From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 20 January 22 >

January 21

Category:Irish-speaking countries and territories

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - tiny category and zero chance of enlargement. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 23:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep: I disagree, not only are there many countless, small categories, but this one could be expanded to include regions where there are more communities of speakers. I think I am being targeted by other users, and I will not tolerate WP:edit-warring. Neddy1234 ( talk) 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Can you please explain what you mean by being targeted, and edit-warring? Or even better, just remove that sentence. Thanks. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 09:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
How do you think the category could be expanded? Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 09:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Purge but Keep to remove UK (Northern Ireland already listed separately) and England since, although it may be spoken at a few kitchen tables, it's not a common language in these areas. This looks like it is a reasonable exception to WP:SMALLCAT for a broader categorization scheme in Category:Countries by language. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support I would expect each country article in this category to contain a majority or a significant minority meeting the criterion of "Irish-speaking". This is barely true for the ROI and demonstrably not true for NI; it is risible to suggest that it might be true for any other country in the world. If 2 people in Ulan Bator speak Irish together, does that make Mongolia Irish-speaking? I think not. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Agree on purging to begin with, per previous comments, and after purging I think that it's fair to also agree on delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Listify the whole Category:Countries by language tree. The relationship between a language and a country (or other geographical area) is far too nuanced (e.g. it varies over time) to be a characteristic suitable for categorization. This information is much better presented in article form (e.g. List of territorial entities where French is an official language). Articles about countries should not be under Category:Language and, in particular, country categories should not be categorized by language (which leads to category loops such as Kurdish_language > Kurdish-speaking_countries_and_territories > Syria > Syrian_society > Languages_of_Syria > Kurdish_language). DexDor ( talk) 07:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support deleting/listifying the tree. An additional reason why this tree makes little sense is because so many languages are mainly spoken in just a single country or region (see all follow-up nominations of tomorrow). Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support, though a Category:Gaelic-speaking countries and territories would have slightly more scope (including Scotland and Isle of Man too). As it stands, only the island of Ireland has significant numbers of, erm, Irish speakers, so there's little scope for expansion. Sionk ( talk) 17:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- I do not think that Irish is a significant language in Northern Ireland, save that certain republicans learnt it, either to assert their Irishness or to provide a jargon them unintelligible to prison officers. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
It seems a little bit offensive to describe a native language as something learnt just to be awkward! The nationalist community learnt the language because they identified themselves with the island of Ireland. Sionk ( talk) 22:32, 25 January 2015 (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:Cornish-speaking countries and territories

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - tiny category and zero chance of enlargement. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 23:16, 21 January 2015 (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:Welsh-speaking countries and territories

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT - tiny category and zero chance of enlargement. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 23:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but Purge This looks like it is a reasonable exception to WP:SMALLCAT for a broader categorization scheme in Category:Countries by language. I'd remove Argentina and UK though because the more specific regions are already there and I don't know if the whole countries are defined by this language. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support per Irish logic above. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support per Irish logic above. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I'm on the fence on this one, Wales and Patagonia are so geographically distant as to make this category of some interest. A positive alternative would be to merge into a new Category:Brittonic language-speaking countries and territories together with Cornwall and Brittany. Sionk ( talk) 17:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- If kept, purge of UK and Argentina, leaving Wales and an area of Argentina, which is (or was) a Welsh colony. However, I am not sure that it is a useful category at all. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:39, 25 January 2015 (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:Fictional outlaws

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: inclusiveness is preferable over creating more categories. -- 76.175.67.121 ( talk) 21:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The Fugitive main article talks about real world warrants from police while the main article for outlaws talks about a fictional stock characters. But both categories contain real world and fictional members so I think a broader merge between these trees might be appropriate. I'm not opposed to this particular nomination. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • move per nom; seems appropriate. -- 173.55.119.156 ( talk) 18:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete - this is a mess of a category. every criminal can end up here. Every vigilante can end up here. And look, we have Chewbacca and Boba Fett in the same category. - jc37 03:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply
    Isn't that more a matter of category definition that could be cleaned up without deletion? After all, very few criminals are outlawed today, and only a relatively small sub-set of criminals become fugitives. These are particularly small if you restrict the category's use to characters which have "outlawry" or "fugitive-ness(?)" as defining characteristics. –  Philosopher  Let us reason together. 21:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply
    See Outlaw#Popular_usage, and also the "see also" examples below that. Where do you want to begin pruning? And we have WP:OR in either direction, by adding to or removing from this cat : )
    And the "fugitive from justice" literary trope is so common as at one time or other applies to nearly every character even if as a temporary misunderstanding. And due to "Literary present tense" on Wikipedia, we could add such characters as Beaver Cleaver, Captain America, and Superman. And for fun, there's always repeat offenders like Ignatz Mouse, or Otis Campbell. This could become a nearly all-encompassing category. - jc37 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Unsure Most "outlaws" as commonly used are fugitives, but there is a separate category of individuals who have been formally "outlawed" and probably don't belong in a shared category with fugitives. –  Philosopher  Let us reason together. 21:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Please keep fiction and reality categories aligned and hold a discussion about the parent categories. gidonb ( talk) 11:31, 12 April 2015 (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.

Music in Mississippi

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 all, put the only article in these categories into Category:Music of Mississippi. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These recently-created categories are categorised inside themselves, and none have another parent. Even if that problem were fixed, it's Intersection by location - the most relevant parent or grandparent would be e.g. Category:American audio engineers, Category:American record producers, Category:Recording studios in the United States, which are not subdivided by location. There is possibly also a Small with little potential for growth situation with these. There are only two different articles in the whole of this group of six cats, and those are also in one or more of the aforementioned parent/grandparent cats, so no merge is necessary. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:32, 21 January 2015 (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:Independent sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

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. MER-C 11:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category was created under an old way of categorizing sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. The under the new system it no longer needed or use.--- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk) 16:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support per reorganisation at Category:Latter Day Saint denominations. SFB 18:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I know what this is trying to communicate—no connection or lineage from other Latter Day Saint sects—but technically, all Latter Day Saint sects are "independent", in that they are not beholden to or controlled by any other sect, so it's not a great name, and it's already been abandoned. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This sounds like a "non of the above" category, which is highly discouraged. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:33, 6 March 2015 (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:Operas by world premiere location subcategories

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 are two issues here, one was the reanme and the other a listify. If we treat the listify comments as neutral, there is consensus for a reanme. Once the rename is completed, it would be fair for a new discussion on the listify option. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what the category contains. This and the similar CfD proposals below result from a discussion at WP Opera. Smerus ( talk) 15:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what the category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what the category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: clarifies what's in the category (the sub-category Category:Ballets premiered at the Paris Opera Ballet can then be disengaged form this category, as it is already a subcat of Category:Paris Opera Ballet and Category:Ballets by world premiere location). Smerus ( talk) 15:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what the category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what the category contains, and also uses title of main article referred to ( Royal Opera House), per WP conventions Smerus ( talk) 15:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what the category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifying what category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Clarifies what the category contains Smerus ( talk) 15:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Question @ Smerus: Is the world premier venue considered defining in operas? I ask because, to a non-expert like me, this sounds a lot like WP:OCVENUE, overcategorizing by venue. RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It seems to me it's a significant category because of what accrues to the venues, many of which are themselves of historic importance - they developed, and maintain, their reputations in opera history as a consequence of the performances they have housed. So the record of the premieres they have hosted seems to me to be non-trivial and I don't feel that WP:OCVENUE applies here. Look e.g. at any of the the major musical dictionaries and they all give the location of an opera's premiere in their opera articles, and often carry articles about the venues which contain the operas premiered there. Therefore, keep, as well as rename.-- Smerus ( talk) 16:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) I was going to say the same thing as Smerus. I don't think WP:OCVENUE applies here. The premiere venue of an opera is one of the first things about it in major reference works, right after the composer and librettist. Voceditenore ( talk) 16:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Maybe it's more like a publisher for books since the original venue launches it? RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support renaming all sub-cats above. Voceditenore ( talk) 16:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rename if Kept I'll defer to others on the notability of the topics. RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Listify to propose new names. Operas which premiered at a specific location, say Turin, often don't have a great deal more in common with each other than operas that premiered at a different location, say Milan. This is particularly true of more modern ones, where it is more of a commercial decision than one taken because that opera house was the largest in the region it was composed in, or a specific writer was more attached to the institution. This concept is much better explored as a list rather than a category. This is especially worthwhile because this content is almost entirely missing from the article space. SFB 18:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I think the comments above by Voceditenore and myself in response to RevelationDirect's question address this point. It's specific theatres we're dealing with here, not towns; thus the operas performed there are integral to the reputation, style and history of the theatre. And some of these subcats are also subcats of the theatres involved. e.g. Category:La Scala.-- Smerus ( talk) 06:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Smerus: If it's a feature that's definitive of the venue, not the opera, then you are better off using a list rather than a category. The category mainly serves the purpose of linking the operas to each other, not linking them to the theatre (which isn't even in the category to navigate to). SFB 07:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support renaming as per nominator. This makes it clear we're talking about operas specifically, because non-operatic presentations such as plays could also have had their premieres at opera houses. But most certainly keep. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all, indifferent to rename as I don't especially have an issue with the occasional play or ballet being mixed in to the category. As Smerus and Voceditenore point out, the premiere location is frequently considered important for the opera, and "what operas premiered here" is certainly important for a house. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Listify As was said above "the operas are integral to the reputation and style of the theatres". That says "this is a characteristic of the theatre, not the opera." So it works as a list, but not as a category, because the matter does not effect the opera. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All As Is An opera's premiere location isn't usually some random thing. The house in question may have commissioned the work or otherwise influenced its creation. Some operas' most significant feature historically is that they were premiered at a certain theatre. Thus the works form a group that reflects the overall aesthetic of a house and relate to each other. The cat helps the reader connect to other operas that may have been launched at La Scala, the Met, etc. Keep. Markhh ( talk) 20:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Markhh, just to clarify, as i fear you may have misunderstood the proposal. The proposal actually works towards the objectives you state; more particularly by clarifying that these are opera premieres at the particular locations. a number of the existing categories do not mention the fact that they concern operas. The proposals would ensure a standard format for all these categories, so that, in your words, the reader can connect to other operas that have been launched at each location.-- Smerus ( talk) 12:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Very good! We seem to be thinking along the same lines. I am okay with either name format. (The elaborate hierarchies of WP Categories don't really hold much interest for me in any case.) Cheers, Markhh ( talk) 03:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support the proposal to rename (although I think the original names were OK, too) and to keep the categories as helpful navigation aides. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 13:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support to rename. All the major theaters host both opera and ballet companies, so the category name is not correct right now; e.g. category "La Scala world premieres" should contain at least two others : "Opera premieres at La Scala" and "Ballet premieres at La Scala" plus may be symphonic works for some theaters, especially the old ones. Fleur-de-farine 14:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Listify as nondefining. gidonb ( talk) 11:35, 12 April 2015 (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:Academics by university in Europe

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: Reverse merge. There is a clear consensus to merge, the question is in which direction. There is stronger support for the reverse merge. This close is consistent with the similar one below and specifically does not address the proposals for Category:Academic staff at foo university. I'm not sure if that becomes a split, which does not require a discussion here, or a followup rename. I'll let the participants decide on how to proceed with that decision. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The tree is 'Faculty by country' and some countries use 'academics'. There is no need for this subtree and indeed it obscures the fact that Finland has 2 competing trees. Oculi ( talk) 12:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Reverse Merge No preference on name, but only one category should remain. Does British English have a preference? If so, I'd go with that. RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Some discussions that might be of interest (or not) 1, 2, 3 or this search for more. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support merge Faculty is intelligible to multiple audiences. Academics can continue to prevail within this grouping where different forms of English dictate. @ Oculi: Can you please add the Finland, Poland and UK twin branches to the merge nomination? The exact same logic applies and I think judging them together in one place will be easier. SFB 18:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Support alt merge (per the other ongoing discussion) to Category:Academic staff by university in Europe, which avoids the ambiguity of "Academics" potentially meaning academics who studied at the institution, rather than those who have taught there. This also resolves people's issue with the word faculty. SFB 20:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support seems the same concept, and "faculty" seems to imply on the payroll, whereas "academics" conceivably could include those having graduated from FooU and become an academic elsewhere are literally a academic from FooU. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Proposal While it is problematic that we're discussing the same problem in three threads now, in one of the other threads below SFB made an interesting proposal: Category:Academic staff at Foo University seems to work worldwide without creating any ambiguities. The parent categories would then be Category:Academic staff by university in... Would that be (halfway) acceptable for everybody? -- PanchoS ( talk) 00:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Disagree. The usage of the term "Faculty" to mean people is an American usage. In many other places the term means an administrative unit like a department but often bigger and including several departments. Category:Academic staff at Foo University would work however. -- Bduke (Discussion) 05:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge and strong do not merge per WP:ENGVAR. Per Bduke "Faculty" has a very different meaning in British English from American English and the proposed change would make the category less intelligible in Europe. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • REverse merge (or merge both to an "academic staff" category. In UK, the faculty is a super-departmental institution, not its teaching and research staff. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge (or merge both to an "academic staff" category), per Bduke & Peterkingiron. In both the UK & Ireland, a "faculty" is a an organisational subdivision of a university. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • 20 of the subcats of Category:Faculty by university or college in Europe use faculty throughout and 6 use academics, so I don't see that a reverse merge makes sense. "Academic staff" sounds like a good idea (it was BDuke who first suggested 'People educated at') but is this the place to start? Oculi ( talk) 00:21, 30 January 2015 (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.

Executed American people (sub-sub) categories

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 11:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Propose upmerging: see nominated categories in drop-down box.
nominated categories

Sub-subcategories: People from STATE executed by hanging

Sub-subcategories: People from STATE executed by electric chair

Sub-sub-subcategories: 20th-century executions of people from STATE by electric chair

Sub-subcategories: People from STATE executed by lethal injection

Sub-sub-subcategories: 20th-century executions of people from STATE by lethal injection

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The categories for executed people have kind of been subcategorized to oblivion, which has created a number of triple- or quadruple-intersection categories that do not contain very many articles. The extreme subcategorization makes navigation (and categorizing new articles) quite awkward and confusing. This is a first stab at simplifying some of it by suggesting an upmerge to immediate parent categories of the listed sub-subcategories and sub-sub-subcategories of Category:Executed American people. In my opinion, some of the target categories should also be upmerged, but I have avoided working on too many categorization levels in this nomination in order to keep it relatively simple. if this nomination is successful, though, I will be following it up with more nominations of some of the target categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks SFB, I missed that the state categories are people from not state of execution. That isn't useful at all, even for the well populated exceptions I noted above. RevelationDirect ( talk) 21:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support barely any of the numerous subcategories are getting into double figures, indicating that this is a deficient subcategorisation method. For a start, I would question the logic in categorising the people by the place they're from rather than the state they were executed in (not that that would be great either). Where large numbers gather, I suggest that crime is more likely to be a useful a production method of intersect (e.g. Category:American murderers executed by electric chair). That said, the contents are so diffuse I can't tell if even that will be warranted. Yet another example of people subcategorising narrow topics by location when that is not useful to navigation or to the grouping of like material. SFB 19:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support merging the "people from" categories. No encyclopedic use in this kind of categorization, unlike, say an "executed in" scheme, which could be useful. –  Philosopher  Let us reason together. 23:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all. This is far too deep a form of intersection. And congrats to the nominator for preparing such a huge nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all This leads to small categories that are not useful for navigation. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:37, 6 March 2015 (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:Faculty of the University of Oxford

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: duplicate Bencherlite Talk 00:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Needless duplication of existing tree. Oculi ( talk) 12:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Reverse Merge No preference on name, but only one category should remain. RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse Merge, as faculty encompasses both academic and non-academic faculty. "Academics" on the other hand might be understood as encompassing non-faculty academics related to the university which is a too fuzzy definition for a category. Most importantly, the decision should be part of a stringent category tree, so either we're using "faculty" everywhere, or "academics". -- PanchoS ( talk) 17:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    • It may be that I've been away from university too long, but who would fall into the definition of "non-academic faculty" or "non-faculty academics"? The matter is a little more complicated at Oxford compared to some universities, I think, since some academics will have college-level appointments as Fellows (and so be in the sub-categories of Category:Fellows of colleges of the University of Oxford‎, which itself is a sub-cat of the "Academics" category), some will have college-level appointments and also be university-level lecturers (an extra role which in my experience has not been, or at least generally isn't, categorized additionally by direct mention in the "academics" category), while some will be holders of permanent chairs (and so fall into Category:Statutory Professors of the University of Oxford as well as the "fellows" categories, since they will also be professorial fellows of a particular college by virtue of their chair). Those with college-level appointments short of fellowship (e.g. junior academics working as college lecturers) are not, or at least generally aren't, categorized in the "academics" category because the post falls short of being sufficiently defining for categorization purposes. I think the same would go for visiting university lecturers. I've left a message at WT:OXFORD and WT:UNI soliciting input. I suspect that many of the existing members of the "Oxford academics" category could be recategorised by ensuring that it only includes people with university-level appointments (other than the Statutory Professors) but no college fellowships, although I've not looked through the names in detail. Anyway, I am in danger of digressing, but some consensus on who should go in the parent category (be it "academics" or "faculty") would be good. Bencherlite Talk 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Comment @ Bencherlite: I believe the ambiguity rests in the fact that those who studied their doctorates at the institutions could rightly be called Academics of that university. In other words, those studying at the institution may fall under the academics concept, but are largely not considered to be (fully-fledged) members of faculty. The fact that many doctoral candidates get their teaching experience while still being students makes this a bit fuzzy, but I think there is a clear desire to sort out alumni from the permanent staff of a university. SFB 19:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
        • @ Sillyfolkboy: No-one would regard as an "Oxford academic" someone who did a bit of teaching on the side, as it were, while doing their doctorate. Is this a ENGVAR thing? Bencherlite Talk 19:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I am a retired academic from universities in several countries including the UK. At least in my day, the term "Faculty" was never used in relation to people who teach. That use was an Americanism. "Faculty" referred to an organisation within the university that all academics and students in a particular area belonged to , such as the "Faculty of Arts" or the "Faculty of Science". I believe this is still the case, so for UK universities the categories should be "Academics of ..". So, Support. -- Bduke (Discussion) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Bencherlite suggested that I might be able to provide a bit of insight into current Oxford usage, which I am happy to do. It's fairly clear to me what both "faculty" and "academics" would mean in an Oxford context, and the two groups are largely coincident but both containing unique members. Strictly speaking in Oxford there is no such thing as "the faculty", just the members of the faculties, but it would in practice be understood what you meant. The members of a faculty normally include all university staff appointed on academic grades 8 and above (this would include the departmental lecturers on old grades 8-10, the university lecturers and CUFs on old grade 10*, the RS4 professors, and the statutory professors; note that RS1 and RS2 grades are academic related, not academic, and RS3 doesn't really exist) and would also include a small number of academic related staff (senior PostDocs) who undertake significant teaching, a small number of individuals holding personal research fellowships (Royal Society URFs, British Academy fellows, and so on), and a small number of college only appointments. The "academics" are a similar group, who include all the college only academic staff, including junior reasearch fellows, and in particular the emeritus fellows of colleges, who have retired from salaried positions, but exclude the PostDocs, except for a very small number who hold non-stipendiary research fellowships (most of these are held by individuals with personal research fellowships). All very complicated, I admit, but for what it's worth my advice in an Oxford context would be to merge to "academics". Of course I understand, however, that you may want to place this decision in a wider context. Regards, Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 20:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    I think the the essential difference is that if an American refers to "The Faculty .." it is clear that s/he means all the academic staff of the university, but if a Brit says "The Faculty .." you have to infer which one s/he means or ask. So "Faculty of the University of Oxford" would refer to Faculty of Classics, Faculty of English Language and Literature, Faculty of History, Faculty of Linguistics, Faculty of Philology & Phonetics, Faculty of Medieval and Modern Languages, Faculty of Music, Faculty of Oriental Studies, Faculty of Philosophy, or Faculty of Theology and Religion all in Humanities. It seems the other disciple areas not longer have Faculties. Many other place are moving to different nomenclature, Schools of, etc., but some have all departments in Faculties. The Category: Faculty of the University of Oxford is just wrong. -- Bduke (Discussion) 21:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    @ Bduke: The Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics is one faculty, not two; you seem to have overlooked the Faculty of Law. Besides those, the Saïd Business School is described as the Faculty of Management on the university's list of departments. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    @ Bduke: In Oxford terms, and more general UK terms, you are right (though there are probably more faculties at Oxford than you think, for example there is a Faculty of Physics). The question is whether to follow Oxford notation here, or some other notation. Is the American use of "faculty" purely American, or wider? It's certainly understood in the UK, even if not widely used. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 22:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
    I was using Divisions and Departments which only mentions Faculties in Humanities, but the precise list is not important. The issue is wider than Oxford. If this one is altered then there will be a move to alter all the universities in UK, Australia, New Zealand and maybe other places. The American usage is certainly wider in the Americas, but I do not think it is used in any English-speaking university elsewhere. Being understood in not enough. It is confusing. As I say above the Category: Faculty of the University of .. would be populated by academic units not academic people in UK, Australia etc. This was also discussed a long time ago and it was agreed to use "Academics of .." not "Faculty of .." for universities in UK etc. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and do not reverse merge is my conclusion from the discussion above. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 07:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge faculty means those at Oxford U who are on faculty, and academic "of" the university could mean employed by, visited there, did graduate work there, just attended there. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and strong do not reverse merge per WP:ENGVAR. "Faculty" has a different meaning in the UK than the US and "Academics" is a far clearer term. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and do not reverse merge definitely. "Faculty" just doesn't apply here.-- Smerus ( talk) 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (not reverse merge). The dons are individual members of a college and of a faculty. The faculty is an organization within the university. Calling the staff "faculty" is an alien usage in UK, which is not the 51st state of USA. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:53, 25 January 2015 (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:Faculty by university or college in the United Kingdom

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 (nothing to merge following the result of the discussion immediately above). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Newly created, effectively would duplicate the structure of Category:Academics by university in the United Kingdom if this structure was continued. It seems to have been created just to house Category:Faculty of the University of Oxford (nominated for merger above). Bencherlite Talk 00:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Needless duplication of existing tree. Oculi ( talk) 12:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Reverse Merge No preference on name, but only one category should remain. RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Hi, I'm the one who created the category, and I'm absolutely fine with any outcome as long as consistency within the category tree is preserved. Note that an extensive category tree exists under Category:Faculty by university or college, which is even the parent category of Category:Academics by university.
    So if we believe there should only be one of them and if we believe "Academics" makes for the better category, then we need to take Category:Faculty by university or college to a CfD. As long as the parent categories remain to exist, deleting a single per-country subcategory leaves us with two incomplete category trees yelling to be amended. -- PanchoS ( talk) 17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Someone else started a broader nomination is started, above, for Category:Academics by university in Europe. RevelationDirect ( talk) 21:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Academics should prevail in the British category system so the academics parent is already serving this purpose. SFB 19:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I am a retired academic from universities in several countries including the UK. At least in my day, the term "Faculty" was never used in relation to people who teach. That use was an Americanism. "Faculty" referred to an organisation within the university that all academics and students in a particular area belonged to , such as the "Faculty of Arts" or the "Faculty of Science". I believe this is still the case, so for UK universities the categories should be "Academics of ..". So, Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 January 2015
  • Delete or Merge but do not reverse merge per WP:ENGVAR. Bduke's description is still valid today and the term "faculty" does not mean staff/academics in the UK. Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge but do not reverse merge as per comment of Timrollpickering.-- Smerus ( talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to academics category. Calling people "faculty" is an unwelcome Americanism. This does not mean that I am suggesting that American categories (where "faculty" is local usage). Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:56, 25 January 2015 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_21&oldid=1074814786"