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. – FayenaticLondon 21:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only category of merchants by century and nationality. The distinction between merchants and businesspeople is very vague. Category:Businesspeople by century and nationality is, in contrast, well developed. Rathfelder (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want to maintain a distinction between merchants and businesspeople? Rathfelder (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For cutting the entire merchants tree a much broader nomination would be required. However, if I were you, I would not try that (trading off the chance of getting consensus versus effort). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing that, at least not at the moment. But its very noticeable that almost all the post-mediaeval articles about merchants are also categorised as businesspeople by century and nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Triple upmerge per Marcoapelle. We have 37 nationality sub-cats of Category:Merchants that have entries. Whether we need such a tree is open to discussion, bear in mind sources will often use the term "merchant". It is also worth noting that in the modern context merchant is used mainly for shop owners, while in the early modern context it is people who undertook large scale movement of goods, such as those involved in the trade between Europe and China or the Indies. Having looked at the contents of some categories such as Category:Estonian merchants it is also worth asking if the fact that at some point in their life some of these politicians were merchants is defining enough to categorize by. However if we want to go after the whole tree we need to do it at a level higher than one small sub-category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This category is sufficiently populated for us to keep it. The problem is perhaps with defining what "merchant" means. I would suggest it is (1) a large scale dealer or (2) an import/export trader. I sampled a number of the articles: a few specified involvement in particular trades; others were much less specific. I would suggest that businessman/person would also include manufacturers and shopkeepers, neither of whom would be correctly identified as a merchant according to that definition. On the other hand, there may be a good case for purging those whose trade is inadequately described in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merchant as a description is far more common in the medieval articles. But there it often includes people like bankers. I dont think we can easily impose a definition of merchant different from that used by the article editors, and clearly it is at best vague. Rathfelder (talk) 21:12, 11 June 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.
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 -- I am doubtful if the one person was indeed a merchant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:55, 13 June 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:Children of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex[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. – FayenaticLondon 18:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with other recent deletion discussions, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 1, a category of 2 people is too small to be useful. All the articles in the category are already all linked to each other and the parents' articles. DrKay (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still have grave reservations about us creating articles on people who are so young, especially ones born this year. However even if these articles are justified, they are clearly linked to their father in other ways so that there is no reason to have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- We certainly do not need a category. I wonder if their articles could not be redirected to parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 11 June 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 21:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article Protease, is a set category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:56, 6 June 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:Black British members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom[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.
Keep Nominated Cat/Delete Black British MPs I think the intent here is a merge since there are two categories with the same scope so normally my !vote would be a reverse merge. But Category:Black British MPs only contains User:Tommi1986/XfD log so we can just delete it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename to Category:Black British MPs. We usually use abbreviations in MP categories, as long serving ones get a lot of categories. The possibility of Black British people being MPs in other countries seems remote. In theory, it should be "Black British UK MPs" but that seems unnecessary. The best category names are kept short. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support any merge/rename that leaves us with 1 category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominated Cat/Delete Black British MPs I don't mind one or the other, the duplicate removed. --Just N. (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Black British MPs. We usually use "MPs" in this context. "Black British members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom" would be wrong in any case (since it's tortological, "British" and "of the United Kingdom" being synonymous). "Black members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom" would be correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 14 June 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.
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:merge/rename per WP:OVERLAPCAT, it is not doable to make a distinction between Hindu theology and Hindu philosophy, or between Hindu theologians and Hindu philosophers. A nice illustration: Hindu theology is a redirect to a pair of two Hindu philosophical concepts. For contrast, Christian philosophy is a specific subfield of theology which emerged to reconcile Christian faith with ancient Greek philosophy, but Hindu philosophy does not have a similar narrow scope. A side effect of this proposal is that the century subcategories can be populated much better. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thanks for the good faith argument and work on reducing duplication on Wikipedia. However, it is not so good that Hindu theology page is now being redirected to Hindu philosophy. As in the West, not all theologians and religious writers in India are philosophers. And in a number of cases in academic sources they are called theologians. And today, on Wikipedia, every guru is included in the category of Hindu philosophers. I propose to begin work on the classification and delineation of Hindu authors. DayakSibiriak (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So how are you planning to make a distinction between theologians and philosophers, by what criteria? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion for distinguishing between Hindu philosophers and theologians is academic sources where these terms are used more accurately, and not every Hindu author is a philosopher. It was in the old era that Western Indologists uncritically recorded them all as philosophers, but now Hinduism has been better studied and there is a tendency towards differentiation. Of course, as with Christian authors, a number of names are both theologians and philosophers. It's not a problem. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid this would not solve the issue. More recent sources are slightly more inclined to use the term "theologian" but it is only a change in terminology, not a substantive difference. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also really duplicate Category:Hindu acharyas. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a less successful option, but a compromise, may be the merging of the categories of Hindu philosophers and Hindu theologians to the "Category:Hindu philosophers and theologians." This would be more accurate identification of the included persons. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After your new arguments, so think I. And I ask you, as an editor who pays a lot of attention to categorization, also to raise in another case the question of mergering overlapping dupl categories of "Hindu gurus", "Hindu spiritual teachers," possibly also "Hindu mystics," "Hindu saints," and "Hindu acaryas" (see how best to name a single category). DayakSibiriak (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Categories of Hindu philosophers and theologians are the best solution. Rathfelder (talk) 21:17, 11 June 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:Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences members[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 Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences is an American professional association whose activities include hosting a major conference and issuing awards. Their online membership form requires at least 2 credits or 2 years experience to join. But this category lists their corporate members (which requires $10,000 sponsorship on that same application) but this includes much of the industry including Electronic Arts, Nintendo, and Sega. Those corporate articles don't treat this as defining but I created a collapsible list right here in the main article for any reader interested in this topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background We previously deleted a category corporate memberships in another video game group right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 7 June 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.
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 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:merge/rename to clarify the scope of the categories, they are meant for scholars of Jainism and Sikhism, not for e.g. chemists or French linguistics who happen to be Jainists or Sikhists. Similarly we have Category:Scholars of Hinduism and Category:Scholars of Buddhism. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I created this category to add relevant articles, but now I don't see any difference between this category and the category "Scholars of Jainism". I feel this can be merged with the latter. Thanks for spotting. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC) I now get the difference. Scholars of Jainism contains articles on those who are scholars in the topic of Jainism. However, this category "Jain Scholars" are scholars (in any field) who happened to be Jains. For example, the articles currently in this category are Tamil scholars/commentators of Tirukkural who belong to the Jain community. I think that makes the difference. Rasnaboy (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course in theory that is the difference, but as said in the nomination rationale we do not need to diffuse e.g. chemists or French linguists by their religion. It would be a trivial intersection, also per WP:OCEGRS. However the fact that they are studying the Tirukkuṟaḷ is not a problem since that is also considered to be a Jain text.Marcocapelle (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But the problem here is that the Tirukkural is considered either a Jain or a Hindu text by scholars, not exclusively Jain. Nevertheless, given the fact it is secular and non-denominational in its teachings, people from all religions and creeds have written commentaries on it. Kaalingar and Manakkudavar are Jain commentators. Thus their studying/writing commentary is in no way related to their being Jains. Hence I emphasized this difference. Like you said, if this is not worth diffusing, I'm okay with the merging. Rasnaboy (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the likely consensus here is that we merge the categories and purge the Tirukkuṟaḷ scholars. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 6 June 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.
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 World Federation of United Nations Associations promoted the values of the U.N. and has a program where famous artists create a signed lithography for use as posters and other materials and this category consists of those artists like Andy Warhol, Norman Rockwell, and Salvador Dalí. This single performance must not be very defining because not a single one of the biography articles even mention this donation/commission. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the way the category is being used (for artists) makes it an obvious case of WP:PERFCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 7 June 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:Entertainment Software Association members[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:speedy delete as WP:CSD#G7. ✗plicit 11:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background We previously deleted categories for corporate memberships in trade associations right here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added speedy delete template to this category. Also, the AIAS category is nominated above. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:43, 6 June 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.
