Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 6 June 8 >

June 7

[edit]

Category:South Coast Railway zone

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Split to Category:South Central Railway zone and Category:East Coast Railway zone. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The South Coast Railway zone still lives in a "proposed" state as it not yet "operational" (see source (archive). As such, placing articles in this category would fall under WP:CRYSTAL — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: That naming is not consistent with the category tree, see Category:Zones of Indian Railways, nor the main article — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 7 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:Professors of the University of Cambridge

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm attempting to diffuse Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge. I created Category:Professors of the University of Cambridge about a week ago, and have been trying to organise the biography articles in these categories a bit better by subject and office. (There were pre-existing categories of many different naming conventions, which I've so-far not sought to rename, so there's not a lot of consistency.) One week on, having got more familiar with this category tree, I would like to rename the category I created from Professors of the ... to Professors at the .... Related pages Category:Professorships at the University of Cambridge and List of professorships at the University of Cambridge already use at. I listed for speedy rename, and was advised a full discussion was needed.
Either of or at in this context seems like natural English to me. However, the title of nearly all chairs is professor of subject – whereas at only works for institutions. I think there is (small, but non-trivial) value in making a visual distinction between scholars of a subject, and scholars at an institution. It also avoids the risk of ambiguity, e.g. Category:Historians of the University of Oxford. I don't think it's necessary to rename existing Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge and other similar categories, because Academics of [subject] isn't a form that I've ever encountered.
There isn't a lot of existing consistency wrt to professor and professorship categories. To the extent there is a pattern, it seems to be:
  • at is used exclusively for institutions;
  • of is used for the specific subject of a single chair, or for a set of related chairs, and is also commonly used to indicate institution (e.g. the formula Academics of [institution] is very common, it's the format of the category I'm trying to diffuse) or nation.
  • in is used for the broader subject areas of multiple chairs, and rarely for institutions;
Scoping exercise to evidence this pattern
I've been applying the at nomenclature consistently for the subcategories of Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge by field I've made, to avoid repeating the "historians of/at the university" problem. I'm therefore also taking this opportunity to nominate renaming the ones that don't use at. Charlie A. (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @TSventon: Charlie A. (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Google ngram Charlie A. (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And cf. headings other editors have chosen in Regius Professor of Divinity, Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics, Serena Professor of Italian. Also found this old CfD about moving professorship categories that might be of interest. Charlie A. (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like an improvement. If we can agree this pattern it could be adopted elswhere. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed name. The reason is that it significantly broadens the scope of Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge from people employed as academic staff (readers, lecturers, and professors) to anyone associated with Cambridge in that field (alumni, research fellows, etc). This leaves us with no category for the academic staff themselves, which is how we categorize all academics elsewhere. If we are going to diffuse Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge into field-based subcategories, we need those subcategory names to clearly indicate that the people in them should only be the academic staff. For the same reason, the current names are not good, and if a better name cannot be found I would instead propose that we upmerge to Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge and give up this diffusion experiment as a bad idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection, you are right about the ambiguity of the names of the subcategories of Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge by field—both the ones I inherited and the ones I created—because the main nouns (e.g. classical scholars) don’t indicate academic staff. These should be changed or removed, as you say.
    I was only nominating them incidentally as a consequence of the proposal for professors. I suggest removing them from this proposal, to concentrate it on the at for institution/of for subject suggestion. I’m not at all opposed to up-merging the academics-by-field subcategories if better names can’t be found.
    @David Eppstein:, would you be happy to remove your oppose if this proposal were limited to the first listed move? Charlie A. (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the "Professors in/at" category intended for individual professors, or for named professorships? We don't usually categorize academics by rank, and the category for all academics would be Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge. Maybe it should be a Wikipedia:Container category? And maybe it should have a more specific title like "Named professorships of..."? In any case, the standard for UK academic categorization is "Category:Academics of ...", not "at". The UK academic categorization is already markedly idiosyncratic (everywhere else, we use "Category:University of X faculty"). I don't see why you are trying to make Cambridge's categories even more sui generis by using "at" instead of "of" for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several different points you’ve raised.
    • [Institution] faculty is (I think) American English, but (again I think) becoming more common in British English. I don’t particularly mind either way, [Institution] faculty would be fine: there’s no ambiguity or risk of confusion either way, it seems arbitrary to me.
    • This particular university historically doesn’t make a distinction between named chairs and personal professorships: they’re all officers listed out in full in the statutes, every single one. Frequently they expire after a single term (this includes chairs named after benefactors), but often single-tenure creations are renewed, some are established “in perpetuity" (but may nor may not last very long), and very frequently single-tenure chairs expire but are then revived under the same name. Making a clear distinction supported by sources would be a challenge. That said, I would be happy if it were a container category for something like "professorships held by more than one person" if that’s what you require.
    • I’m (explicitly – it’s there in my rationale text) not suggesting changing Academics of to Academics at where it already exists, because (i) “academics of [subject]” is not a construction I’ve encountered so there's no subject/institution difference to indicate and (ii) there's an existing norm.
    • The reasons for what I am requesting are:
      • Consistency – I'm not trying to make Cambridge's categories even more sui generis, which seems a little ungenerous. I found it with subject, department and professor-related categories of no coherent format, and with nearly 1,000 biography articles in Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge which has a notice on it requesting diffusion. I'm trying to bring a little structure to these articles, and to do as the little notice requested. And they can't all go in the fellowship subcategories – not all academics have a college.
      • Please see the work I did above on demonstrating that no existing convention exists for distinguishing subjects/institutions of professors/professorships on Wikipedia, though many attempts at distinguishing between subjects and institutions have been attempted. In the real world (see ngram) at seems more prevalent, as it does somewhat within Wikipedia, though there is no uniformity.
      • To the extent that Cambridge (and Oxford and Dublin etc.) are more specifically categorised than other Universities, that's because of how old they are and how many biographies there are. For Cam, there's 800 years of it, and about 4000 biographies of its academics, so more specific categorisation for that big tub of articles is natural. For medieval/early modern academics (which I am much more interested in than the 21st century CV-like ones), the concept of employed faculty breaks down completely anyway...
    Charlie A. (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that the format Classics academics at the... would be the solution. However I don’t want to distract from what I think is the reasonably uncontroversial of –> at switch. (There’s a related discussion about scholars, academics and the rest here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#Category:Scholars and academics.) Charlie A. (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Oxford, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Cambridge. Charlie A. (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC). Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia Charlie A. (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer "in", becasue they are members of the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)

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:Kamby Lamas of Tuva

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose. SMALLCAT requires that the category have "no potential for growth", which seems like a stretch here: the holders of this office are likely notable, as evidenced by the facts that all are redlinked, that several have ru-wiki articles, and that the references section at Kamby Lama of Tuva suggests that holders of this office receive not-insubstantial press coverage. Looking at the examples at WP:SMALLCAT, this seems much more analogous to "a category for holders of a notable political office" than to Category:Catalan-speaking countries. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:45, 7 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:Yadav family of Uttar Pradesh

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 00:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This follows earlier discussions: Category:Members of the All-India Yadav Mahasabha CfD ; Category:Nair people CfD and WT:IN - Caste lists vs. Caste cats - where editors reach consensus not to have caste-categorizations — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Created in a manner to circumvent our long standing consensus both at CfD and at WP:IN. Also, this is not a defining characteristic, will we then have "Smith family of Rhode Island" and then add Rhode Island resident Smiths to it? —SpacemanSpiff 09:06, 10 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:Foot percussion

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a popular term, unlike its sister, hand percussion. Not a defining enough trait to warrant a category. Not to mention, "foot percussion" is often a term reserved for tap dancing/clogging Why? I Ask (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is less common than hand percussion just because these instruments are less common, not generally appearing in a symphony orchestra for example. I get over 80,000 ghits for foot percussion, and all of the first few pages look relevant, so the claim that it's Not a popular term is dubious. And none of these ghits refer to tap dance or clogging. And perhaps most interesting of all, nor do our articles on either of those topics currently refer to the term foot percussion at all, which is strange if "foot percussion" is often a term reserved for tap dancing/clogging. So I'm very curious to see any evidence that might support the rationale above... the claims that are its basis seem to both be quite simply false. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, here's some evidence that foot percussion is generally used to refer to rhythmic dancing styles: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and so much more. I'm not saying that the term does not exist to describe actual instruments, but I have found no reputable source that actually uses it. It's mostly just a term used by guitarists to describe the extra instruments they may play. (I know Meinl markets some foot tambourines and shakers as "foot percussion", but that's not enough.) Furthermore, I have yet to come across anyone describe the hi-hat and bass drum as "foot percussion". Our categories need to be verifiable, too.
    In any case, it's not a defining enough trait or popular enough term (even if it does exist) for a category. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is evidence that it is sometimes used to refer to rhythmic dancing styles. Not generally as you claimed.
    And you can't have it both ways. If you are not saying that the term does not exist to describe actual instruments, then why are you asking for evidence that it is? I can provide such but it seems pointless if you are conceding the point anyway.
    Are you by the silence conceding that your claim that it's not a popular term is also false? How many relevant ghits did you get? I got more than 80,000 as I said above. Andrewa (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never asked for proof that the term exists. I said it's not a "popular term" in my original post, not that it isn't real. However, I did ask for sources calling certain instruments, like the bass drum, as such. We go off of verifiable sources, not on what Google can muster up. As far as I can find, no percussion-specific book uses the term (that's not to say it doesn't have a colloquial use). Why? I Ask (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you think of googling "foot percussion" "bass drum"? I get more than 15000 ghits. Isn't that popular enough for you?
    Ah, but are they relevant ghits? What did you find? Did you for example find https://www.drumcentral.co.uk/percussion/foot-percussion ? There are many, many others.
    Ah, you don't like Google. That's a pity. It's a very useful resource. It's not a substitute for reliable sources, but it is very useful in finding them, and provides a very useful indication (not proof) of the popularity and common use of a term. Andrewa (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That page you shared really only shows Meinl, which I mentioned uses the term. And I do like Google. However when you wade through the results, you find that most of it is not really related. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't find that at all. But you did find some results there that were related, is that correct? Some that called the drum kit bass drum foot percussion? Isn't that enough? Andrewa (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not find a source calling a bass drum a type of foot percussion. I meant that only some of the several thousand results are actually talking about percussion instruments (and are decent sources). Why? I Ask (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. There is apparently no evidence that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the instruments as having this characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 7 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:Percussion instruments used in worship

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. I note that most but not all of these articles are also in Category:Sacred musical instruments. – Fayenatic London 11:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of almost any of these. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be specific? The category description reads in part Any instrument can be used to accompany worship. The instruments in this category have a role that is specific to this particular instrument. That is to say, these instruments each have a particular liturgical meaning. If there are instruments currently in the category that you think fail this test, then yes, they should be removed... but I strongly suggest that you discuss those specific cases before doing it. Andrewa (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have not replied to this. It seems basic to your rationale. What instrument, if any, is in this category yet does not have a role in worship that is specific to this particular instrument? Andrewa (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to Wikipedia:Categorization, The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. This category provides exactly that. See comment above about current members. Andrewa (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most instruments have, at some point, been used in a religious sense. You, as a worship drummer, are obviously using the drum set for a specific liturgical purpose (i.e., modern Christian rock, an entirely new worship tradition). Therefore, why not add the drum set? The issue is that nearly every instrument has formed an important part in religious music. We don't have a similar category for brass (like the sackbut) or woodwinds (like the shenai) even though they are important in religion, and we shouldn't. Because every instrument made before the 1800s can pretty much fit this type of category. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots there. No, the drum sets I use in worship do not have a liturgical function. They are just being used as musical instruments. You don't seem to understand the term liturgical. The coloured stole that my minister wears to indicate the season of the church year has a liturgical function. It has a specific meaning. The tie he wears just because he likes it doesn't. It is in a sense being used in worship, as his appearance is an important part of the conduct of the service. But it has no liturgical function.
    The roof that keeps the rain out is important for that reason, but that role does not give the roof a liturgical function.
    Yes, wind instruments have been used liturgically and still are, in Australia particularly by followers of Messianic Judaism and there are probably other traditions that use them. We could perhaps have a category for them. I don't think we should necessarily have one specifically for brass instruments, unless they turn out to be more common than I think.
    No, it's not the case that every instrument made before the 1800s can pretty much fit this type of category. As I said, that appears to be the case only because you seem to have no concept of liturgy.
    But why do you say before the 1800s? The drum set I use was developed in the 20th century, largely by Gene Krupa, but Louis Belson and many others had roles as well. The point is, it didn't exist in its current form in 1900. The Moog and Farfisa electronic keyboards others have used, the precision bass I sometimes play, the Mesa Boogie amplifier I have occasionally used... all post 1800s. All are used in some churches these days. But not liturgically as far as I know. Have you seen them used liturgically? Andrewa (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are obviously modern instruments that fit the description, but not all. And I wonder what you define as having a liturgical function. Oxford defines it as "a form or formulary according to which public religious worship, especially Christian worship, is conducted". The drum set used in modern church services is essential to the worship music being played. The tie, not so much. The drum set is so popular that there are even several books about playing drums in church. Furthermore, basically all the instruments that were developed before the 1800s have a religious purpose. The trumpets of Jericho, the gamelan ensembles of Indonesia, the bagpipes of British Catholicism, and so on. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Progress. Thanks for a vigorous and I think helpful discussion.
    You say I wonder what you define as having a liturgical function. So you should! You say The drum set used in modern church services is essential to the worship music being played. It is an important part of that style of music, true. But the style of the music has no liturgical function, in that pieces of music in other styles could be used with identical liturgical function, and are in other churches, or even in my case in other services in the same church. So the drum kit, and other features of that style, are very helpful in worship, but that's because the congregation like that style, not because that style has any specific religious significance. The bell that announces specific parts of the Mass, on the other hand, can't be replaced by another instrument. It has a liturgical significance and function.
    Do you begin to understand liturgical function? That is the key issue here. The category you want deleted is for percussion instruments that have a distinctive liturgical function. And it's a valid category. (It may not on reflection be the best name for it but I think it probably is, all things considered. Those looking for articles on instruments of this usage will know what it means. We can't have the whole category description in the category name.)
    Exactly what term is the OED defining as a form or formulary according to which public religious worship, especially Christian worship, is conducted? And what do you think form or formulary means here? Andrewa (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The form (religion) article explicitly states: it include[s] the products of what has, perhaps cynically, been called "Christian entrepreneurship", such as contemporary Christian music. However, we're getting off track discussing the merits of whether or not the drum set counts. This category is not helpful one either way, since anyone looking for percussion instrument used in religion will be misinformed that there is only a narrow subset. Obviously since we are at an impasse, a third opinion is necessary. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that we are getting off the track. The suggestion that the drum kit is an instrument that has a role in worship that qualifies it for this category was yours. I think that reflects a misunderstanding on your part of the purpose of this category, and explains very well why you think the category has no purpose. That's why it is off the track. So it is important that we clear that up, don't you think?
    Whether the name of the category risks that anyone looking for percussion instrument used in religion will be misinformed that there is only a narrow subset is another issue. That assumes that they will not read the category description I think.
    You don't seem to have answered my question as to which entry in the OED you were citing. Without that it's hard to say whether the quote you gave is relevant. But I suspect not.
    The impasse will end when this discussion is closed. Perhaps that is the third opinion you seek? Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "liturgical" is what the OED was defining. What is the purpose of this category? The drum set is a "percussion instrument used in worship". If you need to explain the category on the page, then it's not a good category. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF, with some exception (Semantron is a clear exception) these instruments are also used in worship, not mainly used in worship. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is true, but is it really overcategorization? The liturgical significance of these instruments is a very interesting thing about them IMO. In the case of the semantron (and I suspect others) it would probably not even exist otherwise. It is of course less interesting to those never involved in formal worship, as I think is demonstrated above. But Wikipedia is for all readers. Andrewa (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- The article claims to be for those specifically used in worship, but the headnote admits that any instrument can be so used. Accordingly worship is not a defining characteristic of most of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 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:Scottish television task force members

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Task force has become defunct - see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 10#Wikipedians by defunct WikiProject 2 * Pppery * it has begun... 16:10, 7 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:Neglected tropical diseases

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's very unclear what the purpose of this category is. Possibilities include:
  1. A specific list of 13 diseases, as described in the category header. But there are more than 13 elements in this category and that interpretation would fail WP:OC#Published list.
  2. Any tropical disease other than, to quote from the main article, the "big three" infectious diseases (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria), which generally receive greater treatment and research funding. In this interpretation it fails WP:OCMISC.
  3. Diseases considered by Wikipedia editors to be neglected. In that interpretation it fails WP:SUBJECTIVECAT.
Regardless of which interpretation is intended, this category does not seem to be usefully distinct from its parent. A merge to the other parent (Category:Infectious diseases) is not necessary since Category:Tropical diseases is a subcat of it. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:41, 7 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.

Wikipedians who use the web without a browser

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 11:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale Category:Wikipedians by web browser itself has a very unclear collaborative purpose. When you don't even specify what software is used and force the user to engage in guesswork (such as that included in OpenBSD), then it is over the line and should be deleted for failing WP:USERCAT. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:41, 7 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:Wikipedians interested in Gaeldom

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#Category:Wikipedians interested in Gaeldom

Wikipedians by network

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 11:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale (1) Fails WP:USERCAT for lacking any discernible collaborative function (2) Encouraging users to reveal their IP address publicly is a bad idea (3) This entire forest of 9 categories contains only one category, which only the creator. (There were also a few other parts of this tree that were speedy deleted, and one that had to be oversighted) * Pppery * it has begun... 13:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also Category:Wikipedia network users but that is tagged for speedy deletion, CSD C1. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 8 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:Songs from Cars (franchise)

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Cf. precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_21#Category:Songs_from_films – it's only WP:DEFINING for songs that were written for films. – Fayenatic London 11:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is for a non-defining attribute: pre-existing songs that were used in the Cars franchise. Trivialist (talk) 10:28, 7 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.

Mass media in Russia by city

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 11:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, in many cases there is but a single newspaper article per city, occasionally 2-4 articles. Only one merge target has been specified, because the articles are already in a Russian newspapers category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_7&oldid=1104144951"