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, but with permission to re-create at the nominator's target name if there are more entries to go in it. –
FayenaticLondon13:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the merger suggestion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
23:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Amarna letters by location
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, unnecessary micro-categorization with tiny and awkwardly-named subcategories. Besides the Amarna letters are numbered so when you are interested to read the most similar letters, just take the ones with adjacent numbers.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Morning Again
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: Eponymous categories with only the subcategory of each band's members. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me21:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Delete per
WP:NONDEFINING and
WP:NEOLOGISM. I can find few reliable examples of any iteration of the term pseudoastromy/-er (with or without a hyphen) and none appear commonly or consistently applied to a single person. The profusion of "pseudo-x" or "pseudoscientific X" categories applied in a fashion disproportionate to their usage in reliable sources should be seriously scrutinized. That a lone scientist operates a blog called "Pseudo Astronomy" does not mean that the term "pseudoastronomer" is commonly and consistently used to describe any of the persons. Junk science and junk scientists (or pseudoscientists) can still be categorized as such if commonly described as such, but Wikipedians should not get in the habit of stroking their proverbial beards and deciding what the world (and bots) will now call certain people or things (at least not on Wikipedia - by all means, blog and categorize your hearts out elsewhere).
--Animalparty! (
talk)
01:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as non-defining. These pseudoscientists are not primarily defined as astronomers, or in relation to a claim to be scientific astronomers. Pseudoscientific astronomy could also be easily confused with astrology, which does not seem to be the topic here.
Place Clichy (
talk)
08:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:containerize. With regards to some of the exceptions that Fayenatic london proposed, might this be a place where IAR can be invoked? bibliomaniac1503:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)reply
In principle Support -- We should only have articles on people who were convicted or died (e.g. suicide) after being indicted. However the British category includes two articles related to sex offences, rather than offenders.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)reply
There are many articles in some of these, especially the American & English cats, so if the containerising goes ahead, many articles will ned recategorising.
Jimmy Savile is not currently in any cats which say that he was a sex offender, despite him having been an unusually prolific (known, though never convicted) sex offender.
Jim Michael (
talk)
17:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since it's been sitting for a month and hasn't been actioned or commented on... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠
PMC♠
(talk)22:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Diffuse but do not containerise. It was me who closed the precedent discussion, but on closer inspection I believe that it came to an incorrect decision. Sure, most of the articles are already in more specific sub-cats, or could be moved there. However, for some articles there is no appropriate sub-cat, and yet categorising as a sex offender is still defining and useful. For example, in
English sex offenders:
Ian Huntley, convicted of the
Soham murders, for which a sexual motive was probable but not proven. This case was very notable, and a later inquiry led to the foundation of the
Independent Safeguarding Authority. Huntley had committed several
previous sexual offences but was never charged for those, although he later confessed to at least one of them.
Eric Gill, whose diaries posthumously revealed sexual abuse of his daughters and incest with his sisters. This led to ongoing protests about his artworks being on display, so the category is clearly
defining.
Victor Montagu, let off with a
police caution for indecently assaulting a boy for two years. A caution is a criminal record but not a conviction, so he is correctly categorised as an offender, but there is no sub-cat that fits.
At least the last case is a good example of how overreaching categorization of sexual offenders can bring together too many unrelated things. The
previous decision is good in reserving the category to a more precise predefined list of specific offenses. Indecent exposure is typically the kind of things which will be criminalized in some cultures and jurisdictions and shrugged upon elsewhere. In the case of Shipperley, it seems that the intro defines him by his football and coaching carreer, whereas a public masturbation incident would probably not be defining for him or be mentioned in introduction. It would therefore be perfectly fine if this article is no longer in any sexual offender category as a result of the containerization decision.
Place Clichy (
talk)
09:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Containerize We should limit this to convictions in the category space. Allegations can be addressed in a more nuanced fashion in the text of the article. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Faculty by university or college in Finland
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 -- Calling the academic staff of a university "faculty" is an Americanism, so that the rules on ENGVAR apply. If the Finnish term were anything like either term, I would support moving to that. Swedish appears to use a cognate word, but I do not know if it applies to the people as opposed to a section of the university. No doubt Norwegian will be similar, However, Finnish is an unrelated language.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
I dont personally like this use of the word faculty, but I think our categories should be as consistent as possible. It doesnt make sense to try to apply ENGVAR in places where English is not the language.
Rathfelder (
talk)
19:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. "Faculty" is an Americanism not generally used elsewhere. Everywhere else it generally only refers to a collection of departments, not the academic staff within them. There is no reason whatsoever to standardise using the American term as opposed to the term used by other English-speaking countries. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
12:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
This is the term used to categorise all European academics outside the English speakers. Consistency is more important than anti-Americanism. By all means propose that we switch all the other countries to "Academics of ...." but it makes no sense to treat Finland differently.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)reply
It's not "anti-Americanism". It's questioning why what is almost exclusively an American term is being applied to other countries.
WP:COMMONALITY surely applies. Everyone uses "academics". "Faculty" only has limited usage and means something entirely different in most other countries. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Much as I sympathise with your argument, repeated efforts to switch various countries from "faculty" to "academics" have been defeated.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)reply
It might be an idea to relist this as an AB nomination including all "faculty" subcategories. There should be consistency in a country one way or another, to begin with. Second, if there would be a choice, I would support harmonizing on academics unless there is a strong ENGVAR case for "faculty" in a particular country (but that is not the case here).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
00:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)reply
They should but they dont. It isnt helpful to use both terms in the same category. By all means propose that we should rename all the faculty categories.
Rathfelder (
talk)
13:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Support for now because there should at least be consistency at the national level. I would support a more general renaming to e.g. academic personnel if that is the neutral term, because it is true that in many contexts, at least in Europe, university faculties refers to what is called university department in the Anglo word, not to the teachers.
Place Clichy (
talk)
09:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
These academic categories are a mess. Repeated proposals to make them more consistent have not produced any agreement at the level of individual countries. Is there any way of getting a wider debate?
Rathfelder (
talk)
09:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Altaic multilingual support templates
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 based on a largely discredited hypothesis. The
Altaic hypothesis is rejected by modern comparative linguists and the minority that do support the hypothesis disagree on which language families should be included, making the extent of the category unclear.
AquitaneHungerForce (
talk)
12:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sahu Wikipedians
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: Per
Le Deluge, who reverted an attempt to add this category when it was still red, in any case categories should always map directly to a (non-disambiguating) article, which is not the case here. Assuming that the category is actually "Wikipedians with the surname
Sahu" as the link implies, that would fail
WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function.
* Pppery *it has begun...14:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:English Jews of the Early Modern period
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.
Delete per Marcocapelle. Intersection of people's categories by country and historical period seems to significantly overlap the categorization by centuries, which may have its defaults but is at least consistent and less subjective.
Place Clichy (
talk)
09:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Brahmin Indian independence activists
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: Previous discussions and CfDs
[1] have consensus not to have caste categorizations. Also,
WP:NONDEF, the defining one is the parent cat of Indian independence activists —
DaxServer (
t ·
m ·
c)
09:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Populated places in Ismailli District
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.
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.
Coffeehouses and cafés by country
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, only 1-3 articles in these categories. Note that most countries will have many coffeehouses and cafés, but very few of them are notable.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: The parent tree should be reorganised to differentiate between individual cafés and branded coffee chains. Many of these should be upmerged not to the restaurants category but restaurant chains. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
22:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)reply
No objection in principle -- I would suggest that
Paul_012 should implement what he suggests by adding appropriate target categories to the articles to achieve the split. When he can tell is that he has done that we can delete the old categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Texts in unknown languages
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:Forbes 30 Under 30 recipients
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:Delete, as
WP:NOTDEFINING, based on a published list. There have been many versions of list, meaning (in theory) many hundreds of articles could be placed in this category, and I posit that being listed is not a defining category for the subject of any of them. We have reached consensus to delete similar categories applied to companies, such as
Category:S&P 500,
Category:Fortune 500 companies.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
01:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I really thought this was a defining category--I use to read over the list every year and those who were on the list had impressive accomplishments--and I was coming here to say Keep until I read here that there are many versions of this list. I thought it was just an annual list but if there are different lists broken down into occupational areas or nationalities or geographic areas, then it is no longer defining, I think. LizRead!Talk!21:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. I believe that
WP:OCAWARD is more relevant here, as an individual being nominated a 30 Under 30 is often considered an individual award, rather than a "published list" such as a 500 greatest albums list as for
WP:OCLIST/
WP:TOPTEN. That guideline writes that "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a
defining characteristic for the large majority of its
notable recipients." I believe it to be the case here because this is a youth award, and a most significant one: in most cases, recipients (and their prior accomplishments) will receive significant spotlight when they will be named a Forbes 30 under 30, because of the award itself, making the award defining. Note that this will not necessarily be the case with all youth-based awards.
Place Clichy (
talk)
09:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a top thirty list meant to get clicks online. It's also
WP:OCAWARD that really just acknowledges young people who are already known for their early success. These people are not defined for being featured in an article. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Time 100
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:Delete, as
WP:NOTDEFINING, based on a published list. There have been over 20 editions of this list, meaning (in theory) over 2,000 articles could be placed in this category, and I posit that being listed is not a defining category for the subject of any of them. We have reached consensus to delete similar categories applied to companies, such as
Category:S&P 500,
Category:Fortune 500 companies.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
00:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.