Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 7 February 9 >

February 8[edit]

Category:People with cancer[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: delete. The three subcategories (Category:Deaths from cancer, Category:People with multiple myeloma, and Category:Cancer survivors) were moved to Category:Cancer. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a current category from which articles are supposed to be moved upon death from cancer or 5-year survival. Read the header. Current categories are disfavored because transitoriness is often a non-defining characteristic. Thus this should be deleted; or at least purged of everything but the subcategories. And, pray tell, where do we put people who die of something other than cancer within 5 years of their cancer diagnosis? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Upmerge 3 Subcats Moving biography articles of peopole going through treatment into this category, and then moving them to survivor cat after 5 years is not a reasonable maintenance task and may not be verifiable outside gosip sites. (The 3 subcats should be manually upmerged to Category:Cancer.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Upmerge 3 Subcats per nom, and start a fresh discussion about the survivors subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any category based on a temporary state of affairs is asking for trouble.Rathfelder (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not at all defining as a current category. Plus we have clear issues with getting enough sources and adequately placing the articles. I have to admit I have severe reservations about all diagnosis and disease of death categories. Since cancer is the second highest level killer in the US, and quite probably world wide, it is a very disparate disease, and we have reached a point where people can survive it in some cases, the size and potential scope of this category is just not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Having cancer is far to common to merit a category. Furthermore, a category that requires active maintenance (moving people on to deaths or recovered/remission) is undesirable. It requires monitoring of information on the subjects of a kind that is not necessarily publicly available. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2021 (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:University of Zagreb faculty[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, except that an RfC on Category:Faculty by university or college would be a good idea. I apologise for not replying when I was pinged below, but agree with the recommendations made by User:Good Olfactory. Please post notices at WT:CAT, WT:UNI and WT:EDUCATION linking to the RfC, wherever it is held. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: (Moved from CFDS.) I think this qualifies under C2B, because this university consists of organizations most of which are called "faculty", so using the term "faculty" to refer to people here is unnecessarily ambiguous. Same goes for all Croatian universities, because the word "faculty" is prevalent in referring to organizations there.
It may or may not be relevant in other countries, but it seems to me like most if not all of Europe could be changed as well. UK already uses the term "Academics".
These days the disambiguation page uses the words "academic staff" to disambiguate the term, but actually leads to a page called "academic personnel" so that's another possibility. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This topic was also previously discussed in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:Faculties of the University of Zagreb --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so to follow your analogy, what is the category for the academic staff of the University of Cambridge? There is no "faculty" in Category:People associated with the University of Cambridge. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't understand your argument about consistency when Category:Faculty by university or college in Europe is already inconsistent. Indeed, one can easily make the argument that consistency with real-world usage is more important to the encyclopedia than any sort of internal consistency between American phrasing and Croatian phrasing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom -- This use of "faculty" is an Americanism and is alien to Europe. I would reverse my vote if some one will tell me that the Serbo-Croat term is similar to faculty. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's something like nastavno osoblje. (The word fakultet only has the meanings of an institution or its buildings.[1]) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How would this expand the scope exactly? Indeed, if we moved to just "people", *that* would expand the scope to the non-academic staff! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already have categories like Category:Foo University people, but they are divided between staff and students, and sometimes other people associated with a university. Category:University of Foo academic staff would work, but for it to be useful it would have to be done globally. There have been repeated efforts to get consistent usage across all countries, but they havent succeeded. For a start I agree we should prioritise places where the departments are called Faculties. Rathfelder (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Academic staff" would cast a wider net beyond "faculty" with TAs, proctors, visiting instructors, and researchers. If we're to expand the category scope, let's do so intentionally in a way that matches other category names. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you're saying the disambiguation marker that the page faculty uses is sufficient to distinguish, but not actually precise enough? Okay, so what would be the most specific word that matches the American "faculty"? Is it "academics", which the UK, Irish and some other categories use? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, but was not able to verify the claim that researchers and teaching assistants aren't conventionally part of "faculty" - in our existing article that aims to explain the term "faculty" academic personnel, or at wikt:faculty, or at any number of dictionary entries for "faculty" at dict.org, and a number of them found by google by searching "faculty meaning". Indeed WordNet says "the body of teachers and administrators at a school", Cambridge says "the people who teach in a department in a college", Merriam-Webster.com says "the teaching and administrative staff and those members of the administration having academic rank in an educational institution", and Dictionary.com has several relevant definitions, "the entire teaching and administrative force of a university, college, or school" as well as "the teaching body, sometimes with the students, in any of these departments". So, yeah, I'm unconvinced that there's any inherent clarity of scope in these existing categories. At this point I'd lean towards assuming that this was just a lot of organic volunteer work where alumni were categorized separately from staff, but not a lot of effort was expended on the details of the staff. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think in practice that there is any common understanding of what counts as being a faculty member, at least not outside the USA, so a wider clearer description would be helpful. That wouldnt stop faculty subcategories where appropriate. Rathfelder (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any common understanding within the US. Maybe at a large research university, it means academic staff who have voting rights in the faculty senate? But at a community college, the same term refers to anyone who, if they were doing the same thing at the local high school would be called a "teacher". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faculty is ambiguous especially when faculty is also used for a department. But we should have a general discussion before diving into one particular country, e.g. an RFC at the Wikiproject Education's talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes sense. This would be a broad change and most the editors of education articles probably don't monitor CFD discussions. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While we certainly should get as much input as possible (and I'll go post links to that project's talk page now), I don't think we should handcuff ourselves here by trying to enforce consistency, when there is not much existing consistency already. I had a quick look and found that the categories for the UK, Ireland, Malta, San Marino, Botswana, DR Congo, Central African Republic, Madagascar, New Zealand, Belize, Thailand, already don't follow the same format or don't even have a category, and there's also many more that use the same word but don't use the "or college" part. Normally I'd agree with trying to make things consistent, but this is the second discussion that mentions this matter and we are already having issues reaching consensus the second time around, so I'm not terribly optimistic that there is a big consensus solution just around the corner at this point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNI would be the more appropriate Wikiproject (but broader input from the Education project is welcome, too).
I agree with the suggestion that it would be good to have a project-wide discussion to see if we would like consistency for categories like these. I don't think that holding piecemeal discussions that don't include subject matter experts and editors who have a specific interest in this topic is a good approach so I recommend holding off on this proposed renaming while that discussion is held in a different venue. ElKevbo (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I notified that WP as well. Let's see if it entices any actual interest from subject matter experts and interested editors. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WT:EDUCATION delivers.
    • American Association of University Professors survey says graduate students and postdocs are rarely accepted within "faculty" designation: American Association of University Professors (2015). "The Inclusion in Governance of Faculty Members Holding Contingent Appointments". Policy Documents and Reports. JHU Press. p. 201. ISBN 978-1-4214-1638-0.
    • "transition from being a teaching assistant to becoming a faculty member" Smith, Kathleen; Kalivoda, Patricia (1998). "Academic Morphing: Teaching Assistant to Faculty Member". To Improve the Academy. 17.
    • For more on lack of firm boundaries of the term, see Plater, William (February 1, 1998). "Using Tenure: Citizenship within the New Academic Workforce". American Behavioral Scientist. 41 (5): 680–715. doi:10.1177/0002764298041005007. ISSN 0002-7642.
In the US sense, "academic staff" would include grad students, postdocs, and other researchers who are not designated "faculty". (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 06:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input. But this is only one side of the coin. We also have to solve a WP:ENGVAR issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the more realistic issue with restricting "faculty" categories to a smaller subset of staff is that goodness knows how many categorization errors this actually causes in practice. Especially outside of the US where the word just isn't as commonly used in this context. Has anyone ever audited the thousands of articles that are categorized here to make sure that this definition matches? Or any definition, for that matter? I would assume it'd be more realistic to try to go with a more inclusive wording, i.e. something that cuts up "people of <university>" categories into broader subcategories rather than narrower. Once that is done, then we could work our way down, to more clearly delineate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. So I went to start an RFC, as three people voiced support for that idea, and then immediately stumbled upon WP:RFCNOT which explicitly says that renaming categories should not be done using the RFC process, but this very process instead.
So, let's recap: we have the issue of a number of pre-existing inconsistencies:
Category:Faculty by university or college says the main article for the category is "Academic personnel". It does not provide any clarification to the term, and is a subcategory of Category:Academics.
In the subcategories of that, there are actually several terms being used, mainly:
  • "faculty by university of college", which has a bunch of unclear meanings even in American dictionaries, see above for examples; our article about that is a disambiguation page and the academic personnel article isn't particularly well cited
  • "academics by university of college", which seems to likewise conflict with a bunch of those meanings (at the time of writing, our article says that "an academic is a person who works as a teacher or researcher at a university or other higher education institution" so we are immediately thrust into the issue of what about researchers, assistant teachers etc), and is likewise not particularly well cited
  • "<something>" by university (no college), by tertiary institution, i.e. using inconsistent terminology again
  • "Faculty by <something>", a handful of them in the top-level category that seem to be American, but also Category:Faculty by law school in Canada‎ etc
  • direct categories of specific organizations that are sole such ones in their countries
At deeper levels, one can also find a number of "Faculty of <something> faculty" categories, which was especially interesting to see in North American categories (I observed this in some Canadian ones)
There is no apparent consistency by continent; I didn't just find the European ones that triggered all this; I also found a converse case of Category:University of the West Indies academics‎ in the North American category. Also Sri Lanka and Thailand use "academics of [the] <something>", but India, Bangladesh and Myanmar use "<something> faculty".
There's a bunch of faculty categories where "Deans of <something>" or "Presidents of <something>" or "Rectors of <something>" is a subcategory, implying the definitions of "faculty" that excluded the administrative staff were also often ignored; at the same time I found Category:PUCMM people where someone claimed a delineation between "alumni" (with an interesting caveat!), "faculty" and "staff", and there's a single article directly in there, a person whose lead section describes them as an "academic"
So, uh, yeah. This all is not very coherent. I don't quite see what a grand scheme to fix it would look like or how it would practically work, either, because it seems like a slippery slope into a hundred corner cases. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: could you advise Joy on the best venue for discussing possible changes to subcategories of Category:Faculty by university or college? Would an advisory WP:RFC make sense, to be followed by a CFD nomination? TSventon (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: were you suggesting an advisory WP:RFC, followed by a CFD nomination? TSventon (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. This use of faculty is an Americanism. Elsewhere it only means a subdivision of a university. Use "Academics of..." -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming. Despite User:Oculi saying there's no confusion, as an American editor, I'd be confused. If I hadn't read this discussion, I would have no idea whether I was supposed to put an article in Category:University of Zagreb faculty and Category:Faculties of the University of Zagreb without looking at the cat pages (where the distinction is hopefully explained). If I saw those in HotCat, I'd have assumed that the latter redirected to the former, and that the use of the plural word had just been a mistake by someone whose native language wasn't English. This is confusing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a handful (fewer than 50) categories including the word 'faculties' so a much quicker resolution of this apparent difficulty would be to change these to 'departments' (or similar). Oculi (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But they're not departments, they're faculties, and most in turn have departments within them. This would add another layer of confusion on top of everything. I should also mention that in Croatian usage, this would be doubly confusing because while the universities most often contain organizations called fakultet, many also contain another variety of constituent organizations called odjel, a word which is most often translated as department or section, and is distinctly different from faculties, and an odjel is typically headed by a pročelnik (head) rather than a dekan (dean) of a faculty. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "faculty" (and "faculties") is confusing in a global context because the word is used to describe different things that are closely related. This is a genuine WP:ENGVAR issue, not a mistake of an editor whose English skills are lacking or one who was sloppy. A decision that doesn't respect the differences in how these words are used in different countries and attempts to impose a foolish global consistency where one doesn't exist will confuse readers and cause long-term problems with editors who know the correct language for a given context. That is why we need an RFC to ensure that no one tries to impose unfamiliar, incorrect language in a misguided-but-good-faith effort to bring consistency to an area that is inherently inconsistent. There may also be a solution that sidesteps these specific words altogether and allows us to reach a consistency that is also correct; an RFC may illuminate such a solution. ElKevbo (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The unfamiliar language is indeed already imposed AFAICT, because most of the country categories seem to be using the American terms which often don't seem to match local usage well. Frankly, at this point, further suggestions of an RFC don't seem to be contributing any solutions to this issue, rather they contribute delay and uncertainty. Can someone start illuminating some of these solutions here, please? Otherwise it seems like we're waiting for Godot. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately I would expect most American countries to use "departments" and "faculty" (the latter for people) while other countries can use "faculties and departments" and "academic staff" respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. I think we need to have a broader discussion about the use of "faculty" in category names before we start renaming these. And in any case, "FOO academic staff" does not match either the "FOO faculty" or "Academics of FOO" standards which are commonly used for other countries' categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you propose we have this broader discussion? Also, what are these standards commonly used, can you define them? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you propose we have this broader discussion? In an RFC at the Wikiproject Education's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. what are these standards commonly used, can you define them? I just did. For universities in countries outside of the United Kingdom, the categories generally use the format "FOO faculty", where FOO is the name of the institution. For universities in the United Kingdom, the categories generally use "Academics of FOO". This proposal is suggesting that a third way be adopted, which I oppose. We already have enough of a mess with the two standards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They 'generally use' that because it seems to have grown organically, and also diverged haphazardly. We have no apparent proof that this was actually thought through or based in any relevant references, or at least I don't see anyone volunteering one? I already cited multiple examples above showing that there's no basis in thinking that we have a clear UK-US dichotomy; rather, it's much more diverse. I certainly don't see the rationale for why we should restrict all non-UK usage to some form of American usage, which in itself is demonstrably vague and inherently bad for categorization. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why we need a broader discussion on the topic. We don't need to make the situation worse by adopting a third standard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but in the interim, if we switched from "faculty" to "academics" for these categories, you wouldn't be opposed to that? Because with *this* much delay I'm not actually interested so much in which term replaces the ambiguous term. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to renaming them "Academics of FOO". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we use the faculty form in many cases of universities in the non-English speaking world. Note we have "Academics of Foo" along with "alumni of foo" for Britain and "foo faculty" and "foo alumni" for the US. The academics v. faculty is an English variation issue. However as best as I have been able to tell the decision on "alumni of foo" v "foo alumni" is not an English variation issue, it basically boils down to a few editors treating their own personal preferences on which form to use as a national issue when it was a personal issue, and we should decide on one or the other form as a standard. People have actually presented sufficient evident of British usage of "foo alumni" in the past to show that this is not a non-usage for tertiary level issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, why are you talking about alumni? This move proposal does not affect those categories. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I brought up alumni because that is a mess too. This whole tree is a mess. I actually wonder if it would not make more sense to have two subcats of Category:Foo University people that are our defaults. One would be Category:Foo university employees and the other would be Category:Foo university alumni. We should also agree to a global standard on using Foo university employees/Foo University alumni or employees of Foo University/alumni of foo university. While universities with large numbers of their employees who are notable it may make sense to split off them by subtype, I really do not see that as neccessary in all cases. It we have Podunk University that we have 4 articles on people who were employed there, 2 were faculty members, 1 was a football coach and 1 was a librarian, I think we do not need 3 categories for those 4 people, just 1. Also I think we need a clear ruling on how exactly to categorize those who were connected with an institution by virtue of a fellowship or as medical residents in a university teaching hospital. For example Dale G. Renlund did a 3-year internal medicine residency and a 3-year cardiology fellowship at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, so he was there 6 years, longer than most med students and most undergrads (at least at Johns Hopkins, maybe not at Wayne State University, but I digress), he is in Category:Johns Hopkins School of Medicine alumni. Is alumni the right term for medical residents and fellows? Is it the right term for those who hold research and teaching fellowships in the arts, fine arts and sciences? Does faculty mean any person paid by the university to instruct a class, or is it limited to people with full time tenure track appointments? Faculty also covers those who are research faculty who do not teach. The doctor who I have studied the most is Russell M. Nelson, I have read two different books that are more or less biographies of him (Sheri Dew's work in not exatly a biography, she is a very close personal friend of Nelson's wife, who she has known longer than Nelson has, and that influenced some of the content of the book, Spencer J. Condie's bio is heavily built on an early autobiogrpahy Nelson created which I have not read, I have also follow news media coverage of Nelson extremely close since at least 2018. He last worked as a physician in 1984 so direct sources on his work as such require lots of work to dig up), we have the passage in the article "In 1981 Nelson held appointments as a visiting professor of surgery at the National Institute of Cardiology in Mexico City and the Catholic University in Santiago, Chile. In May 1982 he was a visiting professor at the Hospital de Clinicas in Montevideo, Uruguay." Should we categorize by any of these? I would say probably not. This leads to a question, at what point do we categorize by visiting appointments. If you read the source material (in this case Condie's book), or dig down and find more, you will realize that the visiting appointments described only involved a total of a few weeks in any of those three countries. I am torn between considering visiting appointments defining at a semester, a year, or only classifying by those that exceeded a year. I did have a professor, Matthew Mason (who probably is notable, he wrote Slavery and Politics in the Early American Republic as well as being one of two editors on Contesting Slavery: The Politics of Bondage and Freedom in the New American Nation. He was a professor with a tenure track appointment for either 1 (I think) but maybe two years at Eastern Michigan University before joining the factulty at BYU. I had him as a professor in either his first or second year at BYU, and then 7 years later I was a student at Eastern Michigan University where I had professors who still remembered Prof. Mason (OK, only one for sure, but I do not think I asked any others if they remembered him). Hmm, he was at Eastern Michigan for only 1 year. I am going to go try and get an article on him made at Articles for Creation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this Johnpacklambert. This is also one of the reasons I didn't want to use the term 'employee', because 'staff' seems to be a somewhat more generic term, applied to non-business organizations, it doesn't seem to imply a conventional employment contract situation, and that's what we don't want in case of academia, where there's a lot of nuance in staffing (sic) educational institutions. Any teaching hospital is going to have a lot of ambiguity in this regard. But anyway, as I said before, I'm not opposed to moving to "<organization> staff" or "<organization> academics" or "... academic staff", as long as the more egregiously ambiguous term "<organization> faculty" is avoided. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still support per vote above. I agree there is an ENGVAR issue, but would suggest that the British alternative should be the norm in Europe and Commonwealth (except Americas). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Rename to just staff. There is no reason at this point to dintinguish academic and non-academic staff. This is not a good place to invoke Engvar. We need to find ways to use Engvar issues less. To date we have invoked it to justify too many uses where an alternative would allow universal uniformity. There is no good reason that Category:English medical doctors cannot be a subcategory of Category:Medical doctors which covers the whole fied. No where would the use of medical doctors in this way be problematic. In the same way I have no clue why Category:BYU Cougars athletes is a subcategory of both Category:Sportspeople in Utah and Category:College athletes in the United States by team, if we can call some sportspeople in the US by that title, there is no reason to not call all of them that way. In the same way, we could universally use staff and in rare cases academic staff as a sub-cat, and cover the whole world, we do not need to go down the path of Engvar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2021 (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:Impeachments of Donald Trump[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: delete. I have merged the contents back to Category:Impeached Presidents of the United States and Category:Trump administration controversies; a user removed these categories from the nominated category while this discussion was ongoing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer, all content is already directly in Category:Impeached Presidents of the United States and Category:Trump administration controversies Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2021 (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:Battle of Uhud[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: delete, upmerging subcategory as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2021 (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:Descendants of Neapolitan nobility[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: merge, but to subcategories of the proposed target. Joseph Pignatelli was placed in Category:House of Pignatelli and Antoniotto Botta Adorno was placed in Category:Nobility from Naples. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Descendants of the nobility - where that is significant - are nobility. Rathfelder (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to avoid a "descent" category and limit to recognized "nobility". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Carlossuarez46. --Just N. (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2021 (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:Wars by year subcategories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 19#Category:Wars by year subcategories

Category:People from the Athens Urban Area[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: merge/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE this means merging the parent categories, as Category:People from Athens is a sub-sub-category.
Central Athens
North Athens
South Athens
West Athens
Piraeus
NOTE this means merging the parent categories, as Category:People from Piraeus is a sub-category.
occupation
Nominator's rationale: Athens Urban Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a redirect to Athens. Do not categorize by location within any urban area.
These are nearly all WP:SMALLCAT. Most are simply a category within another category, building a tree out to the tiniest municipalities, neighborhoods, and villages. Most of the articles are missing WP:RS about notability of birthplaces. Quoting WP:CATNAME#Residence: "The place of birth is rarely notable."
William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patience, have now finished the nominations. They probably all need purging, as I'm not seeing any real notability for these birthplace categories.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This goes against the principle set by the previous discussion to upmerge, and would create factually wrong categories (you would be merging sister categories while keeping the name of one of them). Therefore the merge should happen upwards to the Athens Urban Area. However, even this goes against the precedent of keeping categories with at least 5 articles, as some of these contain hundreds of articles, as well as "by occupation" subcategories, which also connect to the Category:Greek people by occupation tree.
As for the rationale, this is only now an urban area. It wasn't so for 2900 of its 3000 years of recorded history (most of the towns were independent settlements), during which time a lot of the people listed lived. --Antondimak (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't categorize people from suburbs, no matter how many. Of course people lived in the Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, and New York areas 12,000 years ago. We don't categorize those villages.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those people don't have articles for Wikipedia because these cities don't have a long recorded history. Attica has. --Antondimak (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you just suggest that there are comparable numbers of "notable" (for Wikipedia's standards) people from 1st century BCE Los Angeles as there are from Attica, or that I should be familiar with Gabrielino to understand it? --Antondimak (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should be reparented to "People from the Athens Urban Area", which is itself a large category. --Antondimak (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While many people live in this urban area, it only consists of Athens and Piraeus, so in terms of category size it is very limited. Besides the urban area does not seem to fit the usual administrative divisions. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It consists of all the areas that are its current subcategories. Splitting it into Athens and Piraeus is entirely subjective. Most people cetegorised under Athens currently are wrongly so, and should be under the Athens Urban Area. When we use the word "Athens" in Greek, or in an article, we mean the Athens Urban Area, of which Athens is just a small part, making up a fifth of a population. --Antondimak (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, most people call it Athens, meaning the Athens Urban Area. This includes Piraeus most of the time. You would be making a new category named "Athens", which would refer to the Athens Urban Area, and would split Piraeus. Piraeus is rightly split from Athens, as it is a different city with an ancient history, but nowadays is often considered a part of Athens, as the city has expanded. Many articles categorised under the "Athens Urban Area" probably refer to people from "Piraeus", they just aren't specific enough. That's why it's under the "Athens Urban Area", together with Athens. Long story short, this would probably create many factually wrong categorisations. --Antondimak (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no issue with recategorizing biographies from Athens (Urban Area) to Piraeus if appropriate, but that can be done irrespective of the outcome of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that it's hard to know what people are actually for Piraeus. It's common in modern times to write that people from Piraeus are from Athens, since they have merged, along with other towns, into the "Athens Urban Area". I have put people who are just said to be from "Athens" under the "Athens Urban Area", as that's what is meant most of the time. Many of these people are probably from Piraeus and other towns (e.g. Marousi) but I don't know who. They will all wrongly be categorised under Athens if People from the Athens Urban Area is merged into People from Athens. For a more familiar example (obviously not to scale, just to demonstrate the relationship between the categories), imagine having the categories "People from California", "People from Los Angeles", "People from San Diego", along with other categories for smaller cities in California. You decide to delete these smaller categories. The most sensible approach would seem to be to merge them into "People from California", and end up with 3 categories. This proposal would merge the smaller categories as well as "People from California" into "People from Los Angeles". As a result, there will probably be many people from San Diego, whose articles only specify California in general, who will end up under "People from Los Angeles". --Antondimak (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that in the vast majority of cases, when it comes to people from the 20th century and on, "Athens" refers to the Athens Urban Area and not to Athens itself. --Antondimak (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot see that as a problem, on the contrary, if sources do not make a distinction and/or if Wikipedia editors do not understand the difference that makes the case for merging only stronger. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many sources do make the distinction, just a significant amount doesn't. People from Marousi, Petroupoli, Piraeus, etc. aren't from Athens. They're from the Athens Urban Area. For most cities we would only have one "Athens Urban Area" category, but in this case Athens and Piraeus are both very significant and populated categories for them to be removed. Still, if they were to, they should be upmerged to the Athens Urban Area. You don't downmerge especially in cases where there is no indication that the members of the supercategory also belong in the subcategory. --Antondimak (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piraeus would not be upmerged though, and rightfully so. However we then have the problem I described. If we're keeping Piraeus, why are we not keeping Athens, a much bigger city? Why do we upmerge Athens and not Piraeus? Because I think there's some confusion here. Regarding the people currently categorised under Athens while the article isn't that specific (mentions "Athens" which refers to the Urban Area), it would take a lot of work to recategorise all the appropriate people from Athens to the Athens Urban Area, but I am in the middle of doing it, and if we keep those people whose articles specifically say they are from Athens proper, we still have a very big category. --Antondimak (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the creator of the categories has twice made an admission against interest, that "in the vast majority of cases ... "Athens" refers to the Athens Urban Area. Moreover, s/he admits that many should just be People from Greece (although the comparison is poor, as Greece is considerably smaller than California). We should take that up in a future nomination.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that Athens proper (ο Δήμος Αθηναίων) would also be merged with the entire Urban Area. Whatever categories are chosen to be kept, be it Athens and Piraeus, or those you mentioned too, they should stay under the Athens Urban Area. There is no indication that the people currently categorised under the Athens Urban Area are from Athens proper, and Athens proper is even more notable that Peraeus, Kifisia or Marousi. --Antondimak (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but make sure that the targets Category:People from Athens and Category:People from Piraeus are reparented to Category:People from Attica per Marc. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Instead merge by Regional unit: see Athens#Athens Urban Area. There are five such units, North south central and west Athens and Piraeus. These are described as municipalities. Support merger of Athens urban area to Athens and the occupational categories. The urban area (defined by the five regional units) has clearly absorbed villages and other localities, but most of these are so poorly populated that categories should not exist, but we should merge first to the five regional units and then see what the result look like. If this results in people from Athens proper ending up in another (over-broad) category, they can be moved manually to a better category, perhaps "Athens (city centre)". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regional units don't exist separately anymore, they were subsumed by Administrative regions of Greece during a government reform in 2011. They have no elected government. Those aren't municipalities in the usual English meaning of the word, it's just a poor translation. As explained to me, these are merely unimportant designations of suburbs and neighborhoods.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Government in Athens works different;y than in the rest of Greece. Municipalities are actually municipalities there, with local government and everything. Again, not that we should categorise based on the level of administrative autonomy, that's absurd. --Antondimak (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, none of those are villages currently (some were in the past). Most of them have population in the tens of thousands. --Antondimak (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2021 (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:PSA Group timeline templates[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To give the extended coverage for the timeline templates related with the other brands of Stellantis which originally part of the FCA group. Ridwan97 (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2021 (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:Groupe PSA[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: not merged. bibliomaniac15 19:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To reflect the merger Groupe PSA of and FCA which NOW became Stellantis. NO MORE OPPOSE. Ridwan97 (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, articles dealing exclusively with events before the merger do not belong in the new category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2021 (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:PSA Group templates[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In order to expand the template's category page coverage, which added the other brands those are originally part of the FCA group. Ridwan97 (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2021 (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:PSA Group people[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: not renamed. bibliomaniac15 19:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match with the eponymous company's page name. Ridwan97 (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2021 (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:Mobsters[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: rename (several of these were processed as merges in instances where the target category already existed). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Mobster" almost exclusively refers to members of the American Mafia, whereas "gangster" is a more universal term for those involved in organized crime. For example, Category:British mobsters does not seem correct as the term "mobster" is almost never used in the UK, with "gangster" being used instead. Shaolin Punktalk • contribs 17:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (per my own nom). Shaolin Punktalk • contribs 17:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, consistent with main article title. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, the category pages still need to be tagged. Considering the large amount of categories it is recommendable to ask for help at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mobsters is not generally used in British English. I cant speak for American. Rathfelder (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The two category trees are largely overlapping in scope. Dimadick (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, consistent with main article title. --Just N. (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for non-US categories. Neutral for US ones. This is partly an ENGVAR issue. Mobster is an Americanism that is alien to most of the rest of the world. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2021 (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:Fellows of the Soil Science Society of America[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC and WP:OCAWARD) and, for the parent category, WP:C2F
The Soil Science Society of America is an organization that gives out several awards including this SSSA Fellowship, the Emil Truog Award and the SSSA Early Career Award. The 3 articles in this category are very prominent people already under Category:Soil scientists whose articles mention this fellowship in a list of other honours they received, so it doesn't seem defining. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. (If this subcategory is deleted, the parent category will only have the one eponymous article left.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete holding the fellowship is not defining, this leaves us to little articles to justify the parent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both -- The Fellows category has three members, who should be in the list in the main article. The main article has appropriate categories already. Fellowship is in this context probably an AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2021 (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:Recipients of the Blood Order[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: listify, then delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (initially WP:OVERLAPCAT and later WP:OCAWARD)
The Blood Order was originally a Nazi campaign medal that was issued to participants in the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch coup attempt in Munich. That participation is absolutely defining which is why we already have Category:Nazis who participated in the Beer Hall Putsch.
The reasons for recieving the medal were extensively expanded to include those who:
(a) served time in prison for Nazi activities before 1933,
(b) received a death sentence which was later commuted to life imprisonment for Nazi activities before 1933, or
(c) been severely wounded in the service of the Party before 1933;
Later, the possible reasons for the award were expanded still further to include:
(d) members of the Austrian Nazi Party who had participated in the 1934 February Uprising or July Putsch,
(e) or who had received significant prison time or injuries for Nazi activities.
(f) It could also be bestowed on certain other individuals at the discretion of Adolf Hitler.
That diversity of reasons for winning the medal means there's not a clear common thread in the recipients, although all of them are already somewhere under either Category:Nazis and/or Category:German military personnel of World War II. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or listify: It's an interesting category with encyclopedic value, even though it's heterogeneous. I think it may be of more use to most readers as a list than a category. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or listify Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. This specific recognition is not defining to those given it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. --Just N. (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_8&oldid=1013181977"