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 on Category:School shootings committed by adults (which, for the record, is a major component of the sparsely-populated Category:Murder committed by adults); rename Category:School shootings committed by minors to Category:School shootings committed by pupils. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose purging Category:School shootings committed by adults and merging to a new Category:School shootings committed by students
• Propose purging Category:School shootings committed by minors and merging to a new Category:School shootings committed by students

Nominator's rationale: procedural nomination, follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Why would the status of being a student be more defining than being a minor? Minors have a distinct legal status, students don't have it. Dimadick (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It is not clear to me that whether shootings are carried out by adults or minors is significant. So I suggest deleting both after making sure that all the entries are in one of the other categories about school shootings. --Bduke (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:School shootings committed by adults but define its scope in a headnote as referring to persons other than pupils and former pupils. Repurpose - Category:School shootings committed by minors as Category:School shootings committed by pupils, which should be defined as including former pupils. There is a distinction to be made between Sandy Hook, where the shooter had little connection with the school and those committed by pupils or disgruntled former ones. This is much what I suggested in the previous debate. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why wouldn't school shootings perpetrated by teachers, parents, or third parties not be categorized, if you're going to categorize students? -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Teachers and parents would be okay but third parties would be a case of WP:OCMISC. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (voted above). There is a world of difference between Dunblane massacre and Sandy Hook massacre committed by a random stranger on the one hand and those committed by students against their own school or college. I do not recall hearing of massacres by teachers or parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 22:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nom) I am okay with Peterkingiron's suggestion to change "students" into "pupils". The intention is, as Peterkingiron correctly pointed out, that they committed it against their own (former) school or college. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Law of the United Kingdom to Category:British law

Nominator's rationale: All other categories in Category:Law by country is named this way. Thesmp (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Split use "British law" as a container category. Divide up the law by the "countries" that form the United Kingdom for pre-1707 law, and put it into the British category along with the UK category. Use the "UK" category for post-1707 law -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not think that the split is a good idea. Why not just to rename? --Thesmp (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename to Category:British law and any use of that category as a container "British law" is a notoriously ambiguous expression. It can refer specifically to the the island of Great Britain, or to the British Isles as a whole, or to the British Empire as a whole. Even within the British Isles, it is rendered ambiguous by the Crown dependencies and the partition of Ireland. When the expression was actually used in a treaty, it referred to the law of the Western Pacific jurisdiction, not the law of the United Kingdom: [1]. There is actually a body of literature recommending that this expression never be used for any purpose: [2] [3] [4] [5]; and see also [6]. If you want a container category (so as to exclude the pre-union kingdoms from the UK category), I suggest you might create Category:Law in the British Isles or something like that. If you want to make this category uniform with the majority of other country categories, you might rename it to Category:United Kingdom law. (Note that we have Category:United States law instead of "Category:American law", for similar reasons.) That said, I am not sure if that is the right way to create uniformity. The categories for the Republic of Ireland, Georgia and India do not follow that pattern. And it might be that some or all of the categories that do follow that pattern need to be renamed or split or merged or moved out of Category:Law by country. For example, should Category:French law be confined to the law of France, or should it include the law of the French colonial empire? If it should include the laws of the former colonial empire, then presumably Category:Law of France should replace it in Category:Law by country. I suspect that many of the other categories are open to similar questions. James500 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per James500. Plus I detest the use of demonyms in categories. Down with this kind of thing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Neither is at all satisfactory, because the UK is not a single jurisdiction. I was an English solicitor. As such I was trained in English Common Law, which is the law in England and Wales. Welsh law now differs from English slightly, now that the Senedd can pass Acts, but it has in fact passed very few. On the other hand, Scots law is completely different. It was an element of the Act of Union 1707 that Scots law continued to be applied in Scotland. Before Scottish devolution, the UK Parliament often passed Acts relating to both England and Scotland. Irish law tends to be similar to English but diverged from the 1920s. We might have Category:Law in the United Kingdom as a container for English law, Scots law, and Northern Irish (and pre-1920 Irish) law, but a combined category should not exist. US has federal law; the law of each of 50 states, DC, and a few territories: perhaps 55 different jurisdictions, each with their own laws. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That @Peterkingiron: solution is far sounder. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the renaming proposal; would support the solution of Peterkingiron above. --Just N. (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose coversion of the United Kingdom category to a container category (Peterkingiron's proposal) There are a large number of statutes, law reports and other sources (including reliable encyclopedias, treatises and periodicals etc) that speak of the "law of the United Kingdom" or "United Kingdom law". I have not yet seen any sources that suggest that either expression is seriously ambiguous or otherwise completely unusable, much less evidence that such a theory is universally or widely accepted. The expression "United Kingdom" does not appear to be geographically ambiguous in the way that the word "British" demonstrably is. Further, if Category:Law in the United Kingdom is to be a container category that only includes other categories, it is not clear to me where articles about legal topics that relate to the whole of the United Kingdom are going to be placed. Nor is it clear to me how readers are supposed to find articles about legal topics that relate to the whole of the United Kingdom without a category that is not a container category. We have a large number of articles whose topic is something like "law of X in the UK", including Law of the United Kingdom itself. I do not see how a decision to split those articles into separate English, Scottish and Irish articles can be taken at CfD. And we have a large number of articles about legal topics that relate to the whole of the United Kingdom, such as those about reserved and excepted matters, or about other legislation that applies or once applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, or about the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Crown of the United Kingdom or other UK-wide legal institutions. And we have a large number of UK-wide subcategories such as Category:Environmental law in the United Kingdom, Category:United Kingdom enterprise law, etc. Are we going to containerize all of those as well? James500 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Muslim inventors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS: "Muslim" has no influence on someone being an inventor. Sunfyre (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. The subcategory Category:Inventors of medieval Islam should be kept, this concerns a civilization, but the nominated category is about modern Muslims and based on a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per above. None of the other categorical branches found within Category:Inventors mention religion, which begs the question what is so notable about inventors being Muslim? The subcategory should be kept though per Marcocapelle. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as this is a trivial intersection, the historical subcat should be kept.--Mvqr (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete General X religion inventors is not a scheme we have going right now (as there is no parent category Category:Inventors by religion nor e.g. Category:Christian inventors). Keep medieval Islam inventors as cultural, not religious, category. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Never likely to ever have an inclusion criteria what would not be subjective. POV category. Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:SHAREDNAME, generally it fails WP:V, WP:CATDEF and WP:OR. Previously deleted by CfD dated 21 Oct 2008. Richhoncho (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclined to keep as useful enough for its benefits to outweigh any disagreements about inclusion for some songs. At the very least, convert it to a list. – Fayenatic London 09:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any subjectivity here. Most of the songs in this category that I sampled seem to be objectively and verifiably about divorce. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 00:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose purging and renaming Category:Christ's Hospital staff to Category:Schoolteachers of Christ's Hospital
• Propose purging and renaming Category:Staff of Abingdon School to Category:Schoolteachers of Abingdon School

Nominator's rationale: Clarify the scope of the categories.

From Christ's Hospital, remove Flamsteed and Pepys who appear to have been Governors but not teachers, and Steve Gatting who was a football coach, unless someone can show that this counts as a teacher.

For Abingdon, remove Cousins who was a rowing coach and Phizackerley who was a chaplain. – Fayenatic London 14:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- In my public school, the chaplain was also a teacher. I suspect the coaches would be classified as PE teachers elsewhere. The present names are perfectly comprehensible, so that there is no need to change them for the sake of conformity to other schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_13#Category:Masters_of_Oundle_School was closed using "Teachers", rather than "Schoolteachers" like most of Category:Schoolteachers. – Fayenatic London 08:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "Teachers" is how similar categories are named. I would agree that in schools coaches can be counted as teachers. Rathfelder (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No quality improvement by renaming as nominated. --Just N. (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The categories can be renamed without purging, loosely per Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If renamed, happy to keep the chaplain and coaches, but not the governors. – Fayenatic London 18:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments -

  It seems that the broader category trees of these cats uses all sorts of words: teachers, schoolteachers, faculty, educators, instructors. etc. There does not seem to be an overall consistency.

  Reading over Academic personnel, it looks like there could be WP:ENGVAR issues here as well.

  (As an aside, I will say that grouping current teachers with former teachers seems odd without better clarity in the name, but that happens all over the category trees lol)

  They do seem to agree that the format is [place] [role]. So the second one should be renamed to match that, at least.

  And as for this nom, the goal seems to be to split out the administrators/governance, from the rest.

  So based upon all of that, I think maybe splitting, using the more neutral terms academic staff and academic administrators maybe (?) are better?

  Whatever noun we use, I think pre-pending "academic" is probably helpful. Though I can foresee that the whole broader tree members will eventually need renoms for consistency. - jc37 22:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.