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: keep without objection to adding a header explaining the scope of the category (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Criminals by occupation to Category:Criminal by public role

Nominator's rationale: We don't really want categories such as category:Carpenters accused of crime or category:Bakers accused of crime. At the same time, looking at current members:

• Government officials convicted of crimes‎ (2 C)
• Police officers with criminal convictions‎ (10 C)
• Politicians convicted of crimes‎ (6 C, 11 P)
• Religious leaders with criminal convictions‎ (2 C)
• Sportspeople convicted of crimes‎ (1 C, 5 P)
• Trade union officials convicted of crimes‎ (1 C, 4 P)

I comes to my mind that these categories become defining for public figures, where the public role of the criminal becomes the essential part in the article subject, since the crime becomes part of the public interest. Hence my suggestion. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This category was created by a valued editor and it doesn't look like he was notified. He should be. @Good Olfactory:. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but not to worry—I was notified via my watchlist. I'm just not sure of what to make of the nomination at this stage so have no comment right now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment public role is obtuse. Is a sportsperson in a public role. He/she may be a public figure but not since the gladiatorial games, where combantants were owned by the state and trotted out to fulfill the public's bloodlust, sportspersons' roles are not really "public", any more than actors or "trade union officials" and (in most countries) "religious leaders". They are - broadly construed - occupations however. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- "Role" is perhaps too vague, but might be an option. I would agree that in many occupations categorising people as criminals is NN, so that builder and bus driver categories ought not the be allowed. However in the cases listed crime is at odds with continued performance of their occupational duties. Police officers and judges would lose their jobs if the crime were serious (possibly not for motoring offences). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, the category statute must clearly say what I said. Otherwise sooner or later some teenager will create :category:Convicted lunch ladies. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2016 (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 result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Psy (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gangnam Style (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I don't know if it's WP:SMALLCAT exactly, but this looks to have very minimal potential for growth. It's better suited to a navbox, which already exists. How many other categories do we have about individual songs? --BDD (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: Maybe it should be merged into its parent categories, then. Would it be possible to redirect this category to both of its parent categories? Jarble (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No particular reason for redirect. there are actually three parent cats. The ones 'Internet memes' and 'South Korean dance' can be easily selectively applied to some articles. E.g. Hwang Min-woo is hardly an internet meme. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upmerge to Psy. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine by me. I don't think it's likely enough a search term/categorization term to really merit a category redirect, but we seem to have become much more accepting of those lately, and it doesn't matter to me here. --BDD (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Can I go on record as supporting an official policy that we should never have two standalone articles about a song and its music video coexisting alongside each other as separate topics? (Okay, I could defend "Thriller" as an exception. But not this.) Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somehow. It is a song that gained worldwide fame, but not notable enough to need multiple articles and a category. Perhaps we need to merge some of the articles first. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2016 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. No need to merge, all articles are already in the tree of Category:Criminals (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nicknames of criminals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Misconceived category. We dont have articles about nicknames of criminals. We do have criminals with nicknames. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Category:Criminals. The only distinction is that these are people whose article used their nickname, rather than their true name. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2016 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Land snails (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The "category Land snails" is completely out of categorization scheme within the Wikiproject Gastropods. Consider, that there already is for example Category:Lists of molluscs by country. The category name is so vague, that it fits only to article "Land snail", that can be more suitably within Category:Gastropods, where is only less than 20 articles. It can not be practically and unambiguously used for categorization. Snek01 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This category is vast too comprehensive. I agree with the nominator's rationale. JoJan (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2016 (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 result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Sporting songs (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about professional sports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete / upmerge to Category:Sporting songs. It's not necessary to distinguish between professional and amateur sports here, and while these are used as anthems in sports, they're not necessarily "about" sports. BDD (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and upmerge per Nominator's rationale. --Snek01 (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2016 (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 result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2016 DEC 16 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Scholars of Islamic jurisprudence to Category:Jurists of Islamic law
• Propose merging Category:Fiqh scholars to Category:Jurists of Islamic law

Nominator's rationale: Looks like these are all about one and the same thing.  Sandstein  20:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't think these are the same thing, actually. A jurist is a judge or a lawyer, who's directly involved in the administration and dispensation of the law, while a scholar of law is a person who merely studies and analyzes the work that the jurists are doing. By comparison, we also have Category:Legal scholars separately from Category:Jurists, because the latter are people who do law while the former are people who work at universities to study the work of the latter. It is certainly possible sometimes for a person to do both things — but that's not because they're the same thing, it's because a person can switch focus from one field to the other. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bearcat: Well, no: our article "jurist" does treat this word as a synonym to "scholar of jurisprudence": "A jurist (a word coming from medieval Latin), also known as legal scholar or legal theorist, is someone who researches and studies jurisprudence (theory of law). Such a person can work as an academic, legal writer or law lecturer." And "fiqh" means "islamic jurisprudence", so "Fiqh scholars" and "Scholars of Islamic jurisprudence" are also just two different terms for the same thing. I therefore maintain that the scope of all three categories is identical. (Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, although not experienced with Islamic law or tradition.)  Sandstein  17:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Lawyers and judges may also be scholars, but they may be mere legal hacks. The three items seem to be much the same. A jurist is a scholar of what the law is or should be, rather than a mere practitioner of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2016 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT opposition to same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Poorly conceived category which doesn't actually describe its contents in an accurate or defining way. Apart from a subcategory for individual people which is listed for deletion below, the only contents here are one queer liberation group which never undertook anti-SSM activities per se but merely didn't opt for participation in the SSM campaign as its primary strategy for LGBT liberation, and one film which also isn't so much anti-SSM per se as it is a critique of the fundamental concept of marriage. So they would both rightly belong in Category:LGBT criticism of marriage, but they don't represent "opposition" to same-sex marriage in particular. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, earlier discussion see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If Category:LGBT criticism of marriage exists (which is what I was talking about in my comment below) this category is redundant, although I'm indifferent as to which name is used. Merge together and call it something. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 20 November 2016 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT people opposing same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a category which, in a misunderstanding of Wikipedia process, was created and then immediately nominated for deletion by its own creator as a strange and counterintuitive way of getting the entries removed from the parent category Category:LGBT opposition to same-sex marriage — however, he has since withdrawn the nomination, so I'm resubmitting a new one because the grounds for actually keeping it simply aren't there. Of the six people filed in this category, we have:

1. Julie Bindel, who is not opposed to legal recognition of same-sex relationships but believes that instead of SSM, the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely and treat everybody equally under the umbrella of civil partnerships instead of marriage;
2. David Coburn, who is not opposed to legal recognition of same-sex relationships but argued against an SSM law on the grounds that it wasn't the right time for it yet because society is still too homophobic;
3. Jo Jordan, who is not opposed to same-sex marriage but voted against an SSM law on the grounds that she had to represent the views of her constituents rather than her own;
4. Andrew Pierce, who is not opposed to legal recognition of same-sex relationships but argued that civil partnerships were already enough and full SSM simply wasn't necessary;
5. Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, who is not opposed to legal recognition of same-sex relationships but argued that the LGBT community had more important priorities to worry about;
6. Milo Yiannopoulos, literally the only person whose position against SSM would actually justify categorizing him on this basis.

What we have, in other words, is five people who are not opposed to same-sex marriage in principle, but are simply included on the basis of superficial "opposition" without regard to the nuances of their actual positions, and only one person who's in here on the basis of actively opposing the fundamental concept of SSM — and that's simply not a defining basis for a category. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the previous discussion is here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparently a shaming category at best and inaccurate at worst. We don't tend to have folks opposed to what we think they should be for or who act contrary to their WP categorization type categories Category:Divorced Roman Catholics, Category:Jews who eat pork, Category:Christians who didn't turn the other cheek, Category:British citizens who favored Germany in the Second World War, Category:Irish people opposing Irish independence, Category:Hindus who eat Beef, Category:Muslims who drink alcohol, and on-and-on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not useful. There's definitely a political position which holds that gay people shouldn't marry because it's assimilation or something, but that's not this category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If someone is a topic activist, that may be defining. But categorizing people (including LGBT people) by each position they hold would lead to category clutter. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but remove Bindel. Many SSM activists have stated that "separate but equal" treatment for same-sex civil unions isn't really equal (just as separate but equal treatment for blacks in segregated America wasn't equal), so LGBT people who support a separate class of civil union for same-sex couples still belong in the category because of the notability of that opinion. And it's possible that a much larger number of people belong in the category that none of the commenters above happen to know about. A category of LGBT people who side with the homophobes or transphobes on a major LGBT-rights issue is a notable category and worth keeping, as long as it isn't permanently a category of one. NeonMerlin 19:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That argument doesn't require removing just Bindel; it also requires removing everybody but Pierce, because "separate but equal is good enough" isn't the substance of their arguments either. Coburn, Jordan and Sycamore do not "side with the homophobes"; Coburn was just concerned about the timing, Jordan misread her constituents, and Sycamore just thinks LGBTs shouldn't assimilate into the mainstream at all. Even Yiannopoulos doesn't argue for "separate but equal"; he argues for LGBT people to be stripped of anything even approaching equality and permanently consigned to "second-class citizenship" treatment, because attention-trolling or something. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2016 (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 result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Animation companies to Category:Animation studios

Nominator's rationale: I'm not seeing a functional distinction between the few "companies" listed here -- and the vastly greater number of animation production companies grouped under the preexisting category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Most film and animation studios are companies in their own right. Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2016 (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 result of the discussion was: speedy delete wp:G7. – Fayenatic London 11:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sports in Washington by sport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Ambiguously titled and redundant to existing categories. —swpb^T 14:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete – empty, blanked by its creator within minutes of creation. Oculi (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2016 (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 result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Chiefs of Nepal police to Category:Inspectors General of Police (Nepal)

Nominator's rationale: The actual title of these officers and of our article about the post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- We should use the official name, assuming that this is a correct translation of the Nepali title, rather than an interpretation of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy The category should blindly follow the main article, Inspector General of Police (Nepal), per [WP:C2D]]. No opinion on the underlying article name. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2016 (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 result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewish American opera composers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Seems like overcategorization, especially if it's being used to diffuse "American opera composers" (which it currently is). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no WP:RS showing that Jewish American opera composers compose operas any differently than their gentile American counterparts or, for that matter, their co-religionists from other countries. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:American opera composers. No notability in its own right, but no reason to remove this names from the parent category. Dimadick (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is now empty. I might have suggesting upmerging also to Jewish American people. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2016 (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 result of the discussion was: keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 23W 23:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Years by topic to Category:Categories by year

Nominator's rationale: I'm on a fool's errand to find certain redundant categories, and these two are sort of mindboggling. Category:Years by topic contains subcategories dealing with years in a subject. Ditto with Category:Categories by year. The scope of these two categories seems identical, the only visible difference being that the first category contains subcategories named with the pattern Years in [subject]; whereas the second contains subcategories with the pattern [Subject] by year. This seems to convey the same thing: to break down a broad topic into years. The only other discussion about these categories was a couple years ago, and that was to do the opposite of this proposal. Unlike that one, I agree that retaining the status quo of Categories by [magnitude of time] would do the least damage. 23W 02:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – as stated in the nom one contains subcategories of the form Years in [subject] (ie a subcat scheme for Category:Years) whereas the other contains subcategories of the form [Subject] by year (ie a subcat scheme for Category:Categories). So they are quite different and a merge would be inadvisable. Oculi (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Oculi: (Last week was busy, sorry for the late reply.) The two forms are interchangeable. I could rename Category:Labour relations by year to Category:Years in labour relations, and it wouldn't sound stilted. And conversely with Category:Years in LGBT rights: Category:LGBT rights by year is just as clear. Note that Category:Years in LGBT rights category contains articles of years in the topic of LGBT rights instead of subcategories of years. Even in those categories belonging to Category:Years by topic, this is not always the case. See Category:Years in biotechnology, which contains subcategories. 23W 20:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, while categories "in" may be ambiguous (as noted), categories "by" (as nominated) certainly aren't ambiguous. In this case, years by topic are categories about years organised by topic; while categories by year are about categories organised by year. At most we might change 'Categories by year' to 'Topics by year'. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2016 (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.