Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 14 August 16 >

August 15[edit]

Category:Judges educated at Eton College[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Intersection of occupation and secondary school (or university) is not defining (there is not even 'Prime ministers educated at Eton College'). Category:People educated at Eton College is not otherwise subcatted by occupation; Category:Judges is not otherwise subcatted by school; and long should this remain so. Oculi (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is extensive documentation about the significance of intersections of this sort. The fact that I've already located 54 such judges before looking through Category:People educated at Eton College is significant in itself. If we think the place of education is significant then the outcome of that education is also significant. Rathfelder (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are over 5,000 articles in Category:People educated at Eton College, so subdividing by occupation is entirely logical. The absence of other subcategories, which could be entirely useful, is merely WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. BD2412 T 22:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Just 7% of Brits are privately educated yet 43% of the 100 most influential news editors, 44% of newspaper columnists, 74% of senior judges, 59% of permanent secretaries in the civil service are privately educated." Rathfelder (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There is ample population in this category to warrant keeping it. Many alumni categories have very few articles, but with one as large as Eton splitting by occupation is wholly justified. We normally expect a category to have a minimum of 5 articles and have much more than that. Category:Prime Ministers educated at Eton College would be viable, as would many other occupational categories. Similar splitting for some other public schools would also be practicable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't even have 'Judges educated at the University of Oxford', which would be a better place to start, as one can study Law at Oxford but not at Eton. The existence of sufficient articles has never been an argument for keeping trivial intersections. Oculi (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lack of an explicit route is precisely what makes it significant. Rathfelder (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • One may also argue that it is a trivial coincidence. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • One might, but that is the opposite of the view of most commentators. Rathfelder (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and lets see more like it. Please send their sons to Eton precisely to get into these positions. Bigwig7 (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No significance/notability of this category of people except as an artificial subdivider of Category:People educated at Eton College. Also, unimpressed with the WP:RGW tone above. For what it's worth, I personally see these sorts of categories as glorifying the Eton prestige rather than demeaning it. In fact, they might contribute greatly to its marketing and brand value. JBchrch talk 21:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- I still say that the alumni category for Eton is far too large to be a useful navigation aid and needs dispersing. I would not recommend similar splits for many schools, but Harrow, Winchester and a few more might be viable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Oculi that a by-century split would be far more natural than a split by a later occupation that people did not have yet when they were at this school. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the article makes very clear, they go to the school in order to get into these prestigious occupations. Rathfelder (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The school itself is prestigious, the occupation of judge not so much (in the context of notability requirements to get an article in Wikipedia to begin with). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:03, 15 August 2022 (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:Canadian lawyers admitted to the practice of law by reading law[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lawyers are all admitted to the practice of law by reading law. According to Reading law this means before there were law schools, but that would apply to many lawyers before the twentieth century. It doesnt seem to be a defining characteristic. Rathfelder (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Re: "Lawyers are all admitted to the practice of law by reading law", this is rather along the lines of saying that because horses emit methane, they are also combustion engines, and we should therefore not have categories about horses. It may be true under some definition of the words in the phrase, but is not what is understood by the meaning of the phrase within the field. The category could as easily be named "Canadian lawyers admitted to the practice of law by apprenticeship". It is also not necessarily true that everyone who became a lawyer before there were law schools did so by reading law. There have been periods historically when someone could just decide one day that they were a lawyer and put out a shingle without engaging in any formal process, much like one becomes a Wikipedian today.
Additionally, this category is basically an information completeness category. One of the basic facts that we ask about lawyers is, where did they get their law degree? The vast majority of notable lawyers have come about since the advent of the law degree, so for most lawyers the answer to that question will be the identification of the law school attended. For lawyers who did not attend law school, this leaves a perpetual question mark, unless we have some way of saying that they are part of the relative handful who did not. BD2412 T 17:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very few articles about lawyers say where they got their law degree. In fact many dont say that they have a degree at all. Categories are supposed to be defining. There is no suggestion that this is. Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is facially incorrect. Most articles on lawyers do say where they received their law degree, and we have countless well-populated categories for alumni by law school to show for it. Not everyone who graduates from a law school goes on to practice law, but the vast majority do. BD2412 T 22:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not merged, can the category name become shorter? E.g. Category:Canadese lawyers who have been reading law. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading law is a fixed process that culminates with admission to the bar. Someone who is "reading law" is by definition not yet a lawyer (at least, not in the jurisdiction for which they are reading law). Outside of the rare case of Kim Kardashian, most people who read law will not have achieved notability until the process is done, so it will generally be in the past tense. BD2412 T 05:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • So Category:Canadese lawyers who were reading law Category:Canadian lawyers who read law is slightly more accurate. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the proper past tense would be "who read law". We could note in the description that the category excludes those who started reading law but gave it up before gaining admission to the bar, but I have never seen a notable instance of that happening yet. I also don't think we use "Canadese" over "Canadian" anywhere. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • All Canadian lawyers read law. Some in universities, and some in practices. Rathfelder (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is a link to Reading law on the category page, so in case of doubt editors can read that this is not about all lawyers. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is what George Bernard Shaw meant when he supposedly said "England and America are two countries separated by a common language". What the phrase means in England is not what it means in America and Canada. This is a WP:ENGVAR situation. "Reading law" specifically means gaining admission to practice without attending a university program. Under this specific meaning, someone who is in a university is not "reading law" and someone who is in practice is not "reading law". The practice is historically more ubiquitous in the United States, however, so perhaps the solution is to rename this something like Category:Canadian lawyers admitted by apprenticeship. BD2412 T 18:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I expected this to be about those who graduated in law. I find it is actually the reverse, being a kind of tutelage or pupilage. "Lawyers admitted without attending law school" might be a viable means of addressing this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not averse to some clarification, but I would note that there have historically been people who became lawyers without either attending law school or "reading law" in the New World sense. There used to be a time when one could become a lawyer by putting out a sign declaring oneself to be a lawyer, in the same way that one could become a grocer by getting a storefront and stocking a bunch of groceries. BD2412 T 19:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Before a certain time this was a very common way to enter law in a lot of places. I do not think we should categorize lawyers by the method they obtained their law degree. This will lead to needlessly more clutter. Categorizing by a specific school of attendance is another issue, but method of law credential obtaining I do not think is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would think that it would at least need to be kept as a maintenance category. If we categorize by school attendance, then we are already categorizing by method of entering legal practice. To the extent that WikiProjects try to insure that we have accurate information on particular groups of lawyers (particularly judges, legislators, and the like), the absence of a category leaves that as a question mark. I frankly don't know if the Canadian category is used this way, but it is for American lawyers, so I would think that we would otherwise need a category like "Legal education missing" the same way we have a "Year of birth missing" category for biographical subjects generally. BD2412 T 20:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the problem with CfD. When there is a clear absence of consensus, and it is unlikely consensus ever can be reached due to different understandings of the purpose of a maintenance category, the discussion just gets relisted and sits ad infinitum. BD2412 T 20:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is being used to help tracking missing information it should obviously been kept as a maintenance category. However for that purpose do we specifically need a Canadian category? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think it's a useful distinction, lest this handful get lost in the much larger number of American lawyers who fit the description. Of course, merging up to Category:Canadian lawyers will merely destroy the information. By quirk of history, there are only a few countries where people almost universally become lawyers by graduating from an program accredited for that purpose, but can also in rare circumstances become lawyers without graduating from such a program. The balance of countries are those where it is impossible to become a lawyer without the degree at all (e.g., Poland), or, conversely, those where one need only pass the bar, irrespective of their education (e.g., Japan). Of course, in the latter circumstance, it is almost impossible to pass the bar without attending a law school that trains you specifically how to do this, but that is another matter. BD2412 T 05:39, 16 August 2022 (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:Mosby's Operations in Northern Virginia[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 to Category:Operations of the 43rd Virginia Cavalry Battalion. ✗plicit 05:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Mosby's Operations in Northern Virginia" doesn't seem to be an official name but more of a descriptive one. If that is the case, then the full name should be used (John S. Mosby) and "Operations" should be in lowercase. Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:00, 15 August 2022 (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:Topics in literature[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is a total overlap between categories, per WP:NONDEF. Subcategories should also, at least eventually, be changed to the "Literature about X" name format. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I can not tell the difference either. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- of course there is an overlap as the first is (at present) a subcategory of the second. The 2 categories are quite different as a glance at the contents will reveal. WP:NONDEF refers to articles and has no bearing whatever on the matter. Oculi (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oculi: But what is the difference, please? It seems to be WP:SHAREDNAME, as one holds "Foo in literature" while the other holds "Literature about foo" – and as the nominator says, the former are being renamed to the latter. – Fayenatic London 09:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 15 August 2022 (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:Library and information science[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT, both categories overlap in how they are categorised across articles, with nebulous differences as both subject matters are closely related in their field of study. As they exist as a joint field of study e.g. library and information science, merging them into a single category would help users navigate their articles more effectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamzze (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose, Category:Library science is a subcategory of Category:Information science and quite properly so. I do not see any overlap and if there would be any then the overlapping content should be removed from either one of the categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Information science, alongside multiple disciplines, grew from Library science and other movements - in terms of hierarchy of the two their remit of study is nebulous, dipping into one another. You say you cannot see any overlapping content, but there are a number of examples within both categories that could fit into either or. In the category information science, "e-science librarianship", "five laws of library science", and "library history" categories are present to name a few. Inside the category library science is "social informatics", "learning object metadata", and "information pollution", to name a few. The issue is that you cannot unpick these categories from either subject as library and information science is an overlapping and interdisciplinary subject. Indeed, throughout the categories you have this overlap present with categories such as "libraries and information centres in India", "library and information science abstracts", and "library and information science stubs". Suggestion: instead of a complete merger, it might be useful to have "library and information science" as the parent category to library science and information science, and then any overlapping content that exists between the two can be moved up into the parent category. Jamzze (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support what Jamzze (talk) suggested: place "library and information science" as the parent category to "library science" and "information science". Not all library science is (what is now considered) information science, and vice versa. Each shares some, but not all, aspects with the other. (Also, I believe J was referring to articles, not categories.) Her Pegship (?) 04:41, 16 August 2022 (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:Transracial 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Race is not mutable. People who identify as, what these people call, "transracial" need to be included in the aforementioned categories or anything similar. Self-identifying is what they really do; you cannot get into or out from a racial community. I also propose to rename the second category above for consistency with other categories of similar names such as Category:Books about Native Americans‎, which is not written as Category:Books about Native Americanism. Activists who are, they think, "transracial" are not many; I was thinking that I could find more activists who are "transracial" if I spent more time with exploring Wikipedia, but I could not. Thus, I think deleting this category is the best solution. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: We should be both concise and precise. In most conversations, transracial has two contexts (adoption and identity). The category I nominated is "transracial" as an identity. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am re-reading the rationale for the nomination and don't see that argument there. That said, I think it's pretty clear that a transracial "person" does not refer to someone who was adopted across race, nor are they referred to as that in the modern day, nor is that probably a defining characteristic of the person. So, my opinion does not change based on that justification, either. Reliable sources use the term, Wikipedia is not the place to "set things right" by trying to explain the term should not exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming, there is no need for being very precise. Support merging Category:Books about transracialism to its parent categories, though it should be a dual merge. The activists subcat might stay by lack of a proper target (there is no general ethnic activists category). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Of course we need to be precise here. We need to distinguish between transracial in the context of adoption and "transracial" as an identity. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I had to look at articles to try to work out what this is about. It seems to be about people of of race who masquerade as being members of another. Do we need a category for that? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not have to be a masquerade by all means, it may include people who regard ethnicity as a social construct rather than biological (race). I guess that is what the nomination is about. But I do not quite see what we would gain by excluding people who were masquerading. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Race is not a thing that you can choose at your own desire. It is inherited from your ancestors, who had their own culture, physical uniqueness, and even trauma. You cannot pick-and-choose your own race just because you want to. I am not the only one who said this. This, this, and this did the same. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nicholas Michael Halim: you do not have to convince me of anything. My point is that there is no reason to split the people in this category by the amount of transparency about their ancestry. Self-identification as transracial assumes full transparency, but in fact some people have been masquerading, using Peterkingiron's wording. But this masquerading is an ambiguous concept because you can do that with and without explicit lying.Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support precision is always best. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only now I notice that the 3rd category is nominated for deletion. If this category is not kept it should be merged to the first category instead of deleted. It does not make sense to remove activists from the people tree if the people category itself is not deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Pardon me! Now it's better. Please take a look. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:51, 15 August 2022 (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:Faculty by university or college in the Philippines[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In the Philippines "faculty" is the name of a department of the university. Rathfelder (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - parent is Category:Faculty by university or college and all the subcats are 'faculty'. In any case 'Faculty by university or college' does not make any sense for departments, so there is no danger of confusion (it would be 'Faculties by university or college'). Oculi (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. We need to get out of this obsession with using American English for everything. Different countries have different terminology. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Having spent a period as an American colony, I understand American English usages to be the norm in the Philippines, so that keep might be logical. I personally dislike the usage, but then I am English. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the current subcats use "faculty". Not sure if that's right or right wrong but changing the parent without changing the subcats would harm navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we agree to alter this we can change the subcategories speedily. I think avoiding ambiguity and confusion is more important than local usage. Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The University of the Philippines article uses the "faculty" 11 times, including "The university has 4,571 faculty". I don't think they mean 4,571 departments. It's certainly possible editors unfamiliar with Filipino English wrote that article, but it's also possible the country follows the American naming convention. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, also per Peterkingiron, as Filipino English mostly resembles American English we would need to have firm evidence that "faculty" isn't used in the American way in order to have the category renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the term that is usually used are "faculty members" and that the educators are collectively called a "faculty" of an educational institution. See example in this Philippine law. --Lenticel (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "faculty members" has the advantage of not being ambiguous. Rathfelder (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that "faculty members" has the advantage of not being ambiguous. Is this a common term in American/Filipino English? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Oculi: I am taking this proposal as a first step towards a new standard, i.e. faculty to faculty members (American English) and academics to academic staff (British English, in another discussion). If it will not hold in a bigger nomination, this particular one obviously needs to be reverted. When you would reply saying we need to start with a bigger nomination then I am all with you, but the more important point for now is discussing how to effectively reduce ambiguity. We can have this particular discussion ending in 'no consensus' while still everyone (hopefully) agrees that "faculty members" is better than "faculty" and "academic staff" better than "academics". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:45, 15 August 2022 (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:Attempted coups in the Soviet Union and Russia[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: split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although this presents historical continuity, we normally split categories by country rather than combine histories like this. The second nominated category contains Russia 1917, Soviet 1957 & 1991, Russia 1993. The first contains only the combined subcat for attempts. – Fayenatic London 08:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle because we have separate category trees for Russia and for Soviet Union. But I fear after splitting we are left with two very tiny categories. An alternative is to disperse the content among the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query When does an attempted coup become a coup? What's the success criteria for a coup? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - per nom. Oculi (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is little continuity between the Soviet Union and its 15 successors states. There is no reason for them to share a category. Dimadick (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2022 (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:Animated characters in film[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a character being an animated character in a live action film notable enough that we should put such a character in such a category. I am noticing that the hulk is being included here, but as a character Bruce Banner/the Hulk are one, and sometimes he is animated and sometimes not. So is being anominated some of the time defining enough or not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, animation is a defining characteristic of the film, not of its characters. At most (if there are any) Category:Animated characters in non-animated films would be defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion will not work yet, because of the subcategories that are still in it. For now, it should be containerized. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, the previous time, I had not seriously considered the distinction between animated characters in animated films versus animated characters in live action films. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The chacter being animinated is distinct from the film being animated. Is Roger Rabbit in an animated film? How about Pete's Dragon Elliot in the 1970s film "Pete's Dragon"? I think the chacater itself being animated is worth noting even if they are the only animated character in the film, and I do not think a film becomes an "animated film" just because some of the characters are animated. If a film is live action with one animated chacter thrown in, it still remains a live action film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree with the latter. Appearing in a live action film would in fact be the only relevant occasion for animated characters to be categorized as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing against Category:Animated characters as such. But within that tree a diffusion by medium is redundant since it is the animated film (or animated television series, for that matter) that determines the characters to be animated. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:53, 15 August 2022 (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:Local political office-holders by country[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, shorter and aligning with parent Category:Local politicians. Presumably, if this goes ahead, the subcategories can be speedily renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in theory, but in practice it does not matter. The page of Category:Politicians contains some criteria. For sure people just having political opinions do not belong in the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The proposed name is more concise and intuitive, and, as mentioned above, conditions for inclusion can be set independently of the category name. Toadspike (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2022 (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:Taoist pilgrimages[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: keep. ✗plicit 05:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, both articles are about Mazuism and it is unclear whether Mazuism is part of Taoism. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; both the member articles state "Taoist" in the lede, and the target page Mazu is part of Category:Taoism in Guangdong. The proposed renaming would make the category too small to encompass other articles. Although the article Taoism does not mention pilgrimage, 4 sacred mountains are listed at List_of_religious_sites#Taoism. I note that the article Chinese folk religion mentions pilgrimage multiple times, but I could not find any separate articles in English Wikipedia to add into a wider category. – Fayenatic London 08:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose rename. I think a sub-category for "Mazuist pilgrimages" including these two articles might be appropriate, but in the end they are still Taoist pilgrimages, as noted in both article leads, so the category "Taoist pilgrimages" should remain. There are other Taoist pilgrimages, and one day we should have other articles to populate this category with. Toadspike (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2022 (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.

Timelines by year[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: upmerge all non-timeline pages and rename to Category:YEAR timelines. bibliomaniac15 06:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "related" is a kind of weasel language in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Category:2010 by subject. I checked 2012 and its poetry article, which proved to be about poetry in that year without being a time-line. The 2024 item is still too soon. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is more in line with the original nomination, and slightly better phrased, so I can obviously support this too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge and rename as per Fayenatic London. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:24, 23 August 2022 (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:Teens in fiction[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 to Category:Teen fiction. bibliomaniac15 03:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, and per teen film and other examples of the genre. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first one is arbitrary and ambiguous. The new name is an improvement Jontesta (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a category name phrased more clearly as based on a defining characteristic. The category may require purging after renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Teen fiction" sounds to me like it is either fiction written for teens, or fiction written by teens. If the subject is fiction about teens, then I would think Category:Fiction about teens would be the better title. BD2412 T 06:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Teen fiction is a specific genre of fiction written for teens. Teens in fiction is a collection of articles that happen to be about fictional teenagers. Category:Fiction about teens is also poor, as it implies works specifically about teenagers, which is not what this category is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is not about teenagers I wonder what it is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Teen fiction implies it is about teens yes? Otherwise it would just go under the general umbrella of "young adult fiction". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is too broad a thing to categoize by. I also think we are getting into too much of a mess where sorting out the intended audience and the coverage is just too hard. Specfically I think there are a lot of types of fiction that always involve teens, but there are multiple such fictional types and I see no use to merging them all in one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is not a genre category, it is the depiction of an age group across genres. Dimadick (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it is a genre or not is not really relevant for the discussion. What matters is that not every book or film that happens to include one teenager main character is added to this category. The books and films in this category should be consistently about teenagers. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, aligns better with subcategories e.g. Category:Teen musicals. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:30, 23 August 2022 (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:Locations in fiction[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 to Category:Fiction by setting. Although there's some debate on potential vagueness in the rename, consensus does favor a rename. A better landing site can be the subject of a future discussion. bibliomaniac15 03:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Category:Works by setting, of which it should be a subcategory. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further clarification: with "setting" I am primarily thinking of setting in a certain period, although I realize it also includes location. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It may be useful to distinguish place from time. Two subcsts use "by geographic setting". – Fayenatic London 08:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Support rename, prefer nom, though may be too broad. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:38, 23 August 2022 (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:Lithuanian poets in Polish[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 to Category:Lithuanian writers in Polish and Category:Polish-language poets (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is this even supposed to mean? At a bare minimum, this needs renaming because the category name does not English. Renata•3 01:10, 15 August 2022 (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/2022_August_15&oldid=1109731555"