The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There is already a category for Armenian of Jewish descent listed as Armenian Jews. So why create another category that is pretty much redundant? Hovhannes Karapetyan 22:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
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:American people of Armenian-Jewish descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There was one person that is half Jewish and half Armenian from USA. So he already has the category "American Jews" and "American people of Armenian descent". Also, what is the point of having this category of American of Armenian-Jewish descent when there is already a category of the other two just mentioned? Hovhannes Karapetyan 22:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete, if the former one article is indeed about a Jewish person rather than a person of Jewish descent then the category is rightfully empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most people in Category:American people of German-Jewish descent are Jews, or at least a significant percentage of them. The bigger problem here seems to be that to use this consistently with other such categories, it is not for a person who has one Jewish parent and one Armenian parent, but someone whose Jewish ancestors resided in Armenia. Since Armenia was not a political entity for much of the last millenium, at the most broad definition created in the 1920s, while within the Ottoman Empire Armenians were a millet as were Jews, so one could not possibly be both at the same time, this does not appear to be afunctional overlap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which parent category? Category:American people of Jewish descent. I believe at one point we did delete the Jewish descent categories, or at least some of them, but then they were put back in. Despite the fact that this category explicitly functions to categorize people who did not identify as Jews, it keeps coming back, even though it is default an example of a non-defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category covers various awards and people removed from public office. I think the concept makes sense (removal of status as a punishment), but should be named more broadly. SFB16:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about someone whose university diploma was cancelled? Is a substantive diploma (as opposed to an honorary degree) an "award"? (On the other hand, I don't know that a journalist gets fired from an "honor". Not that we have any journalists here yet.) I'm always leery of categories getting turned into "or" so that, in effect, the category almost always contains a word that doesn't apply to the subject being added. --Closeapple (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Closeapple: I've never heard of someone being stripped of an earned qualification, usually it is the occupational license to practice that is revoked (e.g. Category:Disbarred lawyers, which I will also put in here as it's a removal from a position). Removal of an honorary degree clearly falls into this category as-is and as-proposed (e.g. [1]). The phrase "stripped" is never used to indicate simple termination of employment, with the sole exception of honorary roles or roles of public office (which are both already in here). In terms of ideas like "journalist gets fired from an honor" - my head just exploded trying to envisage what that could even mean, let alone find an example to include, so I don't think we need to be concerned about that SFB17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. I think that stripped of position is the loss of a position which is tenured (a full professor) or expected to continue either for a specific term (say, a US state governor) or indefinitely (a British lordship or US federal judge) as opposed to being fired from the typical private employers. I also think that stripped conveys the proper connotation that the act was involuntary on the part of the recipient/holder of the award or position, so removed impeached folks, disbarred lawyers, etc. fit the bill rather than the lawyer who resigns from the bar voluntarily upon retirement, or the various Queens of the Netherlands who abdicate to retire. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Object to the proposed category name. Positions and awards are different. No need to bundle. Imho this category should be split into new and/or existing ones! gidonb (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There is no clear definition of what constitutes a purging. People can be removed from positions in many ways and it is often unclear and disputed when a purge has occurred. This whole tree was entirely created to house Category:Expelled members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which is itself a valid and clearly defined category, but the purged structure does not serve a useful purpose for navigation. The structure is also incorrect as it lists Soviet communists as Russian communists. SFB16:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing writers by individual publishing company they've released work with is the literary equivalent of a WP:PERFCAT. Writers typically release work with several different publishers over the course of their careers, rather than staying with the same company all their lives -- so it's not a defining characteristic of the person, and leads to extreme category bloat if a similar category is created for each publishing company. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support very rarely does the publisher indicate the author is part of a certain community or related to others signed to the publisher in some meaningful way. Listify if desirable. SFB17:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this category as I am interested in expanding the history of publishers and publishing. I have a list, List of Simon & Schuster Authors that I've also started, but determined that this would be an easier way, but I am new to categories so am open for discussion. I'll give you an example. Simon & Schuster has a history with publishing political books beginning with books on Watergate (see Simon & Schuster). There are other genres like this. Someone might be interested in understanding which authors they've published and seeing a list in category form would be useful. --Jaldous1 (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be suitable for List of Simon & Schuster authors (provided adequate sourcing), but not for categories. We only categorize authors on characteristics that define them as an author. E.g. David Aaker is well known for being a specialist and writer on brand strategy, but not for the fact that (some of?) his books have been published by Simon & Schuster. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with deletion and I'll continue work on List of Simon & Schuster Authors. If you have pointers on what would make a good list entry--I'd be glad for direction. --Jaldous1 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2018 (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.
Keep I still look forward to the day when we start using the less Euro-centric "South-west Asia" category name. That said, it is clear how these are different. The first is for articles on ethnic groups or other groups of people, the second contains articles on individual people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any case, shouldn't Wikipedia be a bit reluctant to categorically group peoples according to religious adherences in that sense, though? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had noticed the difference in scope and was about to comment, but Johnpacklambert has already explained it. Dimadick (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Oppose Merging - the first category is pertaining to groups and churches, the second pertains to individuals. The two categories are too different in scope to merge. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support. Makes sense. Institutions that style themselves as "gentlemen's clubs" in a non-traditional sense will simply have to be categorised in other more obvious, explanatory categories. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The word traditional can me moved to a headnote. In my country (UK) "gentlemen's clubs" has become a euphemism for places offering sexual displays that are not suitable for gentlemen. That also needs to be dealt with in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Lumping projects and events together is not helpful. We also have separate Category:Projects and Category:Events categories and that has a purpose.
Support cancelled events the creation of that subcategory makes a lot of sense and the events tree is pretty solid in terms of definition. I think the main category should remain in some form because it is serving a clear purpose of "things that were never brought into being". However, I feel neither the name nor the parent "former entities" is right. The Orlando maglev didn't formerly exist – it never existed. (I also don't like the way former entities is under Category:Objects as that suggests a physical thing, whereas an entity can be notional. The parent needs fixing too...) @Marcocapelle: I think a better fit for this category would be under Category:Proposals, maybe something like Category:Abandoned proposals? SFB17:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily against moving the category to under Category:Proposals but it may alternatively be the case that the content rather is a mix of proposed-never-started and started-but-cancelled-halfway. There is too much content in the category to quickly verify that. If you are right and all content is 'proposed' indeed then it would also require a batch nomination to rename a large number of subcategories from 'cancelled' to 'proposed'. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "cancelled" distinction remains valid and should be used, as it denotes proposals for notional things which are no longer set for delivery. The phrase just doesn't work for physical things. I think the idea of an abandoned proposal covers everything currently in the category bar Category:Abandoned buildings and structures, which includes completed places that are no longer used – arguably this should not be in this tree at all as these are neither former entities nor cancelled ones. Also, note that Category:Unfinished buildings and structures is distinct from Category:Proposed buildings and structures. SFB21:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: While we do have a (possibly misguided) scheme of subcategorizing actors and actresses by whether they work in television, film, stage plays or musicals, we do not have any established scheme of subcategorizing actors and actresses by whether they're better known for comedy or drama work. There is no Category:Comedy actresses to parent this, for starters -- and only four actresses have actually been filed here, of whom three are well-known as having done both comedy and drama over the course of their careers, but we don't have a Category:Dramatic actresses tree to parallel this either. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the difference between comedy and drama is cloudy and a large percentage of actors can master the divide - hence, not inherently a notable or defining characteristic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: My question was more about how people interpret the term "women comedians". The fact that stand up comedians is a subcategory of comedians suggests that "comedians" refers to people involved in comedy more broadly, hence the nominated category should actually a subcategory of Category:American women comedians and an upmerge/redirect would be appropriate. SFB00:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's an American usage. As far as I'm aware people who appear in comedy series or films and comedians are overlapping categories but with only a relatively small intersection. To be regarded as a comedian they would have to do either stand-up, perform on sketch shows, or do some similar performances that are not connected with scripted sitcoms or similar. The article Comedian certainly does not cover actors who appear in comedy series or films. Grutness...wha?01:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Opens the door to way too much category overlap. I started a discussion on the medium (film, television etc) categories on April 28th. So far it has very little participation. I did quite a bit of background research. I went through over 100 articles in Category:American television actresses and only maybe 3 were people who did not also fall in some other medium categories. Of those three one of them probably belongs in Category:American web series actresses if that means acting in a production that was originally streamed on netflix or a similar service.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2018 (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.
SFB 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)