Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2 October 4 >

October 3[edit]

Category:Anthropomorphic characters in video games[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 20:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, this category has a problem with games themselves being added to it despite it being a character-only category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, clearer name for what it is intended for. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 4 October 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:The Great British Bake Off winners[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 11#Category:The Great British Bake Off winners

Category:Exophonic 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not useful as a category. We already have Category:Writers by language which is for people who do not write in their mother tongue, and is very well populated. This could be a parent for that, but I cant see it would help, and it is certainly not appropriate as a category for individual authors, who are, I think, already in appropriate language categories. Rathfelder (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Writers are defined by the language that they write in, obviously, but they are not defined by the tangential question of whether it happens to be their own native tongue or a second, third or fourth language. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Category:Writers by language certainly includes people who write in their mother tongue. It does not seem tangential to me to write in a 2nd language: Joseph Conrad's English was supposed to be greatly influenced by his background. Oculi (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in most cases they are merely writers who left their country of birth or who wrote in the colonial lingua franca. Incidentally I saw a translator among them. There is nothing special about being bilingual in those cases and writers are already in appropriate categories that reflect the cause of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy to accept that writing in a second language is often significant, but we have many thousands of articles about such writers. This is not an appropriate way of categorising them. We do have quite a few categories like Category:Russian-language writers by nationality. We dont normally categorise writers by language if they use the language of their own country - if it only has one. Rathfelder (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . As the creator of and substantial contributor to List of exophonic writers and the main article Exophony, it's a shame not to have been alerted to this discussion earlier. Regardless, I'd like to highlight that (a) The purpose & validity of the original article and list were already discussed in the past, and after some debate (around 2016) the conclusion was to keep them; (b) Nowhere do I see that the Category:Writers by language referred to by Rathfelder is actually intended to mean "people who do not write in their mother tongue" - on the contrary, that is the whole purpose of Category:Exophonic writers, and is quite distinct from a general list of any writers, regardless of nationality/background/native tongue etc. who happen to write in a given language (which is what Category:Writers by language clearly seems to be, as Oculi also noted); (c) As can be seen from the references in Exophony as well as e.g. Google Scholar, this is a valid field that is covered by academic research as well as more general publications, and having a way to categorize such authors is both useful and used: currently I see c. 75 writers on the list page, and 60 marked with the category. If anything, the category should be made more useful, e.g. by appending Category:Exophonic writers to each of the writers already on the list (and other suitable writers). It is clear from numerous press articles and academic papers that 'exophonic' is indeed a defining characteristic of such writers, and therefore the category should stay. Ozaru (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is a very well established policy that, for example "Where a specific nationality mainly comprises speakers of one language, singing in that language should not be used to categorize people." and see the note on Category:English-language writers. (That of course, does not mean that the policy is always followed by everyone). If this was to be a useful category we could have Category:Exophonic writers in Fooish, but this would cover all the writers who should be in Category:Fooish writers. Can Ozaru tell us if there are any estimates of the number of Exophonic writers who have articles? Or indeed how they are to be defined? Does it include all the Swiss? Rathfelder (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because one category happens to use those words currently does not make it into a policy. There are important differences with singers in any case: for one, opera singers (and others) will often sing in multiple languages without being able to speak them; for another, the wording for singers talks of nationality (a tricky concept anyway, because nation state, state, nation, country, citizenship etc. can all be different)... whereas exophony has nothing to do with political concepts of this type, it is specifically linguistic, concerned with mother tongue. Taking the example offered of 'the Swiss', a person of Swiss nationality whose first language was English would not be considered exophonic if writing in English, but would if writing in French - and vice versa. So the definition is quite straightforward. To produce a meaningful estimate of the number of exophonic writers with articles, on the other hand, one would need to know their mother tongues, which is not a trivial task - but it could indeed be a helpful exercise, as it would demonstrate that only a subset of the Category:Writers by language can truly be classed as exophonic. Ozaru (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is a very well established policy. Look for example at Category:Russian-language writers, which is noted This category is for Russian-language writers who were not nationals of the modern nation state of Russia. and only contains 54 articles, whereas Category:Russian writers contains thousands. Category:Writers by language is, for most countries,largely populated by Exophonic writers. See, for another example, Category:Arabic-language writers which is designated for writers who are not from Arabic speaking countries. Rathfelder (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't appear to have understood my points. Policy has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and what you describe is not (currently) a Wikipedia Policy. Also the question of whether or not someone is a 'national' of somewhere or 'from' a certain country [or a country where a particular language happens to be widely spoken] is irrelevant to the question of exophony, because the former are political concepts and the latter a linguistic one considering only the mother tongue of a particular individual vs their chosen language of expression, nothing to do with nationality. Ozaru (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep .Not seeing any harm in keeping this page.

  • I have no problem with List of exophonic writers. It's establishing this as a category which bothers me unless it can be defined more precisely. As it is clearly should include the whole of, for example, Category:Writers of Esperanto literature, a fair proportion of many of the subcategories of Category:Writers by language not to mention most people who have learned more than one language. Rathfelder (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this category might include many of the people in Category:Writers of Esperanto literature, but it's not a valid objection, as Native Esperanto speakers do exist, including at least three notable writers (and more may emerge in future, of course). These people would therefore not count as exophonic writers, so one category is not a subset of the other. The same applies to the subcategories of Category:Writers by language - there will probably be some overlap, but not congruity, and if the categories are describing different things, they need to exist separately. The definition is not imprecise: it is writers (not just 'people who write' but people who write as a profession), where such writing is performed in a language that was not their mother tongue (or one of their mother tongues). As for the comment regarding 'most people who have learned more than one language', we'd need to amend that first to 'most people who have learned more than one language and are professional writers and write professionally in their 'learned' language(s)', which restricts it considerably. Ozaru (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your understanding of the term may be sophisticated, but if its a category it would invite misunderstanding. How could you establish that these mean something different? Category:Writers includes all sort of people who people who write as a profession, not just creative writers. Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that it would invite misunderstanding - it is not as if it were a common word being used in an uncommon way, and if anyone were unsure of the meaning, they would presumably look at the article exophony. Indeed, it could be a good idea to insert some simple text at the top of the Category:Exophonic writers page to provide a basic definition and direct people to the main article. While we're at it, Category:Writers by language could be improved in a similar way, and even include a link to Category:Exophonic writers to make the distinction crystal clear. Your use of the word "creative" is interesting, as that is not necessarily a part of any of these connected definitions, and "all sort(s) of people who write as a profession" is also problematic, as I doubt many people would understand Category:Writers, Category:Writers by language or Category:Exophonic writers to include e.g. a lawyer writing case documents or a doctor writing research papers, so for our purposes the definition given in writer ("… creative writing … as well as … reports and news articles …") seems as good as any. Anyway, I'd argue that the way forward is to edit the relevant category pages as above to make the distinctions clear, but retain them. Ozaru (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not many people read category pages. Most use Twinkle. I think it needs to be made much clearer that this is not intended, for example, to include Dutch scientists, who almost all write in English. Rathfelder (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most" use Twinkle? The link counter indicates that 160 or so people mark themselves as users (sure, some will use it without adding the badge), but in any case I would surmise that Twinkle is used primarily by Wikipedia editors as opposed to the much higher number of people who utilize Wikipedia as a reference. What evidence is there that "not many people read category pages"? My guess is that most who interact with categories in any way do read them. Surely if you're going to be doing stuff with any category, you'll read what the category is about? Even more so if it's a category based on a relatively specialist term like 'exophonic' which you might not be familiar with. Without casting aspersions, I'd hypothesize that most sensible editors, as well as users, would naturally read up on what 'exophonic' means before editing, utilizing or otherwise interacting with a category called 'exophonic writers'. And as for "Dutch scientists" (by which I assume you mean scientists whose only mother tongue is Dutch, as opposed to those of Dutch nationality, residence or citizenship etc. whose mother tongue might be English thereby not making them exophonic if writing in that language), as above I doubt many people would understand any of Category:Writers, Category:Writers by language or Category:Exophonic writers to include people writing scientific papers, as the definition cited above is more useful. But perhaps that's a moot point: you seem to be agreeing that what needs to be done is make things "clearer". In my view the logical way to do that is to add text to the category page. If you can suggest an alternative way to do so, I'm all ears. But I don't see how deleting the category would make anything clearer at all - indeed, it's more likely to do the opposite. Ozaru (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the sheer number of times I've personally cleaned up categories for the inclusion of content that the usage note on the category explicitly said it wasn't meant for (e.g. I still have to check Category:Biography (genre) every once in a while to ensure that it isn't collecting articles about individual people), I can assure you that editors very much don't routinely "interact" with categories before trying to add articles to whatever categories they assume are relevant. Sure, sensible editors often do, but you can't assume that everybody who edits Wikipedia is always doing so sensibly. Bearcat (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could give you many examples of editors not reading - or sometimes understanding - category pages, especially people whose first language is not English, and those are people likely to be working on these articles. They wont necessarily know that exophonic is not a common word. Today, for example, I found musicians who were People's Artist of Ukraine categorised as Ukrainian artists. My worries are indeed about editors, not readers. Rathfelder (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:53, 3 October 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.

Academic personnel in Europe[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: use names beginning "Academics of", e.g. Category:Academics of Aleksandër Moisiu University. I read this as the consensus of 11 out of 14 participants; of these 11, 8 supported "Academics of" and 6 opposed "faculty". 4 explicitly opposed "Academic personnel".
As nothing has been put forward about whether/when to include "the", we should follow usage within Category:Buildings and structures by university or college, i.e. use "the" where Wikipedia names the institution "University of Foo", e.g. Category:Academics of the University of Paris following Category:Buildings of the University of Paris.
Following usage within articles, I will also implement this as "Academics of the" for:
I will add redirects at the latter cases. – Fayenatic London 13:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-closure note
I have made a full list of renames at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 3.
Implementation is currently paused in case this close is taken to WP:MRV, following discussion on my talk page. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Propose renaming
Albania
Armenia
Austria
THE FULL LIST IS AT Wikipedia talk:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_17
Nominator's rationale: rename "faculty" to "academic personnel" per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_4#Academic_personnel. Note: instead of "... University academic personnel" (option A, as listed) we might instead rename to "Academic personnel of the ... University" (option B) or "Academic personnel of ... University" (option C). I have a preference for option A, avoiding issues with "the" altoghether. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37, Rathfelder, Piotrus, Peterkingiron, Necrothesp, Renata3, UnitedStatesian, Place Clichy, Oculi, Sharouser, and David Eppstein: pinging contributors to previous discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A please, with name of university first. Makes Twinkle easier. Rathfelder (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D - the nom ought to replace 'faculty' and 'academics' by 'academic personnel' and leave the other format (whether 'the' or 'of') unchanged. In the UK it should be 'academic personnel of' as this was established at cfd long ago (with 'alumni of'). I must say that I greatly prefer 'academics of' to 'academic personnel of'. Oculi (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, again. "Academic personnel" is too vague. It could mean teaching assistants. It could mean postdocs. We don't want to categorize either of those things; only the people who are hired in fully professorial roles (assistant professors, readers/lecturers in UK-based systems, etc). And there is no good reason for this major overhaul of our academic category system, which works adequately as is. Making US and UK English consistent with each other by choosing a variation not widely used in either is a bad idea for a bad reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are teaching assistants sufficiently notable to have an article where are they to be categorised? Rathfelder (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ridiculous addition of unnecessary and inaccurate verbiage. "Faculty of ..." is WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE, things that are not broken do not need to be mended.
Counter-proposal 1. Overturn the previous move discussion here, insufficiently attended and no notification to categories that might subsequently be affected by it, such as Category:Academics of Wimbledon College of Arts (which is what brought me here).
Counter-proposal 2. Rename all of these categories to the format Category:Faculty of Foo College, not because it's intrinsically better but because a title such as Category:University of California, Los Angeles faculty is missing the necessary closing parenthetical comma. It should be at Category:University of California, Los Angeles, faculty – which of course would be nonsense. Oh, and rename all the alumni categories to the same format while you're at it. And no, I'm peeved but I'm not joking. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Faculty" in the UK is a division of the university, not a description of the staff. Rathfelder (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no instances of 'Faculty of' in the entire tree AFAIK and certainly not in the list under consideration. I concur that Category:Academics of Wimbledon College of Arts is fine as it is. Oculi (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: both Category:Faculty of Foo College and Category:Academics of Foo College are perfectly acceptable, and equally WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. If "Academics of ..." is preferred then no objection from me – it's actually the format I've used when creating such categories; per WP:CREEP, I'm not convinced that we need to choose and impose a single choice of word. The important thing is to ensure that the name of the school is at the end of the category name. Thanks, Rathfelder and Oculi for your constructive criticism. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want the name of the school is at the end of the category name? Making new categories is much easier the other way round and its much better for arranging them in alphabetical order.Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, if you ping me when asking me a question it's rather more likely that I'll reply. It's because of the recurring comma problem when the college name precedes the word 'alumni', 'faculty', 'academics' or whatever. Modern computers sort pretty well, they should be perfectly able to get things in order even if they all start with 'Academics of ...'. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serbo-Croatian speaking countries use same organizational terminology: Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb (or University of Zagreb, Faculty of Architecture), etc. ౪ Santa ౪99° 07:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Unnecessary and inferior - "academics of x" or "faculty of y" or "x faculty" are all superior, in particular being concise and clear. I agree with David Eppstein that "academic personnel" introduces an undesirable vagueness, while we want to consider only notable academics. SeoR (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Further comment - this goes back to 2022 June 3#Category:Faculty by university or college in Finland, where a bizarre result not mentioned in the nomination was achieved. The article Academic personnel is used as justification. Has anyone read this article? It has 2 sources (both from India) and should be afd'd. Moreover it was moved without discussion from Faculty (academic staff). This is a house built on sand. Oculi (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw this for Croatian universities and I still support it as I did once before, but I can't remember the link now, it was posted somewhere near the top of the hierarchy. In that discussion, people noted how the term faculty is not only ambiguous with the organization naming in Europe, and UK categories are already not using it, it's even ambiguous in the Western Hemisphere usage, so it's entirely unclear how it could be helpful to enforce it outside of the areas where the term is native. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK found it, Category_talk:Faculty_by_university_or_college#Request_for_comment_on_naming --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename from Faculty somehow. This is an American usage unwelcome in Europe. I would prefer Academics of Foo University or Academic staff of foo university. The fact that this is intended for lecturers, professors, deans, and full-time research fellows can be dealt with in a headnote. Doctoral students who are working part-time as demonstrators; teaching assistants and the like are likely to be NN anyway, and so will not have articles to be categorised, but if the odd one gets includes does it matter? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw, it is apparent that there is no consensus for this target across nominations. It is probably better to close this discussion and make way for a combined nomination (including the categories of the previous discussion) with an "Academics" target rather than with an "Academic personnel" target. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawal is meaningless when the discussion carries on anyway. As nominator I am supporting "academics" as an equally good solution. If that goes ahead, then the outcome of the previous discussion needs to be overturned to "academics". Marcocapelle (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is better to just let us continue have a convention that uses American English "faculty" for American institutions and British English "academics of" for British institutions rather than trying to falsely pretend that we all use identical wording for this topic. See WP:ENGVAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D per Oculi or use "academics" but mixing two separate changes in one super nomination, one of which introduces inconsistency within national categories, isn't helpful. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "Academics of X" - as pointed out "faculty" has different meanings in different cultures but "academics" is universally understood; "academic personnel" is unnecessarily verbose. "X academics" would be a distant second choice - mainly because there's no good reason for changing the existing "Academics of X" categories. WaggersTALK 11:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C per Category:Academic personnel by university or college in Europe for consistency. Personally I prefer "Academics of", but it appears that ship has sailed. "Faculty" is an Americanism and "of" is always a better construction. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "Academics of X" as done almost universally at UK universities. There is an argument for standardising the format of "X" but not more than that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should a UK-specific construction be relevant for these categories, which are for non-UK institutions? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply that it's an example of an existing systematically applied system which has been stable for some time: which doesn't prove it's ideal but does show it's adequate. Any change to a worldwide system overruling this local consensus should be demonstrably superior, which none of the proposals above are. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    it is untrue to suggest that any such form of words is "done almost universally at UK universities". Universities in the UK are endlessly reorganising themselves and their terminology. Rathfelder (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to the Wikipedia categories, not the universities themselves. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we should pay more attention to the real world. Rathfelder (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment -- I do not see how the use of an Americanism is appropriate for European categories. The exception might be if in a university's native language the equivalent term was a word similar to (and related to) "faculty", but no one has so far offered us anything of the kind. For example my Swedish dictionary give me fakultet as a translation for faculty and adds AE [American English] lärarkär, which translates back as "teacher". It is accordingly apparent that the American usage of the word is alien to Sweden. A sample French category is "Catégorie:Enseignant à l'université de Toulouse", which is nothing like the English word, but my French dictionary tells me that faculté is a French word, which appears to have the same usage as its cognate in England and recognises an Amer usage to be translated to something like Enseignant. No doubt more examples could be given, but it is apparent to me that the American usage of faculty for personnel is alien to Europe. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator, I'd rather move away from a UK/US battle. The reason for the nomination was and still is that the word "faculty" refers to the organizational unit rather than to the people working there, at least in most countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, and I agree, but I'm not sure why categories that don't contain the word "faculty" have also been nominated. I oppose changing "academics" to the less concise "academic personnel". I'm more relaxed about whether the general format should be "Academics of X" or "X Academics" but I prefer the former, which is the status quo for most of the nominated "academics" categories. WaggersTALK 10:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said elsewhere, "academic personnel" is too broad to be a good category name. It applies to many people such as graduate students working as teaching assistants for whom these categories are not defining and to whom these categories should not be applied. We only want to apply this category to faculty members (which is I believe a perfectly unambiguous phrase even though the shortened form "faculty" has national-tie issues). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Academic personnel is too vague. The current category organization is not broken. Don't fix it.4meter4 (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And faculty is completely ambiguous and in this sense an Americanism not used in most other countries to boot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please close as "academics" or "academic personnel" (preferably the former) whether as academics of Foo University or Foo University academics: it matters little, as long as we move away from the Americanism of "faculty". If someone can establish local usage of faculty or some cognate word in particular universities, changing those back might be justified; otherwise not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the consensus: many editors have objections to the status quo as being an Americanism and ambiguous, but 'academic personnel' is also objected to as being too vague, so 'academics' would seem to have the strongest consensus. 'Academics of X' has consensus over 'X academics', with out many (any?) policy-based reasons for preferring the later. In addition this seems consistent with the UK tree.
    I would close this myself, but it looks to be too controversial for a non-admin. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming (option A) per nom. In the UK and Serbo-Croatian speaking countries "Faculty" is organizational terminology for division of the university, not a description of the staff: Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb (or University of Zagreb, Faculty of Architecture), etc.--౪ Santa ౪99° 07:47, 14 October 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:Fantasy-comedy films 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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is a random and arbitrary mix of unhyphenated "fantasy comedy" for some countries, and hyphenated "fantasy-comedy" for others, making it kind of arbitrary which set to leave alone and which one to rename for consistency -- but since the parent category is unhyphenated Category:Fantasy comedy films, and in fact was moved from the hyphenated "Fantasy-comedy films" by CFD discussion a couple of years ago, that's the form that these should follow. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:24, 3 October 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:Actors by city or town in 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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They are all cities. This would bring this into line with the rest of Category:Russian people by occupation and city Rathfelder (talk) 14:45, 3 October 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_October_3&oldid=1133651179"