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. MER-C 08:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Benson Medal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD. Sometimes the medal is not even mentioned in the article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- Another OCAWARD case, in this case for authors. This is already a list. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As defining as any other professional award. Just because it's not so well-known as some doesn't mean it's any less significant. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as non-defining e.g. Diana Athill is in the category without even a mention in the text of her article. DexDor ^(talk) 18:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Maintain vote as delete -- OCAWARD only excepts a very few awards (such as Nobel prizes) from the category clutter rule against award categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: split. MER-C 08:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose splitting Category:Catholic dioceses in India to Category:Catholic dioceses in India and Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in India

Nominator's rationale: ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in India was just renamed to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Catholic dioceses in India per CFD June 19. It seems to me that it should rather be split between the two, like other countries within Category:Catholic dioceses. – Fayenatic London 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Manabimasu, Marcocapelle, Laurel Lodged, and MER-C: pinging previous participants.
• Note: In practice the split would be done most simply by using a bot to rename it back to "Roman Catholic", then manually setting up the "Catholic dioceses" parent. – Fayenatic London 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support - indeed there is a mixture of Roman Catholic dioceses and Syriac ones (such as the splendidly named Syro-Malabar Catholic Major Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly), which would be better categorized separately. Oculi ( talk) 11:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support/Comment That seems as a solid idea to have that done. Although since there has been no naming convention, I would call the category Category:Latin Catholic dioceses in India instead of Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in India but that is just a preference of POV. Manabimasu ( talk) 16:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support since Catholic is (unusually) ambiguous. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Ufologists. Note: the only current member not also listed at Alien_abduction#Notable_figures is Timothy Good. – Fayenatic London 13:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Alien abduction researchers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is not a valid category as there is no academic research of alien abductions beyond the psychological concerns over the claimants. jps ( talk) 20:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support. Get rid of it. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC). reply
• Rename to Category:Alien abduction proponents. This is a distinct part of ufology and also related to Recovered-memory therapy, so it could be a subcat of a new Category:Recovered-memory therapy proponents, which would also contain people who generate other types of false memories, such as Category:Reincarnation researchers - which should also be renamed. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  On second thought - wouldn't that sound a bit like "folks who propose that aliens should abduct people"? Is "advocate" better than "proponent"? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  A valid point. — Paleo Neonate – 10:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Rename per Hob Gadling's suggestion. I would avoid adding the mention of reincarnation, as this is both a religious and a philosophical belief. It was a key belief for Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism, and also used by derivative writers such as Plato. Dimadick ( talk) 07:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  It's like if we renamed it to a category related to sleep paralysis; it's only one of the related topics... — Paleo Neonate – 07:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  I was not in favor of "mentioning reincarnation", just saying that both types of memory recoverers could be in the same superior category because they use the same methods. Also, Satanic ritual abuse believers. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

*Comment A merge into Category:Ufologists maybe another possibility — Paleo Neonate – 07:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete/Merge into Category:Ufologists — Paleo Neonate – 16:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The Category:Ufologists exists. Incidentally, I myself am an Alien Abduction Advocate. I maintain a list of targets which is available to Aliens of people who could be usefully abducted, to the great benifit of humanity. Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  They have a shortage of lips, apparently. — Paleo Neonate – 12:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Any crank who writes a sensationalistic book claiming someone was abducted by aliens can call themselves a researcher. It’s misleading. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge to ufologists, but carefully. "beyond the psychological concerns over the claimants" If any of them are in this category, you don't want to treat them like the others. Nyttend ( talk) 22:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete, all four articles already are in Category:UFO conspiracy theorists or Category:Ufologists, so this category does not add anything. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I removed Category:Ufologists from three of these articles because it was redundant, as the parent to this category. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 11:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Alternate Proposal

• Keep but Rename to either Category:Researchers of alien abduction claims or Category:Researchers of purported alien abductions. Regardless of anybody's personal views on the subject of UFO's, this is in fact a perfectly valid category which serves the same function as any other category -- and that is the only thing that matters. These proposed names are as neutral as you can get - either one will do the job. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 10:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply

  Bad idea. It keeps the contentious word "researcher". Those people are just proponents of the fringe idea that people are actually being abducted by aliens. They are not doing research, they are using highly dubious methods to make people remember stuff that they did not remember before. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 12:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge back into Category:Ufologists since they are primarily UFO researchers (save the last article). Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• I'm sorry, Marco, but you've got it completely backwards. If you take the time to read their articles, it is absolutely clear that three of the four are primarily if not exclusively "Researchers of alien abduction claims", which is a particular subset of the larger field of Ufology -- the very reason this category is a subcat of Category:Ufologists. I haven't looked, but I would think there are probably a couple of others out there that could properly be added to this category. It seems to me that the only real issue here is the neutrality of the category name, which should of course avoid implicit reification of the concept. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 08:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Timothy Good is a British author about UFOs [three quotes]. In 1987 it was reported in The Observer that he was "Britain's leading UFO researcher" [one further quote]. While "researchers of alien abduction claims" may be a particular subset of the larger field of Ufology, it is just too narrow to be defining. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Huh?? You pointedly ignored what I said and instead singled out Timothy Good -- who I clearly was not talking about. One more time: it is precisely their work as "researchers of alien abduction claims" that the other three are known for. It's the entire basis of their notability -- how can that possibly be "too narrow to be defining"? Anomalous+0 ( talk) 12:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• About Bud Hopkins similarly:

After the publication of Missing Time in 1981, his UFO research (my italic) began to take precedence over his art. As a self-described humanist,Hopkins saw his work with alleged alien abduction victims as a way to bring attention to an otherwise marginalized part of society. His follow-up book Intruders: The Incredible Visitations at Copley Woods, published in 1987, helped establish Hopkins as a prominent leader in the UFO movement. (my italic)

Ufologist clearly does the job for him too. The only exception, as mentioned before, is John E. Mack, who should be purged. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Huh??? Why on earth should John E. Mack be purged? That makes no sense at all. As for Budd Hopkins, ALL of his "UFO research" is entirely focused on the subject of "alleged alien abduction victims". And lastly, you've completely ignored David M. Jacobs, whose research, to reiterate, is entirely focused on alien abduction claims. In short, they are all "Researchers of alien abduction claims". I am truly at a loss to understand why you are unable (or unwilling) to wrap your head around this very simply fact. How can I possibly state this more clearly than I already have? Anomalous+0 ( talk) 00:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply

But they are the very people who make the claims. Take a random person, get her hypnotized by one of those folks, tadah! - alien abduction victim. "Research of claims" is not done like that. "Invention of claims", yes. "Spreading of claims", yes. Those people are WP:FRINGE proponents, using WP:FRINGE methods to arrive at WP:FRINGE results, and calling them "researchers" is an insult to those who do real research. We do not need to use the wording of journalists when we can use scientists as sources. The Hopkins article quotes Ronald K. Siegel, Michael Persinger, Robert A. Baker, Elizabeth Loftus, Richard Ofshe, Carl Sagan and probably others essentially saying that Hopkins makes the rookie mistake of ignoring actual scientific explanations in favor of his own opinion. Again, that is not what researchers do.

Category:Authors of books on alien abduction would be pretty neutral. It puts them neither in the scientist bag nor in the crackpot bag. "Researcher" puts them in the scientist bag in spite of their amateurish shenanigans. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 18:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply

With addition in italic: Ufologist clearly does the job for him too. The only exception, as mentioned before, is John E. Mack, who should be purged when this category is merged to Category:Ufologists. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: soft delete. – Fayenatic London 08:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Planned science and education developments ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, planned is an indiscriminate characteristic, all science facilities are/have been planned. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Downmerge to Science parks, campuses, research parks, etc. If this was about ones that are proposed (though with due respect to WP:CRYSTAL), it might have merit, but it seems to be a home for the main articles of these and some examples. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• All articles are already in a Campuses category or a Science parks category, so merging is not strictly needed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. MER-C 10:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Scientific organizations by country to Category:NEW CATEGORY

Nominator's rationale: several subcats are spelled with an s instead of a z; we should adopt the parent's spelling. fgnievinski ( talk) 17:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - the subcats use 's' or 'z' depending on the country, which is always the case (as in Category:Organizations by country). Oculi ( talk) 18:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment I wonder if we should rename Category:Scientific organizations by country to Category:Science organizations by country and Category:Scientific organizations to Category:Science organizations, etc. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comments - the nom actually seems to be suggesting that all the (untagged) subcats should be changed to 'z' which would be nice but Utopian. And (per Marcocapelle) Category:Scientific organizations contains rather more instances of 'scientific' (eg Scientific institutions) than 'science' as an adjective (eg 'science museum'). And "scientific organisation" OR "scientific organization" gets somewhat more hits ( 581K) than "science organisation" OR "science organization" ( 388K). Oculi ( talk) 11:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 10:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Video games based on Bone (comics) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly specific category, should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 15:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. ~ Dissident93 ^{( talk)} 17:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Do not delete, which would remove the pages from the parent hierarchies Category:Bone (comics), Category:Video games based on comics and Category:Fantasy video games. By all means, merge to all those parents instead. ZXCVBNM: please take care when making such nominations. – Fayenatic London 11:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• I would assume that bringing the articles to their base categories is implied. Where else would they go? But obviously I support merging them into those categories. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 21:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• ZXCVBNM: Nothing is implied; the nomination has to be specific. For a merge, you have to specify where to merge to. "Delete" just removes the category from its member pages, so they would be lost from the parent hierarchies unless they are already in them directly. Hope this helps. – Fayenatic London 06:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge (it may help for me to formally state this). – Fayenatic London 12:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Heads of X. MER-C 08:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:University and college chancellors by country to Category:Leaders of universities and colleges by country
• Propose renaming Category:University and college chancellors to Category:Leaders of universities and colleges

Nominator's rationale: To overcome confusion caused by multiple terms for these posts. This can then have subheadings for different kinds or titles of leaders. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: why not use Chairs, Chairmen or Presidents? Leaders is also vague and can be understood in many different ways. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  Place Clichy, Because chair is ambiguous in this context, Academic ranks in the United Kingdom. Cabayi ( talk) 15:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  We need some word which is not used officially by any university, anywhere. That should reduce misunderstanding. We already have a category of university presidents which doesnt work because the term means different things in different contexts . And we need to cope with the fact that there are several sorts of leaders/chiefs/heads of universities, though I'm not sure we can allocate articles within the same country other than by title, as none of the articles ever explain what their subject actually does as a Rector/President/Provost or whatever. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  @ Cabayi and Rathfelder: Chair is indeed a bad idea, strike it. However, why us some word which is not used officially by any university, anywhere? Presidents looks quite unambiguous and understandable in any context, except if you can show me an example where President of University Foo is used for another role than the organizational head (Presidents of clubs do not count). Leaders of universities or colleges sounds to me that it could include the sports coach. Chairmen has the same value but could be objected re: the gender issue. Can we use Category:Presidents or equivalent of universities or colleges, or Category:Organizational heads of universities or colleges? Place Clichy ( talk) 12:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  President in many universities is a ceremonial position, similar to what is often called a chancellor. It's very hard to tell as the articles hardly ever make it clear what the position is, but I think, for example, that Category:Presidents of Tabriz University is not about what in England would be called Vice-chancellors. But I think Category:Presidents of Kyoto University is. Category:Presidents of universities and colleges in Taiwan seem to be ceremonial and the more operative position is the Provost. Germany has both Rectors and Presidents, and I think the Presidents are more ceremonial. That is why I want a word which does not have a local meaning for the top level category, otherwise people will assume, for example, that articles about Presidents belong there, but articles about Rectors dont. Then within each country the categories can reflect local usage. I dont object to "Organizational heads of universities or colleges", but it's longer, doesnt really add any extra meaning and there are no existing categories like it. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  So if President pretty much has the same scope as Chancellor, i.e. top leadership albeit sometimes ceremonial, it is a good candidate for a renamed title of the category. That is, if you want to find a better name, not redefine its scope. I think we can all agree that similar roles are called by different name in various universities or countries, and that similar names can cover very different responsibilities. I'm still convinced that Presidents of ... is a widely-understood umbrella term, I would also be OK with Heads of ..., but I am lukewarm about Leaders of .... Place Clichy ( talk) 10:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  Some of the presidents seem to be what I would call vice-chancellors, and so are some of the chancellors. That is why I thinks it's important to use a term not used anywhere in the real world. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• "Leaders of" sounds okayish as an umbrella term, "Heads of" slightly better. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  I'm happy with "Heads of", though I wonder if it implies there is only one per university, while "Leader" might more easily show that there might be more than one. And if we go with Heads I'll have to rename all the country categories I've just created. Not sure whether we need "and colleges". I havent found any articles about heads of anything that didn't claim to be of university status. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  Would you care to WP:INDENT your replies? It makes conversation difficult to follow when you don't. "... and colleges" is inherited from top Category:Universities and colleges, because in many countries many stand-alone higher education institutions are called colleges, or another term, rather than universities, which would be a too restrictive term. Child categories are therefore titled in a similar way thanks to WP:C2C. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  I understand that, but actually hardly any of these articles are about heads of colleges. And indeed in many places organisations which used to be called colleges are now called universities. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Creating these categories was very premature while this discussion was still open. On top of that I would expect that within each country we can use more precise terminology. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Even within most countries there is often no common terminology. Sometimes the terminology used in the same institution changes over time. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - I would also ask Rathfelder to make no further edits or additions to this tree while the cfd is open. (About 60 Leaders categories created since the nom was opened, and now a speedy request to rename one to 'Heads'.) We had a perfectly coherent structure on 19 May (with VCs under ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Academic administrators and Chancellors under ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Heads of educational institutions) but not now. Oculi ( talk) 23:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  It is completely untrue to say that we had a coherent structure before. I have never seen such chaos in any other head category. Most of the people categorised as Chancellors in India, for example, were actually Vice-chancellors. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support renaming all to "heads of" or "leaders of" or "academic heads". This will need a long head note explaining that the leader may in fact be "called Chancellor, Vice-chancellor, President, Rector or by other titles". Where the usage of one of these titles in a particular country is universal (or nearly so) the national category should use that title. In UK, Chancellor is often an honorific ceremonial position, rather than the person in day-to-day control, so that a second category may be required. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Different titles mean different things in different places, but it's often impossible to decide what they signify when someone is described as a president or chancellor what that means. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Can we go with Heads of ... for these two top level articles? Nobody seems to object to that, and its sufficiently vague to encompass both executive and ceremonial heads. I can then speedily change the country categories I've created in line with that, or in line with local usage if that is clearer and more appropriate. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• (voted above) -- "Heads of" would suit me. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Heads of universities and colleges and Category:Heads of universities and colleges by country which has received the largest support. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Rename all to "heads of". This is a little clearer than "leaders of". We categorize by shared status, not by shared name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Rename to "heads of" as that term best encapsulate the desired scope. -- Trialpears ( talk) 14:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• I'm very happy with "heads of" for the main categories. We can then consider what to do with the country sub-categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Web series genres to Category:Web series by genre

Nominator's rationale: The proposed title better reflects the contents of the category which is a bunch of subcategories that classify web series according to genre. Pichpich ( talk) 00:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Support: I created it, and I'm OK with renaming. -- RayneVanDunem ( talk) 05:34, 28 June 2019 (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.