "I would use this phrasing, so we should all use this phrasing" without any awareness that the phrasing they are use is very specific to the dialect of English that they use. I am not seeing a lot of effort at understanding the wide variation that goes into these kinds of names and at finding commonality in phrasing that we can all understand. I am seeing even less input from people who are familiar with the specific national European academic systems under discussion and how they organize themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, it seems I missed this comment before. In the meantime I responded to the comments below, which addresses a lot of this. In another subthread I just posted info about other locations where English is used. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1, "Academics of ...", per previous discussion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But per the discussion below I would have no objection to "Academic staff of " as an alternative. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep the present 'Foo faculty' which has on the whole been perfectly acceptable for many years without any objection to the vast majority of the individual subcats. Mildly oppose 'foo academics'. Oppose 'academics of foo' with vehemence. Agree with David Eppstein that this is UK-centric (both in wording and word order). It's ridiculous to roll out the same unnecessary change to the vast alumni tree. Cfd is cfd - all options are up for discussion - reviewers are no more entitled to impose restrictions than nominators. It is also true in the UK that 'academics' does (also) mean scholarly work: see eg Manchester University Academics and is thus no less ambiguous than faculty. Oculi (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I was certainly willing to relist the UK & Ireland categories in this nomination. If any more participants consider their current names ambiguous or inferior, then I am willing to add them, despite the restriction against relisting them stated in the Move review. But as you have vigorously defended their current names in the past, I suspect that this is not what you intended to convey!
    If you mean that we should reject the restriction to only two options for renaming Europe excluding UK & Ireland, then I agree. Participants should feel free to state "Option 3…" etc if they prefer any other form of words.
    May I suggest that you state your preference as "Option 3, Foo faculty" in case this gains support, as it could then be used to rename Albania, Armenia, Austria & Azerbaijan back from "Academics"; and to rename Finland, most of Ukraine and the parent categories (speedily renamed) back from "Academic personnel". – Fayenatic London 18:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In the category tree of this large of a size, it's way too easy to claim that there wasn't any objection to the vast majority of the individual subcats, because most people don't deal with changes in category names, and the system is way harder to change that the more conventional aspects of Wikipedia like article content. The objections to this naming are by now reasonably well documented, and I don't think it's fair to dismiss them out of hand like this, especially in the context of Europe where most of the objections seem to have been coming from. It's a bit silly to keep hearing about UK-centricity when a US-centric naming has been used for so many years without a real rationale in this context. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As we write about education in all countries, not just US or UK, I find @Marcocapelle clear explanation that in most countries "faculty" refers to institution not professional individual academic status valid. ౪ Santa ౪99° 14:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is also true in the UK that 'academics' does (also) mean scholarly work... Not in common speech it doesn't. I've worked at a British university for over twenty years and I could count the number of times I've heard it used like that on the fingers of one hand. So no, not ambiguous at all. When we refer to "academics" we mean teaching and research staff. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just repeating from the previous discussions: the word "faculty" is ambiguous in most countries, often referring to an organizational unit rather than to people, e.g. here is a link named "faculties and schools". "Academics", "academic personnel" or "academic staff" is far less ambiguous and equally common. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is a fine example of the problem of trying to standardise notation for worldwide entities. In the UK "faculty" refers to either the organisational unit or the body of people within that unit, but not the individuals making up that body, who are the academics or the academic staff (not normally the academic personnel, though that term is perhaps starting to appear). Sometimes inconsistencies should just be left alone because all alternatives are worse. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Well, Category talk:Faculty by university or college#Request for comment on naming produced "staff" as an alternative, though to the chagrin of a couple of American editors, so it was not applied universally. I don't have reason to believe that there would be objections to the word staff being used in the container category in the context of Europe, but it was omitted for no real reason in some previous CfDs and we now keep spinning in circles :) The word "personnel" was criticized by two people in that discussion, but "academic staff" saw no objection, so I say let's go with that because it seems reasonably descriptive and generic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I'm going to extend the pings to include all those people who responded to last year's RFC: @Robminchin @ElKevbo @Shadowssettle @Czar @Asmodea Oaktree @Sea Ane @Carlossuarez46 @Firejuggler86 --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 – in any case, use the genitive construction "Academics of X" (or "Academic personnel/staff of X") since it's more formal than "X academics", avoids awkward naming when X is a long construction, and is WP:CONSISTENT with Category:Presidents by country, and pretty much everything in Category:People by country. Strong oppose getting back to "faculty", which is alien to most European countries in this meaning. Neutral as to the "Academics" vs. "Academic personnel" vs. "Academic staff", either title works, as long as it's mostly consistent within the larger group. No such user (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1 – "Academics of Foo" (or "Academic staff of Foo", but certainly not "Academic personnel of Foo"). I also add strong oppose to getting back to "faculty", which is alien to most (European) countries and languages (in most Slavic languages there is of course synonymous but no direct translation which refers to individual professional status of an academic - direct translation "faculty" to "fakultet", in Serbo-Croatian for instance, refers only to institution, a school. As for "Academic personnel" vs. "Academic staff", later works and is less ambiguous: outside English-speaking domain, "academic personnel" could, and in many places indeed does (again example in Serbo-Croatian: osoblje fakulteta/akademije), include entire teaching and admin staff and all servicing personnel, from doormen and genitors to deans.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1, with the suggested alternative "Academic staff of X". I think academic staff is less confusing in American English, where academics has a different meaning: Cornell called me academic staff when I worked there, so clearly that is a phrase the does work in both British and American English. There's no point relitigating faculty – it doesn't work, for all the reasons given previously, and people should forget it (i.e. strongly oppose this option). Using academic staff then pushes us strongly to option 1 as "Academic staff of X" works fine while "X academic staff" just doesn't sound natural in English (even with just academics, option 2 sometimes sounds less natural, but this is stronger with academic staff). Robminchin (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I wrote above, "staff" is again a horribly US-exclusionary choice. In US academia, "staff" means university employees who are not professors (building maintenance workers, secretaries, department managers, accountants, and the like). Per MOS:COMMONALITY, we should be looking for opportunities to use language that is as widely understood as possible, not pushing to make our choice of language as UK-specific and anti-US as possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, you can make that argument about just "staff", but the proposal above is "academic staff". How likely is it that there's a large contingent of English readers who will see a category of European professors and be astonished that they are referred to as academic staff of their respective university/faculty? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Academic staff" are the subset of staff (building maintenance workers, secretaries, department managers, accountants, and the like) who work on the academic side of things. People hired to advise students on what courses they should take, people who manage academic affairs, that sort of thing. They are not people who teach. In American English, people who teach are "faculty", people who work for the university in non-scholarly roles are "staff", and "academic" does not mean a person who teaches but rather "related to teaching and research", so "academic staff" would obviously mean "people who do something that relates to teaching and research but is not of a scholarly nature". If anyone in US academia would see that phrase and understand your intended meaning for it instead, it would only be through some level of familiarity with British academia, because it is not a term that makes sense in US English. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you happen to have some references to demonstrate the prevalence of this setup? A search of academic staff on Google Books brings up a lot of American sources from various time periods that don't seem to clearly show this distinction. I then also searched for the combined phrase 'faculty and academic staff' and this led to a handful of university documents that clearly delinate these two categories, similar to what you described, yet there were also a lot of them that clearly indicated that academic staff is of a scholarly nature, but doesn't have the same rank as faculty. If e.g. the American categories were named "Foo faculty" or "Foo faculty and academic staff" while European categories were named "Academic staff of Foo", would this actually make the categorization of Europeans so hard to comprehend to American readers? That doesn't strike me as likely - surely most people would assume it's a general description and/or dependent on this non-American context? I mean, it's a question of how detailed do we really need to go - if the category name doesn't say "tenured professors", but just "faculty", that also doesn't properly convey nuance, either, but we don't expect anyone to mind. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The usual US phrasing is "faculty and staff". Google claims to have about 146,000,000 hits for that phrase. In case you are also somehow still doubtful that "academics" does not mean people in US English, other standard phrases to look for include "academics and sports" (700,000 hits) or "academics and student life" (144,000 hits).
    Why is it so difficult to believe that you are being parochial and that your preferred nomenclature will either be seen as parochial or misunderstood?
    Also, "tenured professors" is not the intended distinction here. The categories in question should include people hired both on permanent (tenured) and on renewable (non-tenured) contracts, both those with teaching-only positions and those with positions that entail a combination of teaching and research, regardless of whether they are called lecturers, readers, professors, assistant professors, associate professors, full professors, docenten, hoofdocenten, hoogleraren, etc etc). They should generally not include people hired with short fixed-term non-renewable positions (postdoctorates), even though their job titles may be similar. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have no idea why you're bringing up "academics" again, and accusing me of being parochial simply from observing real-world ambiguity after verifying what you said? This is the second time I'm seeing this sort of an excessive response... but in this case, nobody is even proposing a rename of American-related categories, only European-related, because we've been over this already and American complaints have already effectively vetoed that. Maybe it was reasonable to assume that this is some sort of a slippery slope after Fayenatic's move, but it's clearly been stopped and we're back to discussing a compromise. Can we also get back to fully assuming good faith? :)
    The intended distinction that you describe, it seems very detailed, it strikes me as being beyond the level most readers would be interested in for categories, by default. I'm coming from a position of seeing the need to split "People of Foo University" into people educated there and people who actually worked there educating the former group, because that seems like a generally clear distinction, one that should be immediately obvious to most readers and one that can be thought of on a wider scale (so we have some level of consistency in the category tree). Within the latter category it's probably useful to think about ranks and length of service, but I would go there in subcategories, which don't have to be applicable on a wider scale.
    For example, universities in Croatia habitually hire to multi-year contracts in roles called 'assistant' and 'senior assistant' where they are very much part of the teaching process for half a decade at least, so if such a person moves from that position into something else, later becomes an assistant professor at a different university, etc, becomes generally notable and gets an article, it's fair to categorize them among the people who worked at both of those universities. For typical English readers, the level at which they worked is not likely to be a distinctive fact that needs to be immediately obvious from categorization. If it still is, at least the process of going up the chain of categories should at some point make it clear that they taught there, not just been educated there, and that's the scope of the category I'm assuming we're discussing now, because that seems to be the status quo of "People of Foo University" subcategorization.
    I looked up a statute of the nearest law school and it said (translated) "Teaching and scientific-professional work at the Faculty is carried out by teachers, scientists and associates elected to scientific-teaching, teaching, scientific and associate positions in accordance with the law". I wouldn't even try to replicate this multiple-layer scheme in Wikipedia categorization (just listing the permutations is a wall of text). Replicating their top-most phrasing into e.g. "Teaching and scientific-professional work staff at X" already seems like overkill, and it's an awkward translation, as the native phrase using two different conjunctions in a row is already a bit curious. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note also that search results for "faculty and staff" are substantially different from those for "faculty and academic staff". The former brings up in the results a number of articles that say clearly that faculty basically means academic staff, while just staff is too generic because it includes everyone. Hence, I'm not sure why readers would be confused by the use of the term "academic staff". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1. The construction is much better English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question for editors outside the US Would the phrase "faculty members" be useful or meaningful? I sometimes use that phrase in my job as a US academic administrator and scholar when referring to the people who are members of the professoriate at my institution and others. This sometimes avoid some ambiguities about the meaning of "faculty" that are less common in the US but still present.
If it's helpful for those outside the US, at many US institutions "academic" used as an adjective when referring to jobs often refers to people who work in specific units i.e., in "academic affairs" as opposed to "student affairs," auxiliary operations. But within those units that are classified as "academic affairs" there are many people who work in jobs that are common outside of academia e.g., human resources, information technology, physical plant maintenance. For a more concrete example, my current position is in a unit that reports to my university's provost so I work in academic affairs and many people would classify me as "academic staff" although I am not a faculty member.
My sense is that there may not be a good set of universally understood labels that work for all subjects and all readers. If that is the case, it seems best to use labels that are reasonable and then clearly explain the membership of the category to help readers and editors understand what we mean with the chosen label. If we can do that then "Academics of __" seems like a reasonable label for us to use. ElKevbo (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came across https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/academic-staff which seems to be useful for an overview of formal English usage. It's apparent from there that US usage is distinct from the rest of the world, and there's examples there from Australia, India, UK, Zimbabwe, Jamaica, Kenya, Ethiopia, Canada, South Africa, Malaysia, Ireland and elsewhere. Hopefully, this is also a relevant indication of common, vernacular usage. Let's assume that it is and think about the worst case - is the proportion of readers of these categories who are only familiar with the US usage and unfamiliar with non-US usage so large that it's a violation of WP:PLA? Would the average reader be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read? If we're on the fence about what's "average reader" here, could explanatory notes in category content suffice to make this tolerable? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me this comment appears to be a combination "lots of people don't follow the American practice of using faculty" (to which I agree) and "therefore it's ok that we use wording that is actively hostile to American readers" (to which I do not). I'm still not seeing any effort at MOS:COMMONALITY. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would using "academic staff" be actively hostile to American readers? Unfamiliar, possibly confusing if they're part of American academia and used to its terminology, but actively hostile seems like a big stretch. Let's consider what might be common use cases:
a) a reader reads about a European professor, and notices "Academic staff of Lund University" - do they ignore what they read in the article content and assume the person was not a teacher there, which would be astonishing?
b) a reader arrives at Category:ETH Zurich and notices a link to "Academic staff of ETH Zurich" (next to the alumni category) - do they think that there is no category for what they know as 'faculty' and fail to click through, which would mean the category navigation was a failure?
Both of these seem like they're possible, but not very likely for the average reader. Even for readers aware of American academia terminology, it seems a bit odd to assume they can't infer any of this from context. --Joy (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1, because the subjects are academics so that should take primary prominence (i.e. it should come first), whereas the institution they work for is secondary. WaggersTALK 13:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Prefer Academic personnel of... as it is the phrasing that seems to clash less with any other meaning, whatever the variety of English. Place Clichy (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Prefer Academic staff of... but no objection to "personnel" or option 1 or option 2. When we investigated this some months ago, I checked in a couple of European languages and found that the American usage of "faculty" for personnel was alien to Europe. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Prefer Academic staff of... (as a US person, where I've been credentialed as visiting academic staff at several universities in the past). Otherwise, Option 1 for preferential voting. No vote for Option 2.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently there seems to be consensus for option 1, insofar that it is something of university, though not necessarily academics. There is consensus for either "Academics of" or "Academic staff of". The argument against academics is that it is ambiguous and UK-centric, meaning scholarly work in America. The argument against academic staff is that staff in America refers to non-professor staff, and therefore academic staff refers to staff working on the academic side of things.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment — not sure how relisting will enlighten anybody. With all due respect to Western US experiences, this is about Europe. In the Eastern US, I've never heard of "academic staff" as a reference to secretaries and janitors, whereas I've seen "personnel" used in that way. So there is unlikely to be confusion using "academic staff" in Europe, and "faculty and staff" in other locales. If a janitor is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page, then there's enough wiggle room for inclusiveness under "staff". But there isn't any likelihood of a universal term per MOS:COMMONALITY.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Further comment (voted above) Please close -- We frequently have ENGVAR situations. In UK, a professor (a term used more sparingly than in US) is one of the academic staff. A janitor (even a lab technician) might be "university staff", but not "academic staff". I would consider academic staff to include Vice-Chancellors, Deans, Readers, Lecturers, Research fellows, possibly post-doctoral research assistants. As I have said, the American use of "faculty" for staff is alien in each of the European languages that I checked. Whatever the practice may be in US, it should not dictate what the appropriate category name should be in European (and other non-American) countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:American sportspeople of European descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:CSD#G4: re-creation of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 16#Category:American sportspeople of European descent. Because this is nearly 12 years old, Liz requested re-listing here.
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with unusual and irrelevant organization. Note that the only entry for Eastern European is the Caucasus subcategory. The other single entries are WP:CSD#G4 re-creations as above, currently re-nominated for deletion, at which point these should all become empty.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Sunni Muslim communities[edit]

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Most countries do not require a Sunni communities subcategory, in case Sunni are in the majority anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Box-office bombs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There are several problems with such a category:
  1. The term is highly subjective and we would end up with endless RFCs about whether this film or that film should be added to the category.
  2. Profit/loss analysis is not widely available for most films. We do have a list of big flops at List of biggest box-office bombs and I think a list is better for this sort of thing where sources can be provided.
  3. Unless it is something like Heaven's Gate, a film flopping is often not a defining trait, so many films that have technically flopped would fail WP:CATDEF. While Heaven's Gate would undoubtedly qualify for such a category, can the same be said about The Shawshank Redemption or Vertigo ?
These types of list have been routinely deleted in the past:
To my knowledge there has been no fundamental shift of opinion. For example, by the same reasoning, we don't have a "Blockbusters" catgeory for films like Star Wars and Titanic. Betty Logan (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of substantially similar content without new rationale for retaining said category. VegaDark (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, this typically requires a sortable table instead of a category. The table exists in List of biggest box-office bombs. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete as too subjective and open to original research, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR Mike Allen 17:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete -- Whatever this is about, I do not think that it is (as the name implies) about acts of terrorism where a bomb has been placed in a box office. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep per sorry to say as much as I like or appreciate how the editors on Wikipedia who write about film enjoy movies, you are getting some things wrong. First, box office bombs is a term which has been around a long time, same thing with the awards for worst acting and films. You're not going to do away with the categories even if you pull it off on wikis. Second, it's helpful to have this category here although it only has four movies so far. Third, I find quite a few errors in film and tv articles on Wikipedia. The journalism is not up to standards. Much of that is due to the difficulty... You can only report reviews and premieres in so many ways. Also there are only a certain number of words that can describe things like film releases. Go on and try to improve. I and other editors will help, we're busy, but we can try.Highwatermark1 (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    None of that addresses concerns of the nom, and much of what you said is meaningless. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G4. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. LancedSoul (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete — WP:G4 and WP:NOR.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Older discussions[edit]

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1023411456"