Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 22 July 24 >

July 23[edit]

Category:Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 31#Category:Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects

Category:Education in Oswego, Kansas[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) 07:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per SMALLCAT (1 article). User:Namiba 16:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now with no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge no reason to have this as a one article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 30 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[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: rename to Category:Yorkshire Museum people. bibliomaniac15 05:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I would suggest Category:Employees and volunteers of the Yorkshire Museum. "People associated with...." could be argued to include King Richard III who is the subject of a major exhibition currently at the museum, or mapmaker William Smith whose work is on display there. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:59, 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[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 to Category:Hindus. bibliomaniac15 05:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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[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 all. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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).
@Namiba, WilliamJE, Rathfelder, Oculi, and G. Moore: pinging contributors to this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy with this. I do9nt see a need to distinguish teaching hospitals in places where there are not many. Rathfelder (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto. No problem with this. Talk to G Moore 10:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
  • Merge WP:SMALLCAT should never give license to create a whole category tree that is mostly anemic. No objection to recreating any that get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:25, 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]
  • I suppose they have primary sources at hand and will not need Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 14 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.

Indian actresses by language[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. bibliomaniac15 05:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting the following categories:
Nominator's rationale: There is Category:Film actresses by language for actresses who have worked in a particular language, and there is Category:Actresses by ethnic or national descent for actresses of a particular descent. The above categories are ambiguous (WP:NONDEF) and contain articles related to either of descent or language worked. Propose to delete because merging is not possible. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- DaxServer (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
    • Actually, many of the leading South Indian film actresses (Telugu and Tamil cinema) are from North India who barely speak the language. They only perform the scenes and the voices are dubbed by those who speak the language. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:35, 7 August 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, the scope largely overlaps with Category:Actresses in Hindi cinema etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 31 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[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: 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.– Fayenatic London 08:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge back, the distinction between Category:Muslim scholars of Islam and Category:Islamic scholars has been made arbitrarily, e.g. Category:Muslim theologians is in Category:Muslim scholars of Islam while Category:Islamic philosophers is in Category:Islamic scholars. There is no objection to Category:Islamic scholars per se (possibly to be renamed to Category:Ulamas) but it should contain articles instead of subcategories and the articles should unambiguously demonstrate that they are about an Ulama indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 23 July 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. Amirah talk 22:53, 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. Amirah talk 09:50, 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]
  • My answer to this question is clearly no, as discussed above. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should change the name of Category:Scholars of Islam because if you are suggesting it means the same thing as Category:Islamic scholars then you are using the term incorrectly. Why not change Category:Scholars of Islam to Category:Theologians of Islam Amirah talk 16:36, 28 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. Amirah talk 18:54, 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? Amirah talk 01:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason is that "Islamic scholar" is ambiguous, while "Ulama" is not. Besides the article is also titled Ulama. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 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. Amirah talk 22:22, 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. Amirah talk 23:10, 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[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: rename. – Fayenatic London 08:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming the following categories:
Nominator's rationale: Using the wording "football clubs in international competitions" is clearer and reduces redundancy (instead of "football clubs in X football"). The scope of the articles in these categories also cover worldwide competitions, such as the Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup, not just continental tournaments. This also follows the naming pattern of many existing articles such as English football clubs in international competitions and Mexican football clubs in international competitions. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. GiantSnowman 11:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
  • Support Makes sense. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:40, 26 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]
Articles such as English football clubs in international competitions and Juventus F.C. in international football do cover competitions, such as the Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup, that are above the continental level. And merging the categories would hardly be useful, for example Category:English football clubs in European football contains articles on 30 different clubs. By merging, we would lose the ability to quickly find all these types of articles for teams in any given country. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:39, 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.

Category:Northern films[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: rename. bibliomaniac15 05:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to comply with Category:Western (genre) films. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And Kidnapping by Indians! No Great Shaker (talk) 15:19, 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:People with endometriosis[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, trivial, characteristic per WP:TRIVIALCAT, WP:NONDEFINING and WP:COPDEF. Would almost never be mentioned in the lead of a biography, and arguably not worth mention in the body at all per WP:PROPORTION, WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Mere verifiability does not equal defining. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:37, 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]
  • Delete We shouldn't generally define people by illnesses. There are categories for health activists. Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a medical record of every health condition suffered by notable people. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we should very heavily limit people with x condition categories, and I see no strong argument to have this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 30 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[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 07:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an organization for which membership is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 31 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[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: rename. – Fayenatic London 07:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This describes the category much better than the present one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. We do not categorize things by characteristics of what they are called.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 22:03, 6 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:Business executives of the Dutch West India Company[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: rename West Indian category, keep East (note that while I am the creator of the category, I do not think that WP:INVOLVED applies to this closure, see also here) (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Administrators is used more in the articles than business executives, which is a more modern term Rathfelder (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Administrators of the Dutch East India Company has been added to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:55, 23 July 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.

Category:Shia Muslim scholars[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 26#Category:Shia Muslim scholars

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_23&oldid=1146473525"