Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 28 July 30 >

July 29[edit]

Category:Jordanian expatriates 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: keep, as the keep vote refers to the exception rule in WP:SMALLCAT (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost unused limited category. Subcategories should also be checked for deletion. Sanglahi86 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 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:Banks based in in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#Category:Banks based in in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex

Category:French mission settlements in North America[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#Category:French mission settlements in North America

Municipalities in Italy by region[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 21:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, many subcategories of these are municipalities by province (rather than cities and towns), and municipalities is the main type of categorization of populated places in Italy anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the definition of "municipality" may be too narrow to accurately describe the contents of these categories. Our article on "municipality" begins with: "[a] municipality is usually a single administrative division having corporate status and powers of self-government or jurisdiction as granted by national and regional laws to which it is subordinate." More loosely, the term might include all towns and villages irrespective of corporate status or self-government, but that isn't what the word implies. Italy seems to be divided into comuni, which we translate as "townships" or "municipalities", but the comuni can be subdivided into frazioni which can also consist of towns or villages separate and distinct from the capoluogi—the "capital" or "main town".
So the question is, are these categories intended to include only administrative subdivisions rather than populated places? If the former, then no place that is considered a frazione (or even a populated place within a frazione should be included—they would have to be relegated to subcategories of municipalities, irrespective of notability. I worry that this would make many towns and villages excessively hard to find—one might look for the part of Italy they're in, and not see them, or have no idea which comune to look under. If the current categories can include any populated place, irrespective of administrative status or self-government, then the description of "municipalities" would be misleading—and perhaps lead to arguments for excluding places that lack such status or government. I note that the title "cities and towns" may not be ideal either, although "populated places" sounds unnecessarily technical, so perhaps it's simply the best choice from a number of imperfect alternatives. P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a lot of "populated places" categories around, so that can be a good alternative solution here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:42, 29 July 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.

Works by period[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#Works by period

Rename categories Category:Human rights abuses by period and Category:Crime in Australia by time[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#Rename categories Category:Human rights abuses by period and Category:Crime in Australia by time

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child[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 21:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In this RM discussion for List of depictions of the Virgin and Child it was argued that "Virgin and Child" is preferable to "Madonna and Child", particularly for Eastern Orthodox icons. There are some such icons (e.g. Feodorovskaya Icon of the Mother of God, Inexhaustible Chalice, Our Lady Derzhavnaya, Theotokos of Tikhvin, Virgin of Vladimir) in this category. "Paintings of the Virgin and Child" is also somewhat more consistent with the parent category Category:Paintings of the Virgin Mary. Ham II (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike per Randy Kryn below, at second thought I think it would be better if the RM result would be re-discussed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 16 of 20 subcategories of this category contain the word 'Madonna', and Madonna (art) and related 'Madonna and Child' paintings and sculptures abound. 'Madonna and Child' defines the topic well and is understandable, so nothing is broken (except Mary's nose from Michelangelo's Pietà, one of the great missing nostril artworks of all time). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the majority of those subcategories follow the style [Artist's name] Madonnas. Those don't follow Wikipedia:Category names § Visual arts, which recommends "[type of works] by [Artist]", e.g., "Paintings by Foo". So those categories should be at Paintings of the [Virgin/Madonna] and Child by [Artist] ("Virgin" or "Madonna" depending on the outcome of this CfR for their parent category).
    The paintings at Madonna and Child (disambiguation) could easily swap titles with those at Virgin and Child (disambiguation) without anything being lost; they're the same subject (Madonna and Child (disambiguation) even has an interlanguage link to fr:La Vierge à l'Enfant) and the choice between the two titles is arbitrary. The question is whether one of these terms is better than the other for the purposes of categorization. Ham II (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And then, if all the subcats are changed, there would be proposals to rename eg the 6/11 in Category:Filippo Lippi Madonnas which use the M word. Or we could just let sleeping dogs lie. Btw, the main article has been at Madonna (art) for years, which is normally pursuasive here. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this is dragging on, and given various relevant points made above, I'll come off the fence & Oppose. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 29 July 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:Scholars and academics[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 21:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We know that anything with "and" is likely a mess. And so is this. Fortunately, as a child to Category:Academia (and People by occupation), the rename to "People in academia" should be an elegant solution. Such a rename should likely affect various subcategories (which I am not listing as I don't know how to do it easily - do let me know if there is a relevant gadget).Additionally, it's worth pointing out that this category also contains generic Category:Researchers and Category:Scientists (as well as less common Category:Curators; and for whatever reason, does not contain Category:Theorists). All those terms are highly synonymous and the choice of scholars and academic but not the other synonyms seems very arbitrary. Note that we do not have an article on academic (it is a redirect to Academy#Academic_personnel), researcher (a redirect to research) nor theorist (a rediect to theory). As far as profession go, we only have articles on scholar and scientist. More cleanup is likely needed., but let's start with what I think is the simplest - renaming the "Scholars and academics" to "people in academia". PS. When it was created it was a "disambiguation category", but has evoled since... PPS. The problem was noticed on Commons but Commons mills grind slowly: commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Scholars and academics. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would then be the difference between Category:People in academia and Category:Academics? (I agree it's all a bit of a mess.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)s[reply]
    @Kj cheetham Indeed, here we run into the problems that we don't even have articles for academia (redirect to academy, a type of school), nor academic (see above). Frankly, I'd like to see most of those categories culled as they are ambiguous synonyms. See below for my reply to BHG, where based on fair point, I think maybe the better name to chose would be just Category:Scholars. Academics can, perhaps, remain as a subset of scholars who (to use BHG's words) "work within academia" and/or (to use the definition from Category:Academics) "do peer-reviewed research and/or teach in post-secondary education.". And while you think about it, please consider what to do with categories for researchers, theorists, scientists and curators... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that Category:People in academia is a much broader set than Category:Academics.
    ":People in academia" includes lots of non-academic staff, such as administrators, fund-raisers, sports staff, buildings and grounds maintenance staff, cleaners, caterers, and (in the USA) security personnel.
    The proposal would conflate academics with all these non-academics, which would be a real mess. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The reason for the current name is that not all scholarly people work within academia, and some have never even studied there. That pattern of non-academic scholarship was dominant in many countries before the 20th century. This rename would exclude all those people who did (or still do) their scholarly work worked outside academia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl While I see your point, we need a name that makes sense. "Poorly defined relevant entity A an poorly defined relevant entity B" don't make for a good category name. You say "scholarly people". Ok. Maybe Category:Scholars should be the parent name here? As I said, we should cleanup those subcategories too, maybe we can solve two problems at the same time. So how about merging this and Category:Scholars into one category at the current level? After all, if I understand you correctly, you say that not all scholars are academics, but all academics are scholars? If so, then a parent-child category relation should be created between Category:Scholars and Category:Academics, while the current category which is has a "child and parent"-type (child being academic, and parent being scholar)name should go away as confusing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: I dunno what you mean by merging this and Category:Scholars into one category at the current level.
    As I see it, academics are a subset of scholars, i.e scholars who work within academia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I mean is that I find your argument compelling, and as such I am fine discarding my initial proposal of renaming this to "Category:People in academia". Instead I now would prefer to rename this (i.e. Category:Scholars and academics) to Category:Scholars (the latter would be upmerged). After all, if as you say, "academics are a subset of scholars", then Category:Academics should be a child to Category:Scholars, and there is no need to have an entity named Category:Scholars and academics. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: there might be some potential in something like that ... but there are lot of subcats named ""Scholars and academics", and I would oppose any proposal which did not provide a clear path for what to do with them.
    However, I think that Piotrus's multiply-shaky grasp of the concepts has left this discussion as a huge mess. I can't see anything constructive coming out of this mess. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bhg, and because the proposed title will be less, not more clear to some readers. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not a very useful category, but this would make it worse.Rathfelder (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rathfelder See some other ideas proposed above. I think we can fix this, one way or another. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything proposed here which would be a "fix".
    I just see a set of very badly judged suggestions which would lose important distinctions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholars" was never a very precise term and its not improving with age. The word is used these days as a compliment in some cultures. The only reasonably well defined use seems to be in religion. Otherwise Category:Scholars seems to contain a random selection. I dont think I would describe modern scientists or physicians as scholars but I dont object to making it a parent of Academics.Rathfelder (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Upmerging Category: Scholars to Category: Scholars and academics per B.H.G. and Piotrus. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella: that's NOT what I advocate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry. You said: there might be some potential. My bad. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would containerize Category: Scholars and probably the modern subcategories. It just tempts people to put people like Barak Obama in them. Rathfelder (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support instead merging to Category:Scholars, which would contain Category:Academics, as a starting point. How to deal with Category:Scholars and academics by nationality and it's contents, Category:Scholars and academics by subject, Category:Lists of scholars and academics, Category:Women scholars and academics and any other cat with "Scholars and academics" in the title should be another wider discussion. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Scottish scholars and academics is the biggest nationality subcategory and many of the articles are about university academics. It needs purging. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downmerging Category:Scholars and academics to Category:Scholars may not be a bad idea but it would require a discussion about the subcategories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle @Kj cheetham Since the logic goes, all academics are scholars, the change from 'scholars and academics' to 'scholars' does not introduce any errors, so all subcategories can be safely renamed. Interested editors may want to later replace 'scholars' with 'academics' where it is more appropriate on an individual basis in the future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too bad there isn't a gadget. With many dozens of categories one may use AWB for tagging the category pages though. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, the existing title seems like the least-bad solution. In addition to the important point raised above (not all scholars are academics), it is not at all apparent to me that all academics are necessarily scholars. There are certainly plenty of tertiary educators who do not have research degrees and have never published, but who would be considered academics by many definitions. And there are plenty of academics who might have some sort of published research but for whom the label "scholar" would be questionable. Keeping things a bit loose seems best for this level of the category tree. -- Visviva (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By way of a supporting datum for my comment, I note that we have separate categories for Literary scholars and Literature educators. Those are both currently direct subcats of Category:Humanities academics (although that is unlikely to be accurate, since not all scholars are academics). I have some qualms about the current structure of Category:Literature educators, but just from dipping into the unexceptionable subcat Category:American academics of English literature, there are clearly some people who are correctly placed in this category who would be somewhat dubious to categorize as "scholars of English literature". (The first one I clicked on was Robert L. Chapman, an English professor who appears to be notable as a lexicographer, but currently has no article content suggesting contributions to what would generally be considered literary scholarship.) -- Visviva (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poposal make Category:Scholars a parent to all scholar and academic categories, and organize everything under that head. Is there any person any where we could categorize somewhere in the "academics" tree that we could not place in a "scholars" tree?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:57, 29 July 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:Fictional body parts[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. Only one editor had a reason for keeping, which was unclear whether it was valid. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, almost none of these articles concern actual body parts, even the ones like evil eye are about a magical power rather than the eye itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was about to say "Keep per StarTrekker", but after looking through the category the only things that are (even if one rejects the argument presented in zxcvbnm's response) fictional body parts, as opposed to media or characters are Brazen head, Evil eye, and the two vagina articles they mentioned (Third eye isn't in the category). So that would be a category of four loosely-related things, none of which really fit the definition. Hence Delete * Pppery * it has begun... 22:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but it should be called Category:Body parts in fiction, which is how the headnote define its scope, or perhaps Category:Fiction about body parts. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although 'Body parts in fiction' would seem adequate and accurate. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a collection of works of fiction and fictional items that in some way reference a part of the body. It is not a coherent topic, but being grouped by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 29 July 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:Prince-bishoprics of Livonia[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 21:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Prince-bishoprics were located in the Livonian Confederation. They were not created by the Livonian Confederation. They were created by the Holy Roman Empire. See also Category:Prince-bishops in Livonia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:17, 29 July 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:European Film Awards[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 6#Category:European Film Awards

Ambiguous London Underground line names[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 first two & no consensus on northern line. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Category:Central line stations to Category:Central line (London Underground) stations
Category:Circle line stations to Category:Circle line (London Underground) stations
Category:Northern line stations to Category:Northern line (London Underground) stations
Nominator's rationale: these line names are too ambiguous. Animal lover |666| (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They match the articles. If they are so ambiguous you should propose they be renamed. Rathfelder (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like Central line (London Underground)? Animal lover |666| 08:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: the articles for the first two lines were already disambiguated before I made this nomination, and not by me. I did move the Northern line article, based on the same disambiguation the other two already had. Animal lover |666| 12:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you moved that without starting a Requested move discussion, the fire of Hades at WP:LT and WP:UKRAIL will be coming after you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: People have agreed that the Circle and Central lines need to be renamed, but the Northern line still has some disagreement, especially because the RM for renaming the Northern Line failed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Techie3 (talk) 12:09, 29 July 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:Films featuring an item number[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 6#Category:Films featuring an item number

Category:Historians of the Byzantine Empire[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The categories appear to have the same scope. Manual merge is required, taking care with parent categories. Then disambiguate the page, distinguishing Category:Byzantine historians for people from the Byzantine Empire. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on wider implications: "Scholars of Fooian history" strikes me as much clearer than "Historians of Foo", and perhaps a wider nomination could follow for the sub-cats of Category:Historians by country. – Fayenatic London 13:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Constantine ✍ 11:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, hypothetically the category could have been in use as "historians from the Byzantine Empire", but in fact it is not, so both categories have the same scope indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:30, 30 July 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:Breton writers[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 & rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, there is no need for a separate ethnic category for writers and poets in French language. Note that Breton-language writers and poets already have their own subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The nationality and ethnicity are similar to each other, and these are confusingly similar to the Breton language categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. These are not two different things.Rathfelder (talk) 07:31, 5 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:Breton businesspeople[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#Category:Breton businesspeople

Fictional people by region in France[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, we do not need that much detail for fictional characters. Even fr.wp does not have a tree by region. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All of these categories contain only 1 or 2 pages, and the potential for expansion is very low. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:27, 29 July 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:Song recordings produced by Richard Stannard (songwriter)[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The subject is often credited as "Biff Stannard" or Richard "Biff" Stannard. This is common name so makes sense to rename, rather than include a dab (there are other targets called Richard Stannard). Additionally, there's no evidence that Stannard is more prolific as a songwriter than producer (he does both), hence Songs written by Richard Stannard (record producer) and Songs written by Richard Stannard (musician) weren't suggested. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The suggested title is a composite name, being created from the name of the man and the name of his business and would be no assistance to navigation, taking us further away from any recognisable title. Biffco is also an umbrella term used by other songwriters/producers. The nomination is a bit like suggesting that “Richard “Virgin” Branson would be acceptable. There is a redirect for Richard Stannard (songwriter) and that should be acceptable. Given that the difference between songwriter and music producer is becoming closer, I doubt I would have objections along those lines, i.e. music producer. What is actually surprising that Stannard doesn’t have his own article, appear on TV once and you get an article, shape the British music industry and get ignored. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning oppose: Based on what I've read on liner notes, Stannard's real name is usually used for writing while his "Biff" nickname is often included when he's credited as a producer, although I have encountered several exceptions. All in all, I don't think this distinction matters as long as it's consistent across categories. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note to closer, there are two similar discussions on the July 21 log page that presumably can be closed the same way. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 29 July 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_July_29&oldid=1103486769"