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.
Rename. Definitely an improvement! It is OK to diffuse large categories on a geographical basis. It is less OK to forget places like Washington D.C., historic territories and insular areas. Australian, Indian, Canadian categories etc. always go by state or territory or the equivalent, I welcome every attempt to rename U.S. categories in this fashion. Place Clichy (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realized I seemed to have voted twice but this I moved up to here now. -->So adding this from bottom of discussion to here. Oppose but Rename just have to find the correct rename. DC wouldn't fit in there if we went with the current rename proposed and neither would places like Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau fit if we rename the category to "...by state or territory" The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even though they are insular areas?[3] This begs the question on preference. Across WP, some cat trees say, and I'm paraphrasing, "by US insular area" and some say "by territory"; so what are the differences here? Why have some editors preferred to use "by territory" and some preferred to use "by insular area"? I know we can't speak for other editors but can we rehash the difference? Is it just a matter of using less words: 1 word vs 2 words, preferring a shorter category name? or is it because we don't want to include the Freely Associated States and that's why we avoid Insular area? or does it all depend on the situation that is being categorized? When the category is named "by insular area", it must be because then we do want to include the Freely Associated States (Micronesia, etc.)--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps look at how the US Census groups places: 1) Washington DC and the 50 states (image not included), 2) see (image) FIPS States Codes for the Outlying Areas of the United States and the Freely Associated States. Renaming ... "... by state" would include Washington DC (even though it's not a state). The nominator states to rename "... by territory" /// but of these (see image "FIPS State Codes for the Outlying Areas of the United States and the Freely Associated States") not all of these are territories. So the category ".. by states" would include DC, which is not a state and the category"...by territory" would include the Freely Associated States (which are not territories). That is my point. We could add a "caveat" to the top of the category explaining those nuances if we went with the renaming proposal by the nom. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2023 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Only one character is contained in this category, and thus there doesn't seem to be much merit to keeping this around. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2023 (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.
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 original section title was Category:WikiProject X members (where convention to state such CfD discussions normally uses X and Y as parameters. This was changed to use Foo to avoid confusion with WikiProject X.
Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Foo members to Category:WikiProject Foo participants for 994 Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject categories
Nominator's rationale: A common query that I encounter from newcomers is "how do I become a member of this WikiProject?" The answer, of course, is that you don't really have to do anything (other than adding your name to the directory if you want); just start participating. But this highlights a common misunderstanding, the idea that there is some sort of formal membership approval process for wikiprojects, and this misunderstanding can become a small barrier to entry for newcomers. Calling those who participate in a project "participants" rather than "members" is less likely to create this misunderstanding, while still being just as clear otherwise, so it seems better. Since 2007, Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject has been split between projects that use "participants" vs. those that use "members," with no clear distinction between them. Simplifying these by choosing just one term would improve consistency and reduce complexity (e.g. someone adding a category wouldn't need to remember/look up which term a given project uses), so we should be seeking standardization. And given its advantages, I propose that "participants" is the way to go. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Changed "X" to "Foo" to avoid confusion. 14:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment, there haven't been any categories formally nominated yet (i.e. listed in this nomination and category pages tagged), until that happens nothing can be moved for real. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Given that there are 1500 Wikipedian by WikiProject categories (many dormant), a sizable portion of which use "members," there would be quite a few pages to tag, so I was hoping that the notices I made above might suffice in lieu of individual tagging. If it is necessary to mark each page, I can try to tackle that in an AWB run. {{u|Sdkb}}talk16:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Hi, Martin! 👋) Yeah, I had the same mental hiccup after seeing the message in my user talk page and following the link to this discussion. Perhaps a more evident placeholder notation could have been used. Waldyrious (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I originally closed this request as keep, bun ran into problems while moving the required category pages. I have undid my closure and am relisting this so that a more experienced editor/administrator can take over this request. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk)23:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. These have needed for a long time to be made WP:CONSISTENT, and in this direction in particular. The idea that wikiprojects are walled gardens with membership criteria and exclusive pools of editors is poisonous us-versus-them thinking, and has been a source of incredible amounts of awful drama. The very fact that we have to have WP:CONLEVEL policy is largely because of walled-garden behavior by wikiprojects leading to various ArbCom cases and other major fallout. The idea of WP having internal autonomous organizations with "memberships" was rejected firmly in MfD's shutting down of WP:ESPERANZA years ago. I'm amazed that this cleanup has taken this long to happen. After this category move, the various pages that list wikiproject participants as "members" also need to be renamed, and lots of projects instead have sections on their front pages that say "members" which should be changed to "participants". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure procedurally what the best way to handle the other affected pages is — I don't think that's something CfD has the power to compel, but I also imagine that if this passes then there will be movement to align with the new standard. I'm happy for this to be listed at CENT if anyone feels it ought to be and decides to add it there. {{u|Sdkb}}talk14:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that there are thousands more affected pages if we want to change "members" to "participants" everywhere. I am not against a giant project like this and almost always favor consistency. I just want people to be aware of potential ramifications. I have posted a link at CENT, so we might get some fun traffic here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I listed this discussion at CENT, but the link was removed by Edward-Woodrow. Given that this discussion could affect 1,000 category pages and somewhere around 10,000 other pages, I think it should be listed there, but I'm not going to edit war over it. If this CFD closes as "Move" with just fifteen or so participants, I think there will be backlash. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While changing from 'member' to 'participant' is a gentle cultural nudge, one that can be reasonably argued as a positive one, I don't think this category renaming (which I strongly support) should be construed to mean any WikiProject is compelled to make extensive changes to accommodate it, movement or not. It might be rather wrenching for a good number of projects to go through and make a change like this without, ahem, member consensus, er, participant consensus. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk14:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose, mainly so all the related cats have a consistent naming schema. Not all the categories need just renaming: some of the targets are already a dab cat, others already have members so this would be a merge. From the highlighting, Category:WikiProject Canoeing and Kayaking members does not seem to be correctly recognised as needing a rename. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think "members" actually encourages users to "join" and feel like they are apart of something. I also don't believe this is the appropriate venue to hammer this naming convention out. -- Ned Scott21:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Consistency is one good reason to do this. Also, I'm a creator of a WikiProject and I've long since had the notion that a lot of project work may not happen because "membership" seems to suggest that joining a club has to occur before assistance on project tasks can occur, but not everyone wants to be a in a club to do helpful wiki editing. I'm fine with changing to "Participants", but continuing to have project people lists on a project subpage for those who want to state they work on specific aspects of a project, state to others they will be of assistance, or just want to show their pride of working on the project. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk22:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this closed when notifications to category creators just went out 13 hours ago, and it was listed on CENT for only about 8 hours? I recommend being careful with this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frostly, I'd encourage re-opening. As snowy as the forecast is, this nomination has more complexity than a typical CfD, so it seems worthwhile to leave it open for a few days to provide extra assurance that the community is in consensus. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
North Macedonia has an odd history - the "participants" category was created back in 2008, and the "members" category was created as a duplicate in 2011. On the other hand, the "members" category has a userbox table that should probably be preserved. Someone needs to decide what to do here. I also cleaned up some old Cydebot cut-and-pastes that were never history merged here.
Venezuela has both categories, with the "participants" one being a 2018 wanted-categories creation after the "members" one had existed since 2007. The particpnats one should be deleted, and the "members" one moved over it.
Support I think the suggestion that the term "member" actually creates a barrier is over-egging the argument (as is the oft-repeated and related refrain about "walled gardens"), but I don't see any harm in changing it. A fair amount of work I expect, but if someone is willing to do it, it's fine by me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I also think anything labeled a "WikiProject" might seem like something that requires special access to an inexperienced editor. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I presume that becoming a "member" or "participant" is more about the mechanics of signing up rather the intimidation inherent in either term. Consistency isn't required here, and if it were why does the the supposedly more welcoming term have to be the much more verbose one? Why not just "editors"? Even if the connotations are verifiable, it should be okay for each wikiproject to be as welcoming or forbidding as it wishes. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3/4 Strength Oppose, as it seems to be a difference in taste. My rationale isn't much better, as I feel like encouraging WikiProject membership allows for a positive self-identification among those involved and boosts the camaraderie among those passionate about a particular project. Referring to people as "participants" I feel sucks the life out of the idea, slightly. I acknowledge that can very well be a difference in taste, hence my weak oppose. I would much rather be a WikiProject "member", and I'd like to continue to call myself as such, rather than be labeled by the category as a "participant". Anyone can become a member, and as long as we continuously remind newcomers of that fact, I fail to see a problem with the status quo of the current category names. (The 3/4 is purely aesthetic) Utopes(talk / cont)01:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the change in principle, but I am uncomfortable with making a meta-level decision here without the awareness of most of the people affected. If the process is taken slowly, with no rush to start the changes, I would support. --Chriswaterguytalk03:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems like a no-brainer when thinking about it. There have been numerous renaming of categories from WP:USERBOXES back in the day. Looking at the usage with WikiProjects today, participation in any WikiProject does not require "becoming" a member, it's all passive. I know there was an automated process from a bot that provided a list of active editors of the past 14-30 days using specific terms related to the WP. I don't see the massive number of cats an issue because this affects only Wikipedian categories. No different than any moves from cats within userboxes. – The Grid (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – one can be a member, but not a participant. to me "participant" indicates taking an active role (which may be why I didnt like those darn participant ribbons in grade school). But anyone can be a member. Also this is a lot of categories to change, for a relatively flimsy reason. Salamurai (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just one reason more in favour of the rename. Membership, in this case, is supposed to imply the willingness to take an active role. Membership with a deliberate desire to remain passive is useless for cooperation between editors to improve the encyclopedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - consistency is good, and the OP makes a good point about the difference between a "member" and a "participant", particularly with the lack of a formal membership process. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2023 (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:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Guinea-Bissau
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. Small cat also says."unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" which ambassadors seems to follow. Mason (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2023 (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:Indian dramatists and playwrights by language
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment I am rather confused. The comments in this section seem to be referencing other comments. "None of these categories" when this section mentions only one and "Keep as above" when that is the only keep !vote visible. Has this become separated from a related discussion during the relisting? From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2023 (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.
Category:Expatriates of the Old Swiss Confederacy in France
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Seems that the pagemaker @RealRyanElder recognizes that these categories overlap. " Added the “Categories for deletion” category because someone added all of the people in this category to the “People with antisocial personality disorder” one even though I specifically made this one as being a distinction from it. Ridiculous, honestly." per [1]Mason (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd much prefer it to just be deleted unless someone wants to undo all the edits done by @Andrei Romanovich1936 because they are the one who, over the course of a day, readded the "People with antisocial personality disorder" category to all of the ones in which I replaced that with my "people with psychopathy" one and therefore rendering them indistinct from one another. RealRyanElder (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2023 (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.
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 all. This does not seem to be in any way defining. What is defining for Rudi Gutendorf is holding "a Guinness World Record for coaching 55 teams in 32 countries, across five continents." In the same year 1981 that Gutendorf briefly coached New Caledonia, he also coached no less than Australia, Nepal, Tonga and Tanzania's national football teams. Place Clichy (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2023 (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.
Merge, one might argue that a split in 1701 makes sense because the former duchy of Prussia was way smaller than the kingdom but most articles in the target are 18th-century as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2023 (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.
Oppose: the term "Middle East" is problematic, as it theoretically refers to south-central Asia, and is not synonymous with the Arab world, for which the historic equivalent is "Near East". Informally the two are frequently conflated, which makes using "Middle East" confusing, as it potentially includes everything from Western Sahara to Bangladesh. Certainly sexism exists everywhere, but the nature of sexism in say, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh is qualitatively different from that in the Arab world, for cultural reasons—I'm not accusing one of being worse than the other, but they're different in terms of the reasons, background, and forms taken, as well as their effect on the sociopolitical condition of women (for instance, India and Pakistan have both elected women leaders; such a thing is almost unthinkable in the Arab world).
I also note that "Near East" probably should be read to include Turkey, Israel, and Iran, none of which have Arab majorities. Sexism in each of these countries varies in its similarity to discrimination by sex in the Arab world; probably most of all in Israel (excluding the occupied territories, which are almost entirely Arab), less in Turkey, which in theory is still a secular state, and most similar in Iran, as the preceding year's protests demonstrate, although there are still significant issues unique to women's situation there. Changing "the Arab world" to "the Middle East" doesn't solve any of these issues; it makes them worse.
Lastly, removing north African states from this category and merging them with categories about Africa instead plays into the false narrative of pan-Africanism unifying the cultures of the Mediterranean and Sahara region with those of sub-Saharan Africa, when they are very, very different. Long contact between the Arab world and parts of sub-Saharan Africa have led to some similarities—the dispersal of Islam, the Swahili language—but in most other respects all of the countries in the Arab world—perhaps the "Arabic-speaking world" would be more accurate—have more in common with one another than with sub-Saharan Africa. P Aculeius (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and merge by precedent discussion. There is just too much unneeded overlap here. Nobody would deny that Arab World, Middle East, Near East, Levant, West Asia, South-West Asia all have different definitions. However, having overlapping schemes of so closely-related container categories only ends up in content being either omitted or put in duplicate categories. Place Clichy (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2023 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Eponymous category created just to overcategorize one image. As always, every image that gets uploaded to Wikipedia does not automatically get its own dedicated category just to contain itself -- images don't necessarily have to be filed in any categories that aren't automatically transcluded by their licensing templates in the first place, but if they are then they get categorized alongside other photos grouped by class of thing, rather than each individual photo getting its own dedicated microcategory of one. The only other thing that could conceivably be filed here is the article that the photo is being used on, but (a) categories aren't allowed to mix articles with filespace image galleries, and (b) it would still be a WP:SMALLCAT of just two entries even if we overlooked that. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as far as I'm aware, we don't generally have categories for individual ships on en.wiki; this is a Commons practice (barring the obvious exceptions of course), so I don't much see the need for this one. But I am curious as to why Bearcat thinks that articles and files aren't permitted to coexist in the same cat. WP:FILECAT states that "A category can mix articles and images, or a separate file/image category can be created." Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say images aren't allowed to be in categories; I said categories aren't allowed to mix articles with image galleries. That is, if it's actually important for the image to be filed in an article category — which it very rarely is, though I won't say never — then the category has to list a text link to the file rather than displaying an image gallery. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2023 (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.
Support on the basis it would be an improvement to the status quo and is a more logical ordering of the variables. Though some might argue the national categories could be renamed "FOOian sportspeople by region" etc. Sionk (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per my comments in the previous discussion. These are container cats for Football people from Foo county, etc. Reflecting the from wording would help avoid potential confusion regarding the scope of the categories. Also avoids opening the can of worms that introducing Fooian demonyms certainly would. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Substituting "from" for "in" fixes the major problem with scope, and the order seems more logical. I still see no problem with using demonyms, but that's another issue for another time, and it's not urgent. The original proposal was problematic, and this one solves those problems. P Aculeius (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2023 (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.
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: A newly-created category (22 Sep 2023) that is IMHO a blatant departure from Wikipedia's best practices and guidelines, especially WP:OCEGRS. I do not see any argument, unless proven otherwise, that Judaism has any specific role in the career of these individuals within British television. In the case it has played a significant role for a select few, I believe that this can be elaborated in the article body, rather than putting together a file of all Jews that stepped in the world of British television. Relevant past CFDs I could find: British people by ethnicity and occupation, British politicians of Jewish descent, Jewish television series (the latter for the link between Judaism and television production). Note that there is no other category for "Jewish television people" in any country. Place Clichy (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the basis I don't see what marks this out as different from the other occupations in Category:British Jews by occupation. With the ongoing arguments about whether Jewish actors should play Jewish characters, for example, I would have thought there was an argument to keep the "television people" and "theatre people" categories. Sionk (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a way you are correct that this category shouldn't be looked at alone, despite falling into the dead-end WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. A user took the bold action to dispatch British Jews in a number of categories for occupations regardless of their relevance, and it is this dispatch that I object to, as summarized in Wikipedia's editing guideline WP:EGRS/I. Place Clichy (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, considering I was making an argument for a "Jewish British actors" category, but the categories being nominated in the revised nomination do not need categorising by religion. Sionk (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2023 (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.
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. There's a lot to unpack here. There is no consensus on deletion, mainly due to the fact that this is one cat in a tree. No prejudice against nominating the whole tree. There is, however, a clear consensus to rename. (non-admin closure)CLYDETALK TO ME/STUFF DONE22:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created another subcategory, so there are now 2 subcategories under that category. I also noticed 2 other editors added additional parent categories. Consequentially, nomination no longer has merit as its original basis no longer exists. Mercy11 (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Film actresses from Puerto Rico have nothing in common with those from the Virgin Islands, the fact that they live in US insular areas is completely unrelated to being an actress. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; you just restated my point and yours above: "the fact that they live in [the] US...is completely unrelated to being an actress."Mercy11 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that actresses from Virginia and Illinois have something in common apart from being an actress, namely they live in the same country. So it is an apples and pears comparison. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, actresses in Puerto Rico and the USVI do have something in common apart from being an actress, that they live in the insular areas of the same country. Mercy11 (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Please see the existing categories. Honestly, I don't think it's a "trivial intersection". The cats have been defined various ways but they have not NOT been defined. They've been defined: “in territories of the US”, “in the US by región”, “in insular áreas of the US”, “from insular áreas of the US”, “XYZ in the United states by insular área”... I think "...in Insular areas of the United States" is a good way to define these. These cats are not a problem, nor are they a trivial intersection.
There are other countries besides the US with unincorporated territories. The term Insular Areas is specific to the US and thus the more appropriate term to use. Mercy11 (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So past discussions have determined that what country an actor/actress is from may be WP:DEFINING. And even what state or territory, such as Category:Puerto Rican film actresses. But the fact that a territory or country happens to be on an island is not WP:DEFINING for that actor/actress.
And this isn't only limited to intersections of occupation by geographic feature. (Which is what "insular" is.) Take a look at WP:OCEGRS, and you'll see it's also intersections of occupations with ethnicity, religion, etc.
So yes, it's overcategorisation.
As I mentioned, the intersection between the occupation and other criteria needs to be WP:DEFINING. Which is why, I suggested above that officials and crime could be defining, possibly. Though that's even weak. Again, trying to intersect occupation by geographic feature is a tough sell. It would be better to re-categorise these appropriately under Category:Territories of the United States and Category:Associated states of the United States. And incidentally, from what I can tell, many of them are not currently in those trees... - jc3700:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to this definition by the US Dept of Interior, the Insular Areas is the top category with Territories and Associated States and everything else under it. An Insular Area of the United States is "A jurisdiction that is neither a part of one of the several States nor a Federal district. This is the current generic term to refer to any commonwealth, freely associated state, possession or territory or Territory and from July 18, 1947, until October 1, 1994, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Unmodified, it may refer not only to a jurisdiction which is under United States sovereignty but also to one which is not, i.e., a freely associated state or, 1947-94, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands or one of the districts of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands." The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not with the insular areas. The issue is the intersection of the topics. Just because Puerto Rico happens to also be an insular area, does not mean that everything that happens in Puerto Rico, nor all the people in Puerto Rico who reside in Puerto Rico, should be categorized also under insular area. You have yet to show how being from an insular area is WP:DEFINING for any of these actresses. - jc3708:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But @Jc37:, this is not categorizing based on what you say when you say "But the fact that a territory or country happens to be on an island is not WP:DEFINING for that actor/actress."
Please see the source "Definitions of Insular Area Political Organizations" where the definition provided by the US Dept of Interior doesn't say that Insular Area Political Organization means "island". The document defining Insular Areas is WP:DEFINING and what it defines are areas of the US that are not states and not Washington DC. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2023 (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.
I'd be open to that, but if I'm being honest, I'm starting to get burnt out by all the trivial categories that JPL has made. Would you be willing to help me tag them all? Mason (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2023 (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:Clergy from the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria
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.
Merge, with the useful distinction given by Marcocapelle. Typical example where a regime change does little difference to the topic of the category. Place Clichy (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2023 (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:Emigrants from the Kingdom of Great Britain
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.
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: small, overlapping categories. Disability doesn't need to intersect with political regime (russian empire versus russia) Mason (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2023 (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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 12#Category:Television series written by Umera Ahmad
.jpg){kind=link}