Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 13 May 15 >

May 14[edit]

Category:Brown Canadians[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) DannyS712 (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a highly subjective racial neologism, which does not yet have a clear and objective definition of who belongs in it and who doesn't. The eponymous head article (which is also up for deletion at AFD) defines the term as meaning "South Asian" -- but that doesn't correspond to how this category is being used, as it also includes Armenian Canadians (but Armenians are Caucasian, and mostly look like it), and Latin American Canadians. And then, conversely, consider what's not being included here: Palestinian, Egyptian, Iranian and Iraqi Canadians are "brown", but Lebanese and Syrian and Jordanian and Saudi Canadians aren't? And get out into the real world, and it's even messier than that: there have also been attempts, with varying degrees of success, to include African and First Nations and East Asian Canadians under the "brown" umbrella as well, since they are also technically shades of brown. And if the term is this subjective as to what it even means, then it's not an appropriate basis for a category. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and potentially too much overlap with Category:Asian Canadian. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We categorize people by their ethnic group, but not by race. Racial categorizations tend to be subjective and unreliable. Dimadick (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does not seem to be a legitimate ethnicity (rather a weird gathering that goes from Hispanics to South Asians), and race or skin colour is not a valid categorization topic. The eponymous article is also likely to be deleted in AfD. Place Clichy (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another useless racial/ethnic category per WP:OCEGRS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OCEGRS Kbdank71 20:20, 21 May 2020 (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:Catholic cathedrals in Kerala[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. MER-C 14:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. No other Indian state has a category like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems to be a misunderstanding that Category:Catholic cathedrals in India subcategories are being used for denominations, not states. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep changed to Neutral. There are plenty of categories for cathedrals by state or by state and denomination in India. This one exists because Eastern Catholicism is a lot more prevalent in Kerala that in the rest of India. Hence the additional level to gather Eastern & Roman Catholic topics, which is standard practice. Place Clichy (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: The target Category:Cathedrals in Kerala will remain to preserve the state level. The only thing in this category is Eastern & Roman Catholic subcategories with no loose articles and they'll remain side-by-side after the upmerge just like now. We usually agree so I'm wondering if I'm just missing a navigational advantage?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Actually, if there were other sibling categories for e.g. Oriental Orthodox and Anglican cathedrals, then it would make more sense to have this layer, because Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics are related. See the way Category: Churches in India by denomination is organized, as are many other church buildings and cathedrals categories. Also note that Christianity is both stronger and a lot more diverse in Kerala than anywhere else in India, because of the Saint Thomas Christians, a historic community numbering dozens of millions people but split between Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, Protestant and Nestorian branches, there is therefore content for such categories. In the current state of the category (i.e. as these siblings have not been created yet) I agree that this stands out a bit, and will change my vote to neutral. Place Clichy (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppp per nom. No information loss involved in the proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2020 (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:Bleach games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 21#Category:Bleach games

Category:KCRW[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 02:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for an individual radio station, consisting primarily of individual people who have been staff of that radio station -- which makes it a performer by performance violation. And three more articles here are straight relays of KCRW, which means they're not supposed to even have their own standalone articles at all -- per WP:NMEDIA transmitters which do not originate any of their own programming, but exist only to retransmit other services, get a redirect to the parent service and not a standalone article. And once the people are removed and the relays are redirected, all that will be left here is the eponym itself and four shows, which is not enough content to justify a special exemption from our longstanding consensus against individual radio station categories. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after you remove the people, and if you remove the relays, there are still enough program related articles to justify maintaining the category. --evrik (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or else purge per above discussion. Note that there aren't any other individual radio station categories in California. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge but Keep There's nothing wrong with a tv/radio/call letter category so long as it's grouping shows or other things defined by the station. By all means, purge all the on air talent articles though for people that often work at a dozen radio stations over the course of their careers but that still leaves 5 articles, i.e. just enough for a catgory. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have a longstanding consensus against categorizing for individual radio stations, so five articles is not enough to justify a special exemption from the established rule here. If there were 20 or 30 articles that needed KCRW-categorization, then there might be grounds to give KCRW a special waiver from the rule — but not just five, because literally hundreds of radio stations could show five related articles. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have a longstanding consensus that, like actors, on air talent frequently changes stations and we should not categorize by performance categories and the vast majority of radio stations happen to fail that test. I don't agree that radio cats should be held to a higher standard on WP:SMALLCAT though as we routinely retain categories with far less than 30 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no good reason for a hard-and-fast rule, or even a strong preference, against radio station cats, provided there there are enough valid contents in a particular case. Nor has anyone linked to an actual discussion anywhere establishing such a consensus. I can see the point about not categorizing performers in that way, and for many stations that would be the only plausible content. But where there are four or more notable shows originating at the station, why not have such a category. I see no policy-based reason for deletion here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the long-standing consensus (that's rarely needed to be invoked, last in 2018, before that 2011) individual stations shouldn't receive categories, reflected by the fact only one other radio station in the US has its own category: !Category:WBZ, and only three television stations (a duplication of of WBZ, !Category:WCVB-TV and !Category:KYW-TV, which suffer the exact same PERFCAT problem as this category.) Furthermore, once we apply WP:PERFCAT there's not enough for a category anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 01:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: The disagreement here is actually with WP:SMALLCAT, not WP:PERFCAT. My cutoff is 5 articles defined by a topic while Bearcat is around 20 or 30 articles to keep a category. (There's no objective right or wrong answer here as the guideline is vague.) What number of articles are you looking for? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: I'm honestly not sure the actual number matters here since it seems to subjectively fail - once you remove all the people in the category per WP:PERFCAT, and you merge the transmitter relays, all you have left are shows produced by the station, of which I count four and two of those should probably be merged together (one's unsourced and closely related to another). So instead of KCRW you actually have Category:Shows produced by KCRW, and while that in theory could be expanded if they produce more notable shows, seems to me to subjectively trigger WP:SMALLCAT. SportingFlyer T·C 01:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 12|Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_May_12#Category:KROQ. --evrik (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. Deletion enforced in the review, and you create the category again anyway? That's not the collaborative spirit expected on Wikipedia. Place Clichy (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More precisely, the closure of the 9-year-old discussion was endorsed but there was no consensus to prohibit recreation. That there was also no consensus to explicitly permit the recreation does not change this or mean the recreation was in bad faith or contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia - especially as they commented in the DRV that they misinterpreted my comment there as more authoritative than it was. Yes, a discussion before recreation would have been ideal, but the way forward now is to have that discussion now with everyone engaging in good faith rather than throwing around ad hominems. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. We seem to have a user disregarding deletion discussions and creating back the content regardless. Place Clichy (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (maybe purge) There is enough content to justify a category (8 articles would still remain if the people were removed from the category). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are you getting eight from? I count four above, plus possibly the station article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. If Bearcat is correct, 2,3,4 shouldn't have articles at all based on WP:NMEDIA as transmitter relays. SportingFlyer T·C 07:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Armbrust. With or without a purge there are sufficient articles here that make the category useful and there is no reason why it being a radio station means it should be treated any differently to any other topic. Per the linked DRV though a general discussion about this at a relevant Wikiproject page should be held before nominating any other such categories at CfD (and the outcome of this CfD should be without prejudice to a recreation or renomination should it differ from the outcome of that discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After removing the relays and people, it becomes a WP:SMALLCAT issue. Kbdank71 20:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. It has enough for a small cat. --evrik (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the disagreement here is over WP:SMALLCAT, knowing how many articles each of you are looking for would be helpful for guiding future noms. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2020 (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:17th-century establishments in the United States[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. MER-C 14:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The United States did not yet exist as a country in the 17th century. — 1857a (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point to bring up New France. I would suggest, alternatively, to keep the 17th-century US page as a disambiguation page, linking to both New France and to the 13 colonies. The 18th-century US category page may contain a "see also" link to New France. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good spot. The above is a better solution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, my nomination fails to consider all cases. I also prefer Marcocapelle's solution above. — 1857a (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dab category is a possibility. However it does not solve all issues: the current scope covers not only the Thirteen Colonies and New France but also the New Netherlands, New Sweden, parts of colonial Spanish America and, of course, native American nations. Think that New York City was not established in any of the Thirteen Colonies. Seen that Georgia was founded in 1732 and the Carolinas split in 1729, the notion of Thirteen Colonies is just as anachronistic in the 17th century as that of United States. For these reasons, using the contemporary term of United States may be more practical and efficient than colonial polities in the name of avoiding anachronism. Place Clichy (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming the 13 colonies category would require a separate discussion. This discussion is about the United States category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nomination, or actually, any of the solutions mentioned above. They're all better than "United States". Kbdank71 20:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:27, 22 May 2020 (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:South Korean campaign medals[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. MER-C 14:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge for Now This isn't currently aiding navigation but no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs written by Fred again[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 18:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The artist/musician in question's main article is named Fred Again and that's how he is known professionally - https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/who-is-fred-again-the-man-behind-some-huge-chart-hits-for-ed-sheeran-little-mix-and-george-ezra__28449/ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 13:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename Per WP:C2D. The main article is currently Fred Again and was originally created under that name/capitalization. (I didn't check to seem if there were any bold page renames in between.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. AS per C2D. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2020 (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:Albums produced by FRED[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 1#Category:Albums produced by FRED

Category:Reggae albums by Puerto Rican artists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 1#Category:Reggae albums by Puerto Rican artists

Cathedrals by city[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 14:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, these categories only contain two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, too small with limited potential for growth. Wikiacc () 20:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how many would one need? Ukraine, where I think major cities still have at least 4, and cosmopolitan metropolitan places like London, are the place for this. I agree mere couples are not worth categorizing. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minimum of 3 to 4 would be fair. Few cities will meet that threshold. If they do, fair enough. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2020 (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.

Language of countries[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Language of countries

Category:Jewish merchants[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 19:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This single member of Category:Merchants by ethnicity. I think smell of this off. Categorizing Jewish merchants feels like Shylock in the The Merchant of Venice. KasiaNL (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of scope for growth, reliabl esources discuss the entire concept of Jewish merchants [1], etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Category:Jewish businesspeople has been deleted in this discussion. Some of the arguments of that discussion may be applicable here as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Comments there by Sam and Jayjg echo my motivation in nominating. Is Category:Jewish bankers next? Classifying merchants by race, only if they are Jews? Wrong so many ways.--KasiaNL (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are concerns about it, we should simply delete Category:Jews by occupation, of course following a project wide RfC. I created this category as I recently noticed Category:Jewish poets. I don't see a difference between one occupaiton and another, if one is allowed to exist so should the other. And please note that Jews are hardly singled out, there is the entire Category:People by ethnicity and occupation as well as the Category:People by occupation and ethnicity (shoudn't those two be merged, btw?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Piotrus. I see no reason to single out this particular intersection of Jewishness and occupation, when we have a huge and long-standing category tree under Category:Jews by occupation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised to see the Category:Jewish_businesspeople deletion for the first time - most of the arguments for deletion seem very wrong to me, but I think there is a great liberal sensitivity here, presumably what "I think smell of this off" in the nom is supposed to mean. "Merchants" is a vague & unsatisfactory term, and the whole tree should probably be merged to businesspeople. So keep with reservations. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a gathering of too many different things, and the Jewish character and link between Jewishness and professional activity of the people listed here is far from established. Plenty of subcategories of Jews by occupation are very challengeable and have been established despite our policies (such as WP:OCEGRS) and previous CfDs such as Jewish businesspeople, and their mere existence cannot be used as the single justification to keep this one, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Place Clichy (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator of this proposal has been blocked for socking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do Jewish merchants do something differently than their Gentile counterparts. Prove it. (WP:OCEGRS). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a relevant and notable cross-section of "Jewish" and "merchants". And yes, User:Carlossuarez46, books have been written about Jewish merchants. Google it. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Debresser: how are Jewish merchants different than Gentile merchants other than one is Jewish the other is Gentile? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There really is a reason books have been written about this, and more books should be written. To give you one or two examples of distinguishing features that made them especially fit to be merchant: they had connections everywhere, as all Jews are wont help each other, and are actually commanded by their religion to do so. Then there is the matter of the common language, which allowed them to do business worldwide. I know from first hand of Jewish merchants who moved along the trans-Siberian railroad and founded Jewish communities in various towns, which is also a distinguishing feature, since most merchants don't necessarily found communities, and where they do it is notable, like in trade colonies. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query. This category currently has one member, who probably should not be in it given that he's only known as a rabbi. Was it depopulated? It is a potentially notable intersection, and Category:Merchants by nationality does exist in a way that I feel addresses the "we don't have categories for other ethnicities" objection; I would recommend deleting Category:Merchants by ethnicity and just keeping Category:Jewish merchants, if kept at all, in Category:Merchants. BTW, KasiaNL, the titular merchant is Antonio - although Shylock is the best part, Shakespeare relegates him to the villain of a b-plot, honestly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the only member of this category, Solomon Eger, was not even notable as a merchant. His article tells us in one short sentence (not in introduction) that he started working as a merchant, lost his fortune, and then became a rabbi. The entire article is about this second activity. It is therefore not WP:DEFINING for him to be in this category at all. Place Clichy (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any way to tell if articles have been removed from a category? I'm loathe to recommend a delete largely because the nom was a sock, but we could easily just remove the category from Eger. Just want to make sure there's no foul play here. EDIT: just checked the history, it's a brand new category. Probably could exist, but doesn't currently need to. SportingFlyer T·C 07:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This category and Category:Merchants by ethnicity were created in the same day (14 May) and by the same user that added them on the Eger article, previously created by another user on 30 April. Note that the article was not even added to Category:Polish merchants, which would imho probably be slightly more defining for a Warsaw merchant-turned-rabbi if we were to add him to a merchant category at all. I therefore think that the Solomon Eger article alone is really a very weak reason to create an entire Merchants by ethnicity category hierarchy. I can't tell if other articles have been added then removed but it seems likely that this new category structure was created just for this article. Place Clichy (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I didn't check the history of the category before I posted mostly because it occurred to me immediately after the post, just read the discussion. I support the deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 08:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since we decided that this is a valid category, why then delete it as being unpopulated? Wouldn't it make more sense to try to populate the category? Debresser (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debresser: Well, can it be populated? Like I said, it's not that I feel that it shouldn't exist as a category, but Eger does not belong in it and we don't generally keep empty categories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to add some, found 8 in half an hour, and there for sure are many, many more. By the way, I see there are lots of interesting resources about this subject: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], as well as pieces of art: [9], [10]. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I am not sure Eger doesn't belong there. He was a merchant, and that fact was important enough to mention in the article. I mean, he is better know as a rabbi, but then again, neither is he know for having been born in 1785, and still we have that category. The notability criteria shouldn't be applied to categories. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There essentially is, actually, it's WP:NONDEF. (I was looking through my recent edit history and a useful comparison presented itself - someone who did karate club in college does not belong in Category:Karateka.) I can't speak for the years categorization, but we do very much have guidelines to prevent overcategorization by every element of someone's life. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The demands of WP:NONDEF are different from the demands of WP:N, as explained there. Which is precisely what I meant. Although I can agree that in the specific case of Eger, it is borderline defining. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2020 (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.

Ayatollahs and grand ayatollahs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories have multiple issues:
  1. First of all, Ayatollah, Grand Ayatollah, Hujjat al-Islam, Hujjat al-Islam va al-Muslimin and Thiqat al-Islam are all honorific titles (Hovsepian-Bearce, Yvette (2015). The Political Ideology of Ayatollah Khamenei: Out of the Mouth of the Supreme Leader of Iran. Routledge. p. 18. ISBN 1317605829.) and addressing styles,(Nasr, Seyyed Vali Reza; Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Seyyed Hossein; Dabashi, Hamid. Expectation of the Millennium: Shi'ism in History. State University of New York Press. p. 266. ISBN 978-0887068447.) and they are really akin to categories such as Category:French Excellencies or Category:English The Right Honourables, not like Category:Italian popes.
  2. They are most probably not defining characteristics (while Category:Shia clerics is instead defining).
  3. There is no clear criteria for inclusion of one person in one of these categories. While one may argue that certain people are commonly known by the title Ayatollah in the Western world (like Gandhi, with the title Mahātmā), most of the people in these categories may fall into several categories. Followers of some clerics tend to promote them with senior titles, and their rivals tend to degrade them. These titles also bear political connotations and are sometimes controversial, inclusion of these categories in many articles can cause a WP:POV issue too (for example you can find Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani addressed with three titles: Ayatollah, Hujjat al-Islam va al-Muslimin and Hujjat al-Islam).
–Pahlevun (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, the article Ayatollah seems to suggest that it is a title that one objectively receives. Am I reading this incorrectly or is the text wrong? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some actually do claim this title, like this man. I think that article needs a lot of work. Pahlevun (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the title Ayatollah is not randomly given out and contrary to what the nominator says it is central to many of subjects of these articles' notability. In Christianity bishops are sometimes refereed to as "his/her eminence" or "Monsignor", but it would be ridiculous to propose a deletion for Category:Bishops and the various subcategories. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did not read my comments thoroughly, User:Inter&anthro. These categories are exactly equivalent to Category:Monsignors to be exact, not Category:Bishops. Would you please enlighten me, since you maintan that these titles are not "randomly given out", that this man is an Ayatollah or not? Pahlevun (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I did read your comment, thank you for you concern. While not as formalized as say becoming a bishop in Christianity there is a process to become Ayatollah. People can certainly claim the title, just like there some individuals who claim to be a president or a king, but if they are not recognized as such, then they do not belong in the category. See this article for the process. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a process, although less formal than say becoming a Bishop in Christianity or a Rabbi in Judaism, (see here for details). Ayatollah is by definition a Shiite position (to be specific in Twelver Shia Islam), not a Sunni one, so there is no need to further divide up by denomination. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While there is a process to become a cleric in Shia Islam, and a ceremony called ammame gozari (literally to put on a Turban) is being held at the beginning of their career, there is NO clear criteria for addressing that cleric. This is a matter of controversy. I am sorry that no proper source in English language is available to describe the problem, but I can provide you with this piece by the Persian section of RFE/RL, I hope google can help. Pahlevun (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the link was probably meant to have the opposite effect, I am now leaning towards supporting the nomination. The process is really vague as there does not seem to be an established authority granting these titles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pahlevun: the citation given in Slate makes it clear that the process to becoming an ayatollah is gradual, but "The process of bestowing the grand ayatollah title upon a cleric is a bit more formal. It is usually agreed upon by a council of Shiite elders…". Given this, should "grand ayatollahs" categories be kept? – Fayenatic London 18:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 03:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Forgot to note in my relisting that the nominated categories were not tagged until today. bibliomaniac15 03:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for relisting, because only now it occurs to me that if the categories are not kept they should be merged instead of deleted. For example: merge Category:Iranian ayatollahs to Category:Iranian Shia clerics. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, per Marcocapelle. It is clear that these categories group notable clerics by a WP:DEFINING characteristic, i.e. their status as senior clerics; the issue is whether that characteristic is correctly labelled as "ayatollah". I don't know enough about the topic to know whether this label is sufficiently formal to allow for objective categorisation, and I would be open to a merge proposal if there was clear evidence to support it. But so far, all the assertions seem to be fuzzy and inadequately unevidenced. I can't endorse changes without a lot more clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am developing the article Ayatollah now with sources. Now, there are reliable sources that say this title is not used anywhere other than Iran, and I assume that is enough for deleting nationals of other countries in this category. @BrownHairedGirl: Would you please give me more time to develop the article? I can provide sources. Pahlevun (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take all the time you need, @Pahlevun. This CFD discussion won't remain open indefinitely, but don't let that deter you. I think it might be better to let this discussion get closed, and then you can come back at a later date with a clearer and better-sourced nomination supported by the improved head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my understanding, this is for all practical purposes akin to rabbi categories. By the way, the word rabbi is both a degree, a job and a title. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2020 (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:Caribbean Baseball Hall of Fame inductees[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) DannyS712 (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Caribbean Baseball Hall of Fame is given out during the Caribbean Series, a post season series in Latin America. This award is usually recognizing accomplishments much later in their baseball careers however. Specifically, most of these awards are for players who started out in the Caribbean Series, were called into the Major Leagues in the US/Canada, retired, and then came back to receive this award as a sort of homecoming. Within the articles, while being from the Caribbean and playing in the majors are consistently in the intro, this award tends to get a passing reference and doesn't seem defining. For any reader interested in the topic, the contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
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:Finnish Hockey Hall of Fame inductees[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. In case anyone wants to make a list, the current contents are available on the talk page (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Finnish Hockey Hall of Fame is typically mentioned in these articles but they tend to be so short there's no distinction between the intro and the body. Seppo Ahokainen and Ilkka Mesikämmen are representative examples but feel free to click around on your own. Within the few articles that are longer, this award gets a passing reference and doesn't seem defining. All of the articles are already well categorized under Category:Finnish ice hockey players or related categories. For any reader interested in the topic, the contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
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/2020_May_14&oldid=960279952"