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.
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Change disambiguator from "genus" to "butterfly" or "moth"[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.
Nominator's rationale:C2D The main articles have been renamed to match with the disambiguator used by most others in the series. Changing the disambiguators to match article titles. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment, WP:C2D speedy renaming does not apply here because nominator boldly changed the article names themselves recently. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, "genus" is not a standard disambiguator for butterfly genera. Plantdrew (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Note that Aria (region) does not even contain a list of satraps. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea I think. Don't know how many names of satraps of Aria are known but it's unlikely ever to grow to a large number. GPinkerton (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Order of the Loyalty of Sultan Ismail[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.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, redundant category layer with just one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm not sold on the defining-ness of that one subcategory, but certainly this middle layer isn't improving navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Merge for Now With no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Chiefs of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem (ROCOR)[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:no consensus. bibliomaniac15 04:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear to me why we need to add "(ROCOR)" and why Orthodox was dropped in the child cat. gidonb (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Your answer is in the article (§ Division after the Russian Revolution). ROCOR (short for Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) is different from the main branch Russian Orthodox Church (the Moscow Patriarchate), being born when the Russian diaspora had to break ties at the time of the Russian Revolution of 1917 for obvious practical reasons. As the article explains, there were therefore two competing Russian Orthodox missions in Jerusalem for some time. ROCOR reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007, but as the article suggests they seem to have kept an autonomous structure, even in the area of the Jerusalem mission. The category should therefore mention, in short or long form, that these are ROCOR clerics. Place Clichy (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is legitimate to have a singe article for the history of the mission(s), as they are intimately intertwined, with the same buildings, and sometimes the same people, switching allegiance. However it would be legitimate to have categories for clerics split according to the mother church, in order to have ROCOR clerics patented to ROCOR categories, and ROC-MP clerics patented to ROC-MP categories. Place Clichy (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is equally legitimate to have one category throughout, and to add individual articles to ROCOR categories insofar applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there may indeed be a compromise somewhere along those lines. Also note that there is apparently no category yet for clerics of the other jurisdiction (ROC-MP). Place Clichy (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 Prix de l'essai is a fairly obscure French award for essays, and this category contains the authors of those essays. The issuer of the award, Académie Française, is very prominent but they give out a lot of awards per Category:Académie française awards. In the article space, the award is not treated as defining: 4 of the articles in the category mention the award in passing while 12 articles don't mention it all. This is one of many French literary award categories created in late 2016/early 2017. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 University of Evansville in Indiana has a joint prize/publishing deal where an author submits poetry and, without knowing the author, a winner of the Richard Wilbur Award is selected and then automatically has a book published by the University of Evansville Press. So, it is a real award but it's also a marketing vehicle for the book. The award does seem defining to those books (since they likely would exist without it) but this category groups the authors whose articles tend to mention the award in passing. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:mixed results.
KeepCategory:African-American mathematicians. There's some agreement that this particular category is notable enough to pass, and that merging mathematicians with scientists would not be appropriate.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEGRS, WP:NONDEFINING, and (in some cases) WP:SMALLCAT: "African-American limnologist", archaeologist, etc. is no more defining than is "Jewish oceanographer", or "wheelchair-bound limnologist" or even though some people are demonstrably in the intersection. African-American science is not fundamentally different than American science, and in most cases no more specific category than Category:African-American scientists is warranted. I have purposefully omitted Category:African-American social scientists due to the history of category discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify why they should be deleted instead of upmerged to the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to upmerging: I've clarified that at the top. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:SMALLCAT specifies that "small categories with no potential for growth". Limnologists and oceanographers are small because very few pages have been written so far about African American limnologists and oceanographers and arguing WP:SMALLCAT for only these two sub-categories while not others implies there is potential for more African Americans in other disciplines but not the aquatic sciences. If there are arguments for keeping the other non-mathematician sub-categories, then limnologist and oceanographer sub-categories should also be kept. If there are concerns about the small amount of articles in these sub-categories, then limnologists and oceanographers could be combined to 'African-American Earth Scientists' (see Category:Earth_scientists), or sub-categories could be split out into 4 major STEM fields. Jayzlimno (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how the limnologist and oceanographer sub-categories violate WP:OCEGRS. Given the centuries of racism in America and intersection of environmental racism and water issues, being an African-American limnologist or oceanographer is a "a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" as stated by WP:OCEGRS. In fact, there is a Pulitzer Prize finalist book written about an African American oceanographer, Black Apollo of Science: The Life of Ernest Everett Just, which describes Just's experience as a scientist trying to make it in a predominately white field. Being African American in the aquatic sciences is still today a distinct and unique aspect in its own right as described in the essay "The Only Black Person in the Room". Jayzlimno (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We only have 64 categorised limnologists total, so that category structure may need to be looked at - there just aren't enough limnologists for a worthwhile category. We do have more oceanographers, but I'm not convinced at this time there would be enough entries total to get it past WP:SMALLCAT, plus WP:OCEGRS also applies. SportingFlyerT·C 18:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The limnologist and oceanographer sub-categories obviously do not pass WP:FINAL RUNG, and this is how they violate WP:OCEGRS. E.g. Category:American mathematicians can be broken down in more specific groupings by field (cryptographers, geodesists, logicians, statisticians etc.). Therefore one could argue at a stretch that an African American mathematicians subcategory does not ghettoize African Americans out of a category where they would otherwise legitimately belong. However this cannot be argued for limnologists or oceanographers. Place Clichy (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as others have mentioned, these sub-categories do not need to pass WP:FINAL RUNG since they are non-diffusing subcategories WP:DUPCAT. WP:SMALLCAT does not say that a category needs XX number of articles in it to pass WP:SMALLCAT, it states that the category needs to have realistic potential for growth, which African-American oceanographers and African-American limnologists do have potential for growth just as any of the other subcategories considered in the CfD. As stated above and by others, there is sufficient evidence that these subcategories pass WP:OCEGRS, and I am confident I could write encyclopedic articles for any of these subcategories listed in the CfD, and there have been Pulitzer Prize finalist novels already written (see Black Apollo of Science). Jayzlimno (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, (partial) opposers should provide evidence that the combinations they want to keep are recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right, per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done before searches on all of these to come to my conclusion, and I think the ones I'm proposing to keep would have standalone articles kept fairly easily at AfD (if they were even brought to AfD at all.) SportingFlyerT·C 18:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mathematicians— unlike limnologists, in general mathematicians are not scientists, so upmerging this subcategory would lead to a bizarre situation. Per Oculi, “X mathematician” seems to be of exactly the same level of validity as “X scientist”. I also think SportingFlyer’s position is reasonable. —JBL (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the fact that mathematicians are not generally regarded as scientists is a fair objection. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:African-American archaeologists, which is a notable intersection per WP:OCEGRS[1][2][3]. I've no informed opinion on the others, but a suspicion that given what a hot topic black representation in the academy is (especially now – this CfD has poor timing), it is likely to be a notable intersection in most larger disciplines. – Joe (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More notable intersection here [4], which provides " a resource for those looking to engage in difficult topics, such as race, racism, and white privilege, through archaeology, community outreach & engagement, and place-based digital content." Jayzlimno (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, WP:OCEGRS triple intersection of race, nationality, career; if someone thinks African-American scientists do science differently than non-African Americans prove it!. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a racial intersction. SportingFlyerT·C 18:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
African-American is a racial categorization. See are articles on African Americans and how the US government itself defines it (e.g., 2010_United_States_Census) And so you buy into the denialism that events like the Chicago race riot of 1919 and the Omaha race riot of 1919 had nothing to do with race. smh. And, by the way, do you have any proof that these scientists do things differently to make it a defining characteristic? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mathematicians. With multiple books and other publications about the general topic of African-American mathematicians [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] this is clearly a notable and defining intersection. Also keep archaeologists for the same reason and the references listed by Joe Roe, and keep chemistry per the availability of published references such as [13][14][15][16][17][18]. No opinion on the rest, but that's purely because I haven't taken the time to do similar searches for each one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mathematicians as well as archaeologists and chemists, per David Eppstein and Joe Roe. Also, keep oceanographers for the same reason [19][20][21]. "Scientist" is far too broad a grouping to gather all of these articles into. I have no strong opinion about the limnologist category; it's small, but I'm willing to call it part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. (Limnologists and oceanographers could perhaps be upmerged together to ... hydrologists, perhaps? Earth scientists? But I'd be most inclined to leave that category where it is.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Limnology is akin to oceanography but for inland waters, and hydrology would be considered under the umbrella of limnology, although the term 'hydrologist' is often retained for job descriptions, for example [22][23][24][25][26][27]. Limnology and oceanography would be considered a part of Earth science but I think that is too broad of a category, which includes all disciplines that study planet Earth. Jayzlimno (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per WP:OCEGRS and WP:FINAL RUNG guidelines which explicitly write that an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality/disability subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree, unless the parent is (or will become) purely a container category. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory. Clearly the parent categories of American archaeologists, chemists etc. are a very long way of being container categories: e.g. Category:American archaeologists has 655 articles in it despite also having 6 sub-categories for more precise fields. None of these categories is easily entirely dividable in more specific groupings. Au contraire, Category:American scientists is easily dividable in more precise fields, which makes Category:African-American scientists an eligible and useful category. It is important to categorize these people as African American, when that is defining for them, and African-American scientist is an appropriate and sufficient way to trace that. Place Clichy (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding the "final rung" issue is exactly why we have non-diffusing categories. It's a solved problem. We don't need to throw out ethnic-group subcategorization to solve it. It's also totally irrelevant for the chemists and mathematicians because Category:American chemists is explicitly a container category and Category:American mathematicians should be one (everyone in it should be listed by century rather than individually; the fact that some of them currently aren't is a cleanup issue rather than a category hierarchy problem). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With this logic any ethnic subcategory could be created with the excuse of being non-diffusing, disregarding WP:FINAL RUNG and WP:OCEGRS. That's a completely wrong reading of the guideline. FINAL RUNG is merely a tool to quickly presume the usefulness of a category that would still need to demonstrate that it is or is not defining. In a way, while breaking down a wide topic in ethnicity subtopics can sometimes be a good idea, for a thin topic it most often is a bad idea. African American limnologists clearly belongs to the second set. Place Clichy (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with your logic any ethnic subcategory would have to be merged into its parent category. Why, for instance, should we keep Category:African-American scientists when it could be merged into Category:African-American academics? So much for reductio ad absurdam as a general argument for this specific CfD. How about we pay attention to the specific notability of the actual categories under consideration? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:OCEGRS, WP:NONDEFINING: I am not convinced that any of the nominated categories are useful, meaningful, or defining. buidhe 04:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mathematicians, at the least. Upmerging doesn't make sense, per JBL. Moreover, I think that there's enough coverage of an underrepresentation problem to make a marked distinction from for example Jewish mathematicians (an example of a deleted category from WP:OCEGRS). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After this discussion began, Category:African-American statisticians was created by WBritten as a subcategory of Category:African-American mathematicians. There do exist some publications about African-American statisticians as a class, for instance [28]. But if the result of this CfD is to pretend that mathematicians are scientists and upmerge, then it would not make sense to keep the statisticians as a separate subcategory. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced of some arguments that just because some people have written about minorities in occupation X that that is a useful or appropriate category. I fully support bringing to light notable people from historically underrepresented occupations, but categorization is not always the way to do it. African-American scientists and non-scientists historically have faced issues relating to their ethnicity/skin color, regardless of subfield or occupation. Should we create Category:African-American bus drivers and Category:African-American plumbers merely because sources recognize or even celebrate the fact that some people are both? [29][30][31]. Many universities have noteworthy Black Student Unions with notable former members, does that mean we should thus have Category:African-American students? It's great that fields across the spectrum have written about the relative scarcity of minorities, and/or established programs to recognize and increase minority representation, but just because Black Birders Week is currently trending doesn't necessarily mandate the creation of Category:Black bird watchers. Out of the initial set of categories I nominated, I'd wager Category:African-American mathematicians has the greatest claim to being retained as a truly notable intersection, although I don't see the need to containerize any subfield of mathematicians who also happen to be black. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument quickly turned into an "other stuff" argument. The rule is If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. The categories I've identified to keep pass that test easily, while the articles you've found (for topics completely unrelated to the nomination) wouldn't necessarily lend themselves to an article. SportingFlyerT·C 06:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mathematicians per D Eppstein and JBL comments. Large category, not same as scientists, many publications on topic of African and African-Americans in the category. Remove the tiny categories (limnologist, oceanographer). Sesquivalent (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
