Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 5

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 4
March 6 >

March 5

Category:Fictional male detectives

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 18:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection between gender and occupation of fictional characters. Fictional male detectives is not a notable topic in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose I don't see why a character's gender is nopt notable. It does nopt seem trivial to me. Dimadick (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per
    WP:OCEGRS we avoid gendered categories. This is not a special case where it should be allowed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both. Trivial intersection to be avoided without good reason (i.e. a separate article on the topic). Miss Marple will still be in Category:Female characters in literature so no information is being lost, just don't need every possible intersection with her other categories. SnowFire (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If retained, they should be renamed to "women" and "men" per William. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2023 (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:Detectives and criminal investigators

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 18:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: rename per earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_21#Category:Fictional_detectives and per main article Detective. Move content that does not belong in a detectives category to parent Category:People in law enforcement. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wahspsneh, LaundryPizza03, Zxcvbnm, Bduke, William Allen Simpson, and Dimadick: pinging participants to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't do spurious nominations like this. None were tagged. Need a separate nomination after this concludes.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2023 (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:Virtue

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 13#Category:Virtue

Category:Student religious organisations in Norway

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 all. bibliomaniac15 18:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCATs with only 1 entry. Re-nominating after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_23#Category:Student_religious_organizations_in_Denmark where Estopedist listed these countries (using the other spelling) but did not tag the pages. – Fayenatic London 16:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Fayenatic london Thanks. I cannot understand why English specialists don't make a deal: we use always "organizations" or always "organisations". Such spelling discussions are really waste of time Estopedist1 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. We had a huge discussion about the s/z spelling, but unfortunately it did not lead to consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2023 (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:Literature of Kievan Rus

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 18:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: As noted at
WP:SMALLCAT that has almost exactly the same contents as Category:East Slavic manuscripts, and as a child of Category:Kievan Rus culture along with Category:Old East Slavic, which @Marcocapelle: proposed as the new parent of Category:Old East Slavic literature, I think it serves no further special purpose as a separate category, and has no added value. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment you're not in a position to keep that promise since it is dependent on the success of another nomination. There's a procedural problem here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2023 (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.
Please wait. As others have replied and Laurel noted, this was paired with a previous nomination. It should never have been done separately. As I wrote then, such impatience may result in no consensus.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relatively new to CfD, I hadn't foreseen this problem. In recent days I've begun making some notes on which categories to nom for CfD, CfR or CfM and in what order, to prevent dependence problems like this. Unlike with Category:Rulers, I'm also trying to work bottom-up rather than top-down now; it's a better way to set precedents for future noms. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: I see that 20 March you closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_12#Category:East_Slavic_literature as Rename (as expected, thanks!). This morning JJMC89 bot III completed the move. Articles such as Tale of the Destruction of the Rus' Land have now also been moved from "Literature of Kievan Rus" to "East Slavic literature" to Category:Old East Slavic literature. So I guess we can close this CfM now? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw, this CfD has already been closed. No further action is necessary. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I thought you would include this text here in the cyan box, but alright. Thanks again! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians in Barbuda

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Wikipedians in Antigua and Barbuda, which contains only this category and the same user. Also has too few people to support a location category per precedent. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This category is to be used for the “Wikipedians in Barbuda” user box. CROIX (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Template:User Barbuda. It currently uses both user categories. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just remove the category assignment from the userbox script. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as well as for the historical precedent of deleting these type of categories for places with a population of under 50,000. In this case there are less than 1,700 residents in Barbuda, so it is unlikely such a category could be used for collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2023 (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:Estonian surveyors and land managers

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 18:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2023 (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 staff in Canada, Central America and the Caribbean, Oceania and South America

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. I can't imagine relisting this is going to bring about any clearer consensus, so I'm closing this as rename in line with previous discussions.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Propose renaming
etcetera
The full list of nominated categories is on the talk page
Nominator's rationale: rename, this is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_3#Academics_in_Europe and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_29#Academic_staff_in_Africa_and_Asia. Faculty is ambiguous: it may well refer to an organizational unit of a university rather than to people. On the other hand academic staff is entirely clear. So far Europe, Africa and Asia have been changed. I have now nominated all remaining countries except the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
No such user, Robminchin, ElKevbo, Waggers, Place Clichy, Peterkingiron, and William Allen Simpson: pinging contributors to previous January 3 discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support per precedent.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per precedent. That's an impressive amount of work! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The
    WP:ENGVAR-violating expansion of British English to our worldwide academic categories now expands to North America. Per the precedent at previous discussions, there is no attempt to survey what the universities in these places actually call their professors. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as too broad a nom -- European categories and those for former colonies have been renamed to reflect local usage (including cognate terms in French and Swedish). Any change needs to be dealt with on a country by country basis, with evidence of local usage. I suspect that Quebec will follow French usage, but what the rest of Canada (English-speaking) does requires evidence of local usage. Furthermore the list cited relates to Africa and Asia, not Oceania or South America (where the usage probably reflects that in Spain and Portugal, from which they were colonised. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, this was a copy-paste error. The link now directs to the intended list with Canada, Central America and the Caribbean, Oceania and South America. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As per arguments I already expressed in earlier discussions - in short, faculty is like
    fakultet for Electroengineering and computer sciences, a distinct school under an university in many parts of the world and certainly in every Slavic language.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support. Per arguments in other discussions, this provides
    WP:COMMONALITY, with "Academic staff" being more internationally comprehensible than either the British English "Academics" or the American English "Faculty". My only reservation was about extending this to Canada: Looking at a sample of Canadian universities, it appears that usage of "faculty" is split between British usage (University of Victoria; McGill University; University of British Columbia; University of Alberta) and US usage (University of Toronto; McMaster University; University of Calgary; University of Manitoba). Had US usage of "faculty" been standard in Canada, this would have argued for this being established in Canadian English and thus provided a strong argument for keeping it. However, the use of "faculty" to refer to academic staff is not generally established across Canada and does not match usage in many universities, so adopting the more international "academic staff" for Canada would appear appropriate. Robminchin (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Peterkingiron please consider the information about Canada provided above ^ --Joy (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that in the link I posted below there's examples from Nipissing University (Ontario), University of Winnipeg (Manitoba), Carleton University (Ontario), University of Alberta (Alberta), University of Ottawa (Ontario), OCAD University (Ontario), University of Toronto (Ontario), Alberta College of Art and Design, and probably more (I gave up on the infinite scroll after a while). Only a few of these, by and large from the Toronto area yet not consistently among Toronto institutions, seem to be using this in a way that might potentially be confusing to some readers. Also there was a link to an Athabasca University (Alberta) document that gave a 404. A subsequent quick google search finds other examples of that usage there. --Joy (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Although "faculty" may well be the commonest term for academic staff in North America (unlike the rest of the world), it remains ambiguous and "academic staff" is fully understood and unambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for exactly the same reasons as Necrothesp, and for consistency across the project. WaggersTALK 12:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll repost one bit from before - I came across https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/academic-staff which seems to be useful for an overview of formal English usage. There's examples there from Australia, India, UK, Zimbabwe, Jamaica, Kenya, Ethiopia, Canada, South Africa, Malaysia, Ireland and elsewhere, that indicate this terminology is common there. Hopefully, this is also a relevant indication of vernacular usage. I'm happy to see that Robminchin's analysis confirms that Canadian examples were not merely an exception. Unless someone can provide a new coherent rationale why we should keep the existing scheme, support. --Joy (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I did not participate in the earliest discussions but I found all of them deeply unconvincing, without investigating what the actual colleges used along with massive cherry-picking. "Faculty" for professors is perfectly common internationally and is not some strange American-ism. Further, while "ambiguousness" is cited, this ignores the fact that it introduces an entirely new ambiguity as has been pointed out before: "Faculty" means professors specifically, while "staff" is used more broadly to potentially mean anyone vaguely associated with the program, visiting professors, etc. For example, from Joy's links above, UBC (which does indeed have a single reference to "faculty" more as an organization, but one perfectly in keeping with this being a terminology for the professors) has this listing which separates "Faculty" and "Staff" as two different things. Here's University of Victoria, also listed as a "pro" British usage example, also separating out "faculty" and "staff" as not equivalent. This separation is far more impactful and important than the harmless and unlikely confusion between "Faculty" as term for a department in general, so why are we trading one unlikely confusion for a potentially major ambiguity? And I still don't see this addressed about whether these categories are intended to be a scope change to expand to "staff in general", or if it means "We're calling them Academic Staff, but we really mean just faculty." (Also, I'm not seeing tons of support for a split-by-region, but I'd offer an extra-strong oppose on Canada if it matters just because the usage there is clearly similar to the US, based on Joy's links.) SnowFire (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that if we find clear evidence that both the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria use the term faculty for both organizational units and for people, then that cannot be used as an argument that we should keep using the term faculty to mean only one of these things in categorization. I don't see how it serves an average English reader well to push a categorization scheme that is so blatantly ambiguous. Granted, there could be some average English readers that will find the term 'academic staff' ambiguous as well because of the specific meaning found in parts of the US, but I think we need substantially more proof of their prevalence before prioritizing them over the others. --Joy (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the links given above, U Victoria & UBC (and many more, I'm sure) use the term "Faculty" to mean what it has traditionally meant on Wikipedia: that of professors. Ergo, this use of faculty is not an American-only usage. This seems very straightforward and important to me: if it is good enough for the universities in question, what's the problem with mirroring that usage here? And... the ambiguity I'm talking about is taking these Canadian universities on their own terms, not because of a "specific meaning found in parts of the US." These Canadian universities offered as evidence for the move are evidence of the ambiguity I'm talking about in Canadian English: these universities have a section called "Faculty" for professors (just as Wikipedia categories currently do), and they have a category called "Staff" for something else. I can see someone pro-move arguing that this ambiguity is less important than the ambiguity between departments and the professors meaning (which I disagree with), but to be clear, I am making my argument strictly on the sources given and on Canadian English usage. The non-equivalence of "faculty" and "staff" clearly happens in Canadian English as well. SnowFire (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you're ignoring the fact that they also use the term academic staff in the same meaning. Also, the proposal wouldn't make it so that we call 'faculty' just 'staff', but 'academic staff', which is again what they seem to do as well. --Joy (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Faculty" for professors is perfectly common internationally and is not some strange American-ism. I really don't think this is true. And your comment that "Faculty" means professors specifically also illustrates the international issues here, as the use of "professors" to mean academic staff in general as opposed to only the most senior rank of academic staff is also an Americanism. In Britain, for example, we have lecturers, senior lecturers, readers and professors. All are academic staff, all would be referred to as "professors" in an American university, but we only call the last category (the ones who actually are professors, or "full professors" in American parlance, and hold chairs, either personal or established) "professors". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In some of the earlier CFDs, I looked at some international colleges and found them using "faculty" in the American sense. Perhaps that usage is outweighed by other considerations, but I stand by my statement that this is not an America-only usage as can be seen from a random sampling of international colleges.
    Suppose these categories are moved (as seems likely). Can you spell out what exactly should be in these "Academic staff" categories? For example, if an otherwise notable person is given a position as a secretary or administrative assistant at a college, should they be in the "Academic Staff of XYZ University" category? These move requests have never spelled out whether they really are a scope change or not as best I can tell. (I will grant that if a scope change is really what's desired here, this will change the equation slightly, but if not, then what's the grounds for excluding such employees from "Academic Staff" when they are classed as such on official websites? For all that these people generally aren't notable anyway, of course.) SnowFire (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am opposed to these needless changes (a vast amount of work for imperceptible gain), university staff would be either academic or non-academic. So faculty = academic staff, and staff = non-academic staff. So I don't perceive a scope change. — 
    Oculi (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2023 (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:Depictions of people on film

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 13#Category:Depictions of people on film

Category:British India emigrants to the United States

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 18:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to plainly be covering the same subject; no need to keep both. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Both were created by Johnpacklambert - John, is there a reason both are needed, or was it just an error? Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See creator's explanation on my talk page (diff). Johnpacklambert sees no need for both categories and suggests that 'Emigrants from British India' is preferable over 'British India emigrants'. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to
    WP:SMALLCAT. Overcategorization by temporary corporate raiders (the East India Company). Much of JLP work in categories is suspect, and there's some kind of restriction on futher work here. But subjects could identify in many ways, and often would not see a loyalty to the ruling polity is accurate. Let's not perpetuate the problem.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge As Nominated Clearly overlapping and, together, they get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge preferably as nom or reverse merge. British India lasted nearly 200 years so that this is not merely temporary. Category:Emigrants from British India has a lot of subcats (mostly small - but possibly needing populating). All the people appear to be ethnic Indians. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2023 (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 gender

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 18:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: split such that the categories by gender are clearly about the topic men and women, in line with the parent Category:Works by topic. Works and books about individual people belong in the (already existing) biographical categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. However, there are many categories on Wikipedia that focus on women, so perhaps there should be subcategories named something like Category:Works about individual women to seperate out the female subjects? MClay1 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I see no need to only present works about individual men and women in mixed lists. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely men do not need to be separated, per
    WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:40, 5 March 2023 (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:Modeling in France

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 18:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Unique category name ("Modeling in Foo"). Redudant in Wikipedia category system Estopedist1 (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2023 (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:Muslim politicians

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. bibliomaniac15 18:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:OCEGRS. Note that we do not yet have Category:Christian politicians, but previously deleted Category:Jewish politicians
is back again, too.
Under Category:Politicians by political orientation. Muslim is not a political orientation.
2021 re-creation after deletion:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 21#Politicians by religion
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 4#Category:Politicians by religion
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I wonder if we could some day do something about Category:Jewish presidents, a category that finds a connection between the presidents of Israel, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Janet Jagan and, once, Lenin and Nicolas Sarkozy. Place Clichy (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- A person's religion is likely to be a significant factor in how they behave politically. However what we have here is a potchpotch, mixing together politicians from radical (explicitly Muslim, even Islamiscist, parties) and democratic politicians in US and UK, in countries where Islam is a minority religion. Probably disperse and containerise. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re 'significant factor': political behaviour is significantly influenced by social class, occupation, level of education, or the decade people were born in, probably at least as much as by people's religion. And we probably would not categorize by upper-class politicians, politicians with master's degrees or politicians born in the 1990s. Place Clichy (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - its a good point about Category:Christian politicians. The category should probably be kept but I agree that it looks out of place. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Fayenatic london: apart from American and British, this subcategorisation is going to lead to very tiny subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 13 Dutch according to PetScan.[1] Granted, currently only 1 person in each of Belgian, German, Norwegian and Swedish, 2 Canadian, 3 Finnish, and 5 Australian, but these have potential to grow. – Fayenatic London 12:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not know whether a Filipino category would be useful. The category intersection brings up members of parties there which are "influenced by Christian democracy and Islamic democracy." I suggest allowing such party categories to remain in Category:Politicians of Islamic political parties, but not building a Filipino Muslim category without further prior discussion. – Fayenatic London 12:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if (though) the US House of Representatives, or its media coverage, has the IMHO deplorable habit of sticking an infamy stamp on the forehead of its perceived minority members regardless of their actual political positions, I don't think this is either a general practice in the rest if the democratic world or a desirable defining factor for politicians categorization anyway. 20:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.
    WP:OCEGRS are long-established policies that should be enforced. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (not changing vote to containerise) -- I would suggest that the first split should be to remove British Muslim and American Muslim politicians to their own categories and see what we have left. Politicians from Muslim majority countries will mostly be Muslims and should not need to be in this category, which should be limited (by a definition in a headnote) to countries where this is a minority religion, except cases like Muslim Brotherhood which is a Muslim party. If there are few cases in continental Europe we can have a European category, with the UK one as a subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:OCEGRS. Several people are included in this category without their religion being mentioned in their articles, probably on the basis on their name or their family origins in a Muslim country. I have removed a few the British politicians from this category, but while the category exists it may be an unending task. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:32, 13 March 2023 (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:Country name changes

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. If anyone is seeking to make a list, see
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Virtually random, trivial category. "Siam" is called "Thailand", "Persia" is "Iran", etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: While we're at it, we could rename List of administrative division name changes to List of renamed administrative divisions according to the commonly established practice in Category:City name changes. Incidentally, I can't help but laugh that we're discussing renaming categories and lists about renaming. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: A lot of Lists of renamed places in Category:Geographical renaming can be moved into my proposed Category:Lists of renamed places as well. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PPPS: If we decided to listify (which could still be done regardless of what we do with this category and the other categories and lists), I suggest we start with Geographical renaming#Countries. That should save us a whole lot of trouble! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2023 (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:People associated with the United States Capitol

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 & reparent.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:OCASSOC. If kept, rename to Category:Artists associated with the United States Capitol and re-parent to Category:Artists, as a more concrete association. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposals of William Allen Simpson. The 4 people named have produced art to decorate the Capitol and should be moved to a new category. Then merge to United States Capitol. I agree it is like a PERFCAT, but the objection to these is that we get too many items; something what will probably not apply here. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as mominator) I am supporting the proposals of William Allen Simpson too. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2023 (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:People associated with Stonehenge

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 13#Category:People associated with Stonehenge

Category:Estonian fishers

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 18:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2023 (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:Sindhi-speaking countries and territories

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT. It essentially contains Sindh, again Sindh, and States of India by Sindhi speakers (which is about demographics, not official language status). The full list of countries is: Pakistan and India. That's it. That doesn't merit a category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2023 (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:Regions of Ukraine by language

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT
, has only 2 items, both of which I have just nominated for also being a SMALLCAT with only 1 item.
  • Merge to Category:Languages of Ukraine, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. (+ Ah now I notice the two subcategories are nominated below.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — should be a combined nomination, as they are contingent.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But I would like to see an article on minority languages in Ukraine. The Stalinist population transfers were immense. The residual native speakers, in lands that they occupied for centuries, makes to pathetic reading. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2023 (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:Raions of Ukraine by language

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT, has only 1 item. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2023 (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:Hungarian-speaking raions of Ukraine

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:ARBITRARYCAT, the Hungarian language has no official status in these raions or anywhere else in Ukraine, and is not spoken by a majority in any raion or other territory in Ukraine. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I nominated Category:Countries and territories by language for renaming to Category:Countries and territories by official language for a variety of reasons yesterday, including the fact that demographics change constantly, and reliable sources are often hard to come by. In the case of Ukraine, it has held only one countrywide census in 2001, so what the current situation in Berehove Raion is 22 years later is anyone's guess. In its capital city Berehove, Hungarians only made up 48% in 2001, for example; and urbanisation and other factors tend to favour a country's official or primary language in a city and its surroundings over the course of decades. I think linguistic categorisation of countries and territories should only be based on official language status to avoid endless maintenance issues and reliable sources disputes. You might want to give that nomination a look; you made or were involved with similar nominations in the past several years. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete including Berehove Raion. We do not categorize Hamtramck, Michigan as Polish-speaking (in 1970 it was 90% Polish), or Oak Park, Michigan as Hebrew-speaking (so many that there is a locally famous park overpass allowing Orthodox to walk to temple on sabbath), or Russian-speaking, or Ukrainian-speaking (I grew up walking distance from both the Ukrainian and Polish cultural centers). Over time, people assimilate, children move for education or employment.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Incidentally, I nominated Category:Countries and territories by language for renaming to Category:Countries and territories by official language for a variety of reasons yesterday, including constantly changing demographics and the need to focus on official language status instead; you might want to take a look at it. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But I would like to see an article on minority languages in Ukraine. The Stalinist population transfers were immense. The residual native speakers, in lands that they occupied for centuries, makes to pathetic reading. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2023 (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:Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT, has only one item. (Edit) It's the only region in Ukraine where Russian has co-official status; this number is not expected to grow, so this category is not expected to grow. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Whatever the wisdom of categorizing by language in general, there's a maintenance issue with this one since there is active population displacement. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now per RD. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2023 (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:Multi-sailed windmills

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
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:CATNAME
When I saw this at the bottom of an article, I was baffled since I believe all intact windmills have more than 1 sail. But the category header explains the intent:
This category is for traditional windmills with more than four sails. It is not for Mediterranean windmills with jib sails.
The current category name just isn't clear enough to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Explanation - The majority of traditional windmills have four sails. Any windmill with more than four sails is a "multi-sailed windmill". The proposed rename is not an improvement, IMvHO. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the category you created, this doesn't seem to be a common term though. We have no Multi-sailed windmill article that would have reliable off Wikipedia sources and ground this category without requiring an explanation. RevelationDirect (talk)
@RevelationDirect: - there's plenty of book sources that use the term. Not sure that we need a separate article though. This can be covered adequately in the windmill article. I'll add something there in due course. Mjroots (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When that happens, a section redirect can stand in for a main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2023 (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:Wikipedia categories named after insurance companies

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.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:C2E
, author's request
10 years ago when I created this category, I hadn't closely read the editing guidelines and was basing my category work off of what I saw other editors doing. So, when I created Category:State Farm and Category:GEICO I also blindly created this one too. There was no intended purpose I had in mind.
While the real world behavior of insurance companies is quite controversial, I don't recall the Wikipedia categorization of insurance articles being contentious so I can't think of what administrative purpose is served here. And, besides, you can still find all these same categories under Category:Insurance companies.
While we're past the 6 month mark for speedy deletion at the author's request, I'd still like to clean up my mistake. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background There have been a number of CFD nominations for the "Wikipedia categories named after"... tree, most recently
    Oculi, and Aidan721: - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2023 (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/2023_March_5&oldid=1157912123"