Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 3 September 5 >

September 4[edit]

Template:Film-criticism-stub[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub template of unclear utility. It was created in 2021 for use on just two articles, of which one usage was more appropriately replaced with the already-existing {{film-journal-stub}} and the other was more appropriately replaced with the already-existing {{film-org-stub}}, leaving this entirely unused. Individual film critics, meanwhile, already have {{film-critic-stub}}, while books of film criticism already have {{film-book-stub}}, and thus they also don't need this either — but one of those four templates would already cover off virtually every possible use of this one that I can think of. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, redundant and underpopulated stub category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 7 September 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:Prizes of Ukraine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Category:Prizes of Ukraine

Category:People of the Russian Empire[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, more and more subcategories of Category:People of the Russian Empire by occupation have been renamed from "of" to "from" because "of" is too confusing in combination with those particular occupations. Rather than having a mix of "of" and "from" it would be more helpful to set a new standard that may suit all. I am assuming, when this goes ahead, that the subcategories may be speedied. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added that one too. One might argue that colonial empires require a separate discussion but on the other hand the issue with occupations is exactly the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Havn't most/empires been colonialist/imperialist in nature?★Trekker (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Historically many people may neither have been citizens nor born in the Empire they're best known for having lived in. Many slaves for example.★Trekker (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- People of foo fits well when they are in foo, but people from foo, when they are expatriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support all per nom. Rathfelder (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "People of the British Empire" would include everyone who lived or was born in what was then part of the British Empire, whereas the category is mostly for those involved in running the British Empire or who were at least "colonials". They are two completely different things. Britain itself was part of the British Empire! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 6 September 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:Companies operating former Boston and Maine Corporation lines[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. @Marcocapelle: you can start a discussion about deletion seperately. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME. The parent article for this category was renamed a few months ago from Boston and Maine Corporation to Boston and Maine Railroad for the same reason, as was the category Predecessors of the Boston and Maine Corporation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think this is generally a defining characteristic (it is just defining for the immediate successors of the Boston and Maine Railroad), but I notice that a whole tree has been built based on this theme. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have an opinion about whether this should exist, but while it does exist it should be renamed per the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 6 September 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:Griffin Communications[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please rename. ThinkingSirus1800 (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the article was only moved today. For a speedy move of the category it is required to provide reliable sources. See WP:C2D condition ii. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per WP:C2D, see [1] 2022 Griffin Communications became known as Griffin Media --Privybst (talk) 07:27, 12 September 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:1945 establishments in East Germany[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as these are anachronistic. East and West Germany didn't exist until 7 October and 23 May 1949 respectively. Santiago Claudio (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there were four military zones rather than two countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, @Santiago Claudio: the category pages need to be tagged, I have done the first one for you. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as to East Germany at least. If we do not like "East Germany", we could substitute the "Soviet zone of Germany". If so West Germany might be split into the British, French and American zones, but I am not sure this is necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Santiago Claudio, you have to CFD tag all of these categories or this discussion can be closed. Providing a link to this discussion from the category is part of the process of nominating them at CFD. Also, Category:1948 in East German sport has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Santiago Claudio. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:08, 4 September 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:Works about dueling[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. Withdrawn by nominator beore any discussion. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just having a duel is a pretty low bar. Pretty much every swashbuckler has at least one. There are some films actually centered on dueling itself, so I'm going to create Category:Films about dueling Category:Films about duels instead. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. I'm finding a few works that aren't films, so a major overhaul seems to be in order. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:34, 4 September 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.

New Zealand watersheds[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In New Zealand and elsewhere outside North America, 'watershed' means a drainage divide, which is not what these categories are for. The most common term in NZ seems to be 'catchment', rather than 'drainage basin' (or 'watershed'). 'Catchment' is also the term most commonly used in names for subcategories of Category:Drainage basins of the United Kingdom. And singular seems appropriate because, like almost all of the UK ones, each is the catchment for a single harbour or gulf. Nurg (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- That conforms to UK usage of catchment. A watershed is the ridge: if rain falls one side it drains one way; if the other side the other way, by analogy with the (pitched) roof of a shed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the creator of the categories. --Prosperosity (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per common usage in New Zealand English. Paora (talk) 11:35, 7 September 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.

Academic personnel in the United States[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Academic personnel in the United States

Academic personnel[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per precedent in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_30#Faculty_by_university_or_college_in_Finland, precise and unambiguous category name, since "faculty" may refer to the organizational unit rather than to individual people. Also, one editor mentioned that "faculty members" (as an alternative) may exclude researchers who are not involved in lecturing. Considering WP:ENGVAR this can be at least applicable all over Europe. Let us discuss the United States in a separate discussion (see above) and later the rest of the world. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37, Rathfelder, Piotrus, Peterkingiron, Necrothesp, Renata3, UnitedStatesian, Place Clichy, Oculi, and Sharouser: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An improvement on what we have now. Less ambiguous and more uniform. Rathfelder (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (from a non-native English speaker). That's a big change, thanks Marcocapelle for bringing it together. However, from previous discussions it seems pretty clear that this is an improvement. In too many parts of the world, faculty refers to a department of a university rather than its teaching staff. It is of value to categorize people who held academic roles by the institution where they taught or worked, in a way that encompasses all possible roles and ranks which otherwise have an infinite level of complexity. The chosen term seems to be generic enough and easily understandable to neutrally describe these positions, all across the globe. Place Clichy (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I regard this use of "faculty" as an unwelcome Americanism for what might be "faculty members". However they are employed by the university or college, not by any subdivision of it whether school, faculty or department. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping and support since the main article is at Academic personnel. Of course all of the subcats can be speedily renamed after this discussion closes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although I have to say I actually prefer Academics as being the commoner term, certainly for the United Kingdom categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Academic personnel" is too vague. It could mean teaching assistants. It could mean postdocs. We don't want to categorize either of those things; only the people who are hired in fully professorial roles (assistant professors, readers/lecturers in UK-based systems, etc). And there is no good reason for this major overhaul of our academic category system, which works adequately as is. Making US and UK English consistent with each other by choosing a variation not widely used in either is a bad idea for a bad reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 10 September 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:Women political office-holders[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, shorter and per precedent in this earlier discussion. It is also more in line with subCategory:Jewish women politicians and subCategory:Lesbian politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 4 September 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:Bengali-language films about dysfunctional families[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently only one film in the category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:53, 4 September 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_September_4&oldid=1110058356"