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.
Merge seems to be the best solution, and it's more of an "operational" merge than anything. It's possible that article count could expand to require the category again, and that would be fine when that happens.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
21:46, 27 July 2021 (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:Employees of the Yorkshire Museum
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.
Nominator's rationale: Change from 'employees' to 'people associated' both better reflects the range of other sorts of staff this category includes (like honorary curators and trustees, who may be acting in a voluntary role) as well being more in line with well-established high categories, e.g.
Category:Museum people by museum.
Zakhx150 (
talk)
13:37, 23 July 2021 (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:Orthodox Hindu
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.
Nominator's rationale: Category newly created by a novice Wikipedian solely to contain a single person. At the same time, they also created several other new categories for him that were merely misspelled variants of categories that we already have, which I've already corrected and speedied -- but for this one alone, I can't find any indication that we already have a category for this at a different name. Since I'm not an expert in Hinduism, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more expertise can find enough other Orthodox Hindu people to populate it over the
WP:SMALLCAT barrier, but it isn't needed for just one person — and even if it can be salvaged, it would still need to be renamed to
Category:Orthodox Hindus since we name and apply categories for groups of people in the plural rather than the singular.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete, "orthodox" may refer to
āstika but the translation is controversial. By the way the one article in the category does not mention anything about the subject's beliefs.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:30, 23 July 2021 (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.
Teaching hospitals
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.
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, this is not a large established tree, most countries are not in the tree at all and many other countries (as nominated) have only 1-4 articles. We might instead create categories by continent though (but that can be done irrespective of this nomination).
Oppose - this is a large established tree, with 63 subcats in
Category:Teaching hospitals by country. Clearly there are editors such as Vegaswikian (created most of the above) and Rathfelder (created some of the above, eg Gambia and Ghana) who spend a great deal of time diffusing these categories by country (and others by nationality) and it seems pointless to undo their work in the absence of any clear guidelines one way or the other.
Oculi (
talk)
12:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment There could be a dirty moral behind that category tree invention. A lot of gov politicians in diverse European countries tend to import medical staff people from foreign countries. Wikipedia as sort of a catalogue to order fully trained medical staff people from the poor states? --
Just N. (
talk)
14:25, 29 July 2021 (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.
Indian actresses 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.
Oppose -- It is quite likely that the Tamil and Telegu speaking actresses do not even speak Hindi and are therefore incapable to performing in Hindi-language films. This is not a trivial distinction. The languages are unrelated to Hindi and thus mutually incomprehensible.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment India is such a big collection of ethnic and language differences. I'd suppose that Peterkingiron could be right. But being without any reliable source of info about it I couldn't decide seriously. --
Just N. (
talk)
14:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Acting in a languge does not require deep skill in that language. It is not like writing in the language where you have to have a level of knowledge to be able to produce ideas. Thus overlap between languages can end up being fairly high. So this is not a defining enough category to categorize by. For the record I also think we should also delete all singers by language categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Categorizing a film's language or languages is fairly easy. Categorizing an actress entirely by what language she used in a performance is much harder to do. Do we even have statistics on how many of them have learned to use two or more languages?
Dimadick (
talk)
21:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Considering that we have some cases where actors and actresses have used multiple languages in the same film, things get really tricky. Are we categorizing by the main language used in the film, or by every language a person uss in the film.
Tshoper Kabambi's 2020 film Heart of Africa uses a mix of English, Lingala, and French (and I may not have exhaussted the languages used in that film) and
Ryan Little's 2003 film Saints and Soldiers uses lots of German. For example, are we going to categorize
Corbin Allred as a German speaking actor because he spoke German in that film, or do we limit such categorization to examples where people appeared in films enriretly in that language?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:24, 20 August 2021 (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:Islamic scholars
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:not merged. Any future proposals along these lines might benefit by showing the proposed hierarchy including all similarly-named categories, and explaining the distinctions intended.–
FayenaticLondon08:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
It would be absolutely incorrect to merge the two category as they mean totally different things. A Muslim theologian is not necessarily an Islamic scholar by definition but may be (I think all the members of the group probably are Islamic scholars), all the members of the Islamic philosophy category are also Islamic scholars. This is because some Islamic scholars specialise in Islamic philosophy, whereas Islamic philosophy may be just a small part of an Islamic studies course, so you wouldn't call them theologians rather than philosophers. I don't see why that is arbitrary? 'Islamic scholars' is the English term which is commonly used to refer to Ulama. Why use an Arabic word when there is an English term with the same meaning? Also, what is wrong with a category containing sub-categories? I agree a category should contain articles too, but not instead of. If any two categories should be merged, it is Islamic scholars and Islamic theologians, and it should be called Islamic scholars not theologians because that is the common term for them. I don't know why you have such objections to Islamic scholars being categorised as Islamic scholars and you want to either lump them together with those who or not Islamic scholars or call them something else instead.
Amirahtalk22:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)reply
@
AmirahBreen: It is likely that a pretty big number of philosophers and theologians in these categories are Ulamas, but there is no guarantee at all. That also applies to every other subcategory as well. If you just assume all philosophers are Ulamas, it no longer makes sense to make a distinction between
Category:Islamic scholars to
Category:Muslim scholars of Islam to begin with, and it would strengthen the argument to merge.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment and weak oppose - the merge seems a little odd to me, for other reasons. An Islamic scholar, though likely to be Moslem, is not definitely so - it could be argued, for instance, that
Richard Francis Burton was an Islamic scholar, despite being an atheist who was brought up Catholic. As such, the two category names aren't interchangeable.
Grutness...wha?04:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I would far rather see
Category:Islamic scholars repurposed as the parent to both the Moslem and non-Moslem categories, with a potential
Category:Ulamas - which seems a far stricter definition - as a subcategory of the Moslem scholars category. Islamic scholars is - as you say - ambiguous, and seems to refer to a much broader category of person.
Grutness...wha?06:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)reply
As I have already said, Islamic scholar is the term generally used in the English language for Ulama.
User:Grutness why do you want to use it in a way other than that in which it is commonly used. You are talking about people's religion, please have some respect. If there are any members of this category who are not 'Ulama' then they should be removed and placed in an appropriate category. I have also said before, it is better to use a term which is commonly used in English rather than a foreign word. When people do a search on the term 'Islamic scholars' that is what they will expect to find. Just because a Wikipedia editor is not familiar with the term, that is no reason not to use it in it's correct usage in the English language. It can be explained on the category page exactly what is meant by the term for anyone who doesn't know. It is like you want to argue that a car wash should be placed in the category washing machines, and you wanted to change the category name to 'machines of washing' because you don't know what a washing machine is. Now you want to use a foreign language word because you continue to refuse to admit the commonly used meaning of the term.
User:Maarcocapelle If all
Category:Muslim scholars of Islam are Islamic scholars (Ulama), then is there no category for 'Non Muslim Islamic studies scholars'? I'm sure that there are Muslims on modern Islamic studies courses at university, as I have met some of them, but perhaps they do not have blp Wikipedia pages themselves. Please also bare in mind that some Ulama may be academics too, so it is not correct to say that they are 'non-academic'. The first university in the world was established by Muslims in Morocco,
[1] and held libraries of rare Islamic texts, and so please don't label Islamic scholars as non-academics, it is just that they have been through a traditional method of study as described on the page
Ulama. Many modern day Islamic studies scholars are also university graduates too.
Amirahtalk09:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I thought the general English term for Ulama was Ulama. As for why I want to use it in a different way, it is because the term Islamic scholar, by definition, means a scholar of Islam, and means that irrespective of whether the scholar is Moslem or not - and that is how most English speakers would understand it. To expect people to understand "Islamic scholars" as only referring to Ulama is to be very optimistic that people will know that you have a specific definition other than that commonly understood. To refer to your
straw man argument about washing machines, it would be far more accurate to compare the current situation to a potential category such as "English teachers", which could mean teachers of English or teachers from England, and for you to only think one of those two definitions would be used by everyone.
Grutness...wha?15:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Let me go back to the washing machine example. I have already repeated myself several times on this. It is as if you had a category and you called it 'Machines of washing', it included car washes, window cleaners tools etc etc. then somebody comes along and wants to put washing machines into a category container. You tell them they can't do, because it may be confused with 'machines of washing'. If somebody said 'I am going to put the items to be washed in the machine of washing then you would say, 'hang on a moment, what are they talking about', but if somebody said they were going to put them in the 'washing machine' you would assume they were talking about clothes. It is exactly the same with Islamic scholar. Washing machine is a term in the English language which usually means a machine to wash clothes. Islamic scholar is a term which is used for the English translation of Ulama. You are dealing with one of the world's major religions here, not just a machine to wash clothes. Category labels should be easily understood and use terms which are familiar to people, such as Islamic scholar. If you know nothing about Islam then perhaps the term is not so familiar to you. Category labels can be explained on the categories' page too, just incase anybody is unfamiliar with the term. It really surprises me that anybody would be, because it is such a familiar term.
Amirahtalk18:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
weak oppose "Islamic scholars" should be renamed to "Ulamas", because that is the current scope of the category. It is unclear whether "Muslim scholars" should also include academics.
Dimadick (
talk)
22:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)reply
This has already been addressed in the discussion, and you have not given any new reason. Why should we use an Arabic word in English Wikipedia when there is a perfectly good English language term which is commonly used in the English language?
Amirahtalk01:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)reply
In my opinion the article should be title 'Islamic scholars' as that is the term which is commonly used in the English language to describe 'Ulama'. I do not consider the term 'Islamic scholar' to be ambiguous either. I think you do because you refuse to see it as a commonly accepted term and insist on taking the two seperate words literally. See my 'washing machine' example above.
Amirahtalk22:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Whenever we need a precise distinction (which we need here), Islamic scholar is not good enough. That is why we have an
Ulama article. For what it is worth, the Free Dictionary also redirects Islamic scholar to Ulama.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't think Wikipedia should necessarily follow the Free Dictionary example. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The meaning of the term 'Islamic scholar' in the English language is precise, but you are insisting on attributing to it another meaning which is incorrect.
Amirahtalk23:10, 17 August 2021 (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.
Football clubs in international competitions
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.
Support to reduce ambiguity. Technically, all French football clubs (for example) are in European football, because France is in Europe.
Grutness...wha?14:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- These are about continental competitions, not world competitions. Keep the first five; merge the rest to the appropriate target among the first five. French football clubs mainly play in French leagues. The articles to be categorised are about those that quality to play in Europe-wide competitions, which only a handful, of clubs qualify to do each year. Grutness has clearly not understood how the competions work.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:55, 28 July 2021 (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:Northern films
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 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 with endometriosis
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.
Keep (as the
creator of the category). I find your perspective hard to navigate, as you've cluttered your argument with
Wiki-ABCs and haven't expanded on your reference to any of them. On the contrary, I would argue that for at least some of them, it is defining; for example,
Bridget Hustwaite is noted for both having and raising awareness of the condition, and
Halsey is known for
doing the same. If consensus deems this worthy of deletion, an alternative category could be an option, something along the lines of
Category:Endometriosis activists.
Sean Stephens (
talk)
03:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
My apologies for acronym bombing. Basically,
overcategorization is to be avoided, and people (especially living people) should be categorized by
defining characteristics, i.e. traits that are commonly and consistently defined as having (e.g. "Folk musician" or "American basketball player"), rather than peripheral traits that are mentioned in passing or discussed only in limited sources or for a short time.
WP:COPDEF states: Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. and continues: not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization. In the case of
Halsey, her article also states she is gluten intolerant and a former smoker. Neither are defining, and hence there is no
People with gluten intolerance or
Tobacco smokers (current or former).
Barack Obama plays basketball and is left-handed, yet is not in
American basketball players (which is defining to many people, but not Obama). Sometimes even traits that people are most known for are not categorized:
Mark Hamill and
Carrie Fisher became universally known for their iconic roles in Star Wars, but by convention we don't categorize performances or roles (no "Actors who were in the Star Wars franchise") per
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by performance.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
06:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Ah, I now understand where you're coming from; thank you for elaborating on your rationale. I've chosen to strike my initial vote as I now agree with your reasoning for deletion. I guess the problem with categorisation is that there are many defining traits for an individual, but clearly not all of them fit within Wikipedia guidelines. I've actually found your reply helpful in more ways than one, as I was intending to create a category relating to main actors of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but I see now that it wouldn't fit within at least one of the guidelines you've linked above. My vote is now delete.
Sean Stephens (
talk)
07:24, 23 July 2021 (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:Giving What We Can members
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.
Nominator's rationale: Trivial, non-defining category, per
WP:TRIVIALCAT,
WP:NONDEFINING, and
WP:COPDEF ("not everything a celebrity does after becoming famous warrants categorization"). This is a verifiable but incidental (and hence trivial) aspect of most biographies. Not worth mentioning in the lead, and arguably not worth mentioning in the body of most articles per
WP:VNOTSUFF,
WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Membership is voluntary and non-binding, so people could presumably be members for life, or members for a month.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
02:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete People who have pledged to give away 10% of their money does not seem defining. It would be like having a cat for people who tithe at church. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:21, 23 July 2021 (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:Greek suffixes
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.
Nominator's rationale: The category, as it stands, is full of English suffixes that happen to have an origin in Greek. This name would be less ambiguous, especially as there are currently no pages that discuss a Greek suffix as it is used in Greek. —
HTGS (
talk)01:29, 26 June 2021 (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:Business executives of the Dutch West India Company
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.
Most of the East Indian articles use the term administrator. Not sure that any are called officers or officials. But whatever term we use should be the same for both,
Rathfelder (
talk)
19:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Support West India nom: several of the articles use that term. Keep East India. The common term used in the article is "Administrator". If necessary a headnote can state that it includes chairmen and other officials. If these were English companies, we would probably call them Directors. "Business Executives" is grossly anachronistic for companies that ceased to operate long ago. It is probably a modern Americanism that has spread elsewhere.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:06, 28 July 2021 (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.