Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

< October 9 October 11 >

October 10[edit]

Category:Faye Dunaway[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete Timrollpickering (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure an actor with only a filmography and a list of awards page needs an eponymous category; otherwise, there should be a lot more of such categories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:56, 10 October 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.

Category:Articles using Template:The Interviews people/title/name[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete Timrollpickering (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Automatic categorization into Category:Articles using Template:The Interviews people (0) seems unnecessary, because it can be replaced by using Special:WhatLinksHere. Two related categories for "title" and "name" templates are unused by accident, as per discussion on user Trivialist's talk page, and can be removed as well. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:13, 10 October 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.

Category:Editor's pronouns templates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since these templates are only relevant for internal communication with Wikipedia's editors, I think the "Wikipedia" prefix is needed. Also, I'm not sure if the proposed name is good enough, so feel free to propose better names. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 10 October 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.

Category:University of the People alumni[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: this category was created five years ago for just one person: does it still make sense? In the meantime, it was also used to claim that Simone Biles was an alumna of the "University of the People", which is a hoax because she just recorded a couple of commercials (in the form of "interviews") but she actually never studied at this online school (see also https://www.uopeople.reviews/simone-biles/). Dom21a (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that a single-article category does not make sense just by itself. This might fall under the "smallcat exception rule" though (as part of a full tree). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is 'part of an established tree' and in any case the University of the People is relatively new (2009) and its alumni will be establishing notability. It seems likely that the category could already be increased with existing articles. Oculi (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I would have voted to keep, despite the small size if there was any indication that Simone Biles, its one article, is indeed an alumnus, but that article names two other institutions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as an empty category, WP:C1, since the 1 article doesn't belong here. (No objection to recreating if even 1 biography article with a reliable source citation appears for an alumna or alumnus.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile there is an other article in the category. The body text of this article does not mention the university, it is just in the infobox, without sourcing. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified my !vote above.- RevelationDirect (talk) 12:41, 15 October 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.

Category:Video games about brothers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 18#Category:Video games about brothers

Category:International Digital Organization for Scientific Information academic journals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No Consensus to Delete

However, the main reasons noted for keeping as a category (rather than a list article or a Wikipedia-space page) is apparently to allow for bot usage - WP:CITEWATCH, which is tied to a WikiProject. That presumably makes this a project (maintenance) category. See also Wikipedia:Categorization#For maintenance.

As was noted in the discussion, text should then be added to the Cat to make it clear this is a project (maintenance) category. Please feel free to add such explanatory text. And I'm going to add Template:Tracking category as a first step. If there is a more appropriate banner template, feel free to swap it out.

Several suggested a rename - but no suggested rename had consensus. - jc37 18:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category of non-notable journals, published by a non-notable organisation, that all redirect back to this category - therefore blue-linking them in other articles when it is not warranted. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale used in previous deletion discussions amounts to WP:ITSUSEFUL, we already have a way of showing that a journal or a publisher is not notable, and that is by not having an article on them. We don't need non-notable categories of non-notable journals, just to say that they aren't notable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And this nomination brings no new argument forward, nor is this category any different than every other one like it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for sure but the WP:5P1 and WP:NLIST issues with this category are worth discussing. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: the necessity of having cats like this has been shown several times, as Headbomb argues above. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll say it once and I'll say it again until I'm blue in the face: This category is WP:IAR and not the purpose of Wikipedia. Work to create a new Wikimedia project for such material. (And I know this will get closed to "keep" anyways as I know this didn't happen in the past and probably won't happen in the future, but I felt the need for the record to explain that this isn't a WP:SNOW "keep".) Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. However laudable the goals, this is out of scope for Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh here we go against, wasting time on something that was already debated to death. Pinging @Ozzie10aaaa, Doc James, Izno, Enterprisey, Graeme Bartlett, JzG, Randykitty, DGG, and Tokenzero: and cross-posting on WT:MED/WP:RSN/WT:AJ/WT:OA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Missed @BrownHairedGirl, Jytdog, Tryptofish, QuackGuru, Jrfw51, Stuartyeates, Peterkingiron, and StAnselm: from previous discussions too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category, but first create a list in project space. Thanks for the ping (and I'm pretty sure some of those who were pinged are not going to be able to respond). I'm conflicted about this nomination. I agree with editors that this is useful information, but I also have to agree that it's not really what a category is for. A category of items, each of which is a redirect back to the category page, is not a Wikipedia category. I've tried to think of what would be a reasonable solution, and it seems to me that the best thing would be to create a list of these journal names, redirecting back to the list page, but not to put the list into mainspace because of lack of notability. Instead, the list could be kept as a sub-page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals. That way, the useful information will be kept, but there won't be any conflict with how we are supposed to set up categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SailingInABathTub, could you please clarify which of the 14 numbered reasons for deletion in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion you believe applies here? Do any of them apply? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth pointing out that that section begins Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following..., but reasons 13 and 14 do apply here - this category and its contents are not relevant to the encyclopaedia (a non-notable collection of non-notable entries). Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - 14 - content not suitable for an encyclopaedia, specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A category of non-notable products from a non-notable company created through circular redirects to circumvent WP:NCORP is not encyclopaedic. Imagine if this was applied to any other non-notable enterprise, like crypto-company categories with crypto-currency redirects ... SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was guessing about your view, but I don't think I can agree. I can't find any sources about this publisher, so I assume it's non-notable (but I'm not skilled at finding sources about publishers, so my search is not conclusive). But I'm not convinced that this category is actually "an indiscriminate collection of information", either. WP:IINFO discourages book/film plots, song lyrics, statistics, and lists of software updates. It does not – and I suspect it is not mean to – ban lists or categories of periodicals that are frequently cited on wiki.
As much as I hate the idea of creating articles when we can't find independent sources for them, there is a practical utility in having a minimal amount of information available to editors for basically all newspapers and all academic journals that can be read online. Even if the only information is "The Mulberry Advance is a newspaper in Mulberry, Kansas" or "Journal of Importance is a journal published by Dodgy, Inc.", there is a real, and therefore not indiscriminate, value in helping editors find that information.
And since we're all thinking about academic journals, I hope that some of you will help me fill in some of the blanks at List of MDPI academic journals. There are a few missing ISSNs, and journals less than five years old probably need a "not available" note in the column for impact factors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: "reasons 13 and 14 do apply here" They don't. There's no policy prohibiting these categories (and if there was, WP:IAR applies). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there is on policy prohibiting these categories WP:N is technically not policy but is one of the closest guidelines to such, and one with which this category is incompatible. See also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Thryduulf (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: That list will be useless, and won't be able to be used by WP:CITEWATCH, leading to an increase of predatory journals being cited on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Headbomb, you make a very good point about the bot, and I had forgotten about that. I agree strongly that we should be able to automate the deprecation of predatory journal citation. In that light, I'm thinking seriously of changing my comment to "keep". However, before I do, I'd like to discuss whether the bot can be made to take a list of some sort entered into its database of sources to block. Is it programmed only to work from categories? Can it be revised? (I did look at your comments [1] and at User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg before commenting, and I recognize that it might require some effort, but I'm not sure that it can or cannot be made to work.) Also, it might make sense to rename the category as Category:IDOSI entries for WP:CITEWATCH, a maintenance category. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb, maybe the category page needs a clear explanation, e.g., "If you delete this category or remove pages from it, CITEWATCH will break". (I'd rather not rename the cat. There are already three citations in the cat's description page, and I'd personally judge it to be slightly less than notable. But IMO it's borderline, and if it becomes notable, and we renamed now, we'd have to re-rename then – a fair bit of work for something that might be settled through simpler means.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like WAID's idea of adding a clarification. I would see that as the minimum that needs to be done. I'm assuming (absent an answer to my question) that a list might not work. I'm willing to say keep, conditionally on a clarifying sentence and/or a rename as above. Absent any such action, I'd lean towards delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a list article in the wrong namespace not a true navigational category. That's why it has an intro and citations and why you (correctly) claimed none of the WP:CFD guidelines apply. WP:NLIST does apply though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Headbomb rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone confirm if I am correct on the utility of the redirects in this category to WP:CITEWATCH/WP:CRAPWATCH? From my understanding it seems that journals need to be blue linked for them to be picked up, is this accurate? TartarTorte 02:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. It's technically not the only way they can be picked up, but it's the only workable way. For more information on the technical way, see my [2]. It doesn't scale, and is unworkable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am frustrated to argue for keep because in my mind there should be a way to delete this category as it is not necessarily a "typical category", but for all intents and purposes it seems to fundamentally be the best way to have WP:JCW function, so I guess WP:IAR. I do wish there were a way this could be done without this, but I don't currently have the time (and it seems like from the time headbomb has previously put in trying to figure it out, it would take a while) to figure out a way to configure the bot to work with red links appropriately. It seems like a potential long term solution would be refactoring the tool significantly, but that requires probably far more time than this TfD will be open. TartarTorte 02:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the indirect value to the project WP:CITEWATCH vastly outweighs any potential downsides. The category sees less than one average visitor per day, who might be confused about the lack of article links. A category this valuable can't be considered unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and DELREASON 13 doesn't apply to Category space. This isn't an argument proscribed by WP:ITSUSEFUL, as I and the other Keepers have explained why it's useful, and aids in the running of a quality encyclopedia, thereby meeting the essay's "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion." If someone with more technical know-how than me is willing to work out an alternate solution that keeps CITEWATCH running, please ping me and I'll gladly support deletion of this category. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, convert it to a list such that appropriate sources can be provided for each of the entries. That is not possible with a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or if a list is not appropriate either, then to a page in Wikipedia space, as part of WP:CITEWATCH. After all, keeping the content is mainly for the sake of CITEWATCH. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That won't work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Publisher is a defining characteristic of these journals (per WP:CATDEFINING), whether or not the publisher is notable or not is irrelevant. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would agree that a sourced publisher is a defining characteristic of a journal but the problem here is that neither the journal nor the publisher have an article so nothing is sourced. I've not previously seen a redirect from article space to a category ... a dubious practice in itself. How do we know that Academic Journal of Animal Diseases was published by International Digital Organization for Scientific Information? Oculi (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The category has three references. And if you want to know that AJAD was published by IDOSI, you only need to look at the AJAD website on IDOSI, e.g. [3]. The other journals can be found on the IDOSI journal list here [4]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Misplacing references into the category space is a symptom of the problem here, not the solution. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category/Move Contents to Draft Article Space The issue here isn't redirect categories, it's starting a list article in the category space. Misplacing footnotes on the bottom of a category may make this verifiable but it doesn't show notability like an article would. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors in the above discussion, including me, seem to believe that the subject is not notable, and therefore an article is not viable. Your !vote therefore amounts to recommending that we copy the information into a wiki page, delete the category (...which will makes these anti-pseudoscience scripts break) as no longer being necessary since it's been replaced by the wiki page, and then we can delete the page as being non-notable. If your goal is to keep this information out of Wikipedia, then there are simpler and faster ways to go about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any unspoken agenda to remove this content. Rather, I was seeking to move the list article to the correct namespace in a sincere hope that WP:NLIST could be addressed there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the list into the mainspace doesn't require deleting the cat. In fact, if we thought that we could sustain an article against notability objections on this subject, then that would demonstrate that we should keep the cat. I'm not convinced that we can, but I think it's borderline. It might be possible.
So I wonder: If you have believed for several years that the best approach is to create an article with this content, then why haven't you done that? Also, why would anyone vote to delete a cat like this for a subject they genuinely believe to be notable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sequencing is that you need a main article that is notable (on the publisher in this case) and then you can create redirects to that to help people find that content (each journal name) and then create a category to organize those redirects (this category). I have no opinion on the underlying notability of this topic; only that WP:NLIST needs to be established in the list article prior to the creation of a category.
I have believed for several years that you should not create redirects without first having an article to point them to so I've consistently refrained from doing that. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise? There are editors who want to improve the encyclopedia by making sure CITEWATCH does not break. And there are other editors who want to improve the encyclopedia by making sure the category space doesn't do an end run around WP:N. That's why these nominations keep going. Back in the larger 2019 nomination I proposed making these categories hidden and moving them under Category:Wikipedia redirects which, per BHG's close of that nom, came close to being the outcome. Is there still an appetite for that middle ground? - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly a case for maintaining a list of predatory publications on Wikipedia (such as at User:JzG/Predatory, where I note that a large number of these publications do not receive this treatment). But a category that only exists because it is populated by mainspace redirects that are placed in it, and where the redirects would not have a valid target without said category, is clearly unconstructive from the perspective of building an encyclopaedia. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So long as making the category hidden doesn't affect WP:CITEWATCH, I endorse that with my keep !vote. TartarTorte 18:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I had another look at the references in the current category and especially the second one is substantial. There's also a post by Beall on the publisher being dropped from Scopus (http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/05/13/idosi-journals-no-longer-to-be-indexed-in-scopus/ perhaps somebody can look this up in the archives, I'm a bit short on time right now). In all, in combination with IAR, I think that's sufficient to justify a list article and that would make this cat superfluous. --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unless I am incorrect on this, listifying the category is largely of no use because WP:CITEWATCH would not be able to consume it which is the main rationale for having said category's existence. Tagging Headbomb as he does know far more about it than I. TartarTorte 18:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TartarTorte: My intent with recommending the creation of a list article that passes WP:NLIST is that you can then repoint the journal redirects to the actual article and then recreate the category for those redirects which gets to where you want to go. Having a notable article for each publisher would also alleviate my concern that this endeavor is really a web directory in violation of WP:5P1. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list article could work in theory. The issue is that the notability of that article is very dubious, so if it gets deleted, things need to be converted back to the category. This is true for all these publishers. They're only notable in bulk, not individually. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: While I still assume good faith on your overall goals, it seems a little cynical to suggest that you might be willing to give WP:NLIST a try in the article space but, failing that, go right back to creating list articles in the category space to avoid WP:NLIST. But perhaps I misunderstood you? Would lists of academic publishers limited by, I dunno, state or country or discipline or type) have secondary sources to establish notability? I'm wondering if that's a more workable approach than a list article per publisher.- RevelationDirect (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is if such a list gets made, and redirects point to the list, and then the list (and redirects to it get deleted), then that's no different than deleting the category and all its redirects. In both cases WP:CITEWATCH gets crippled, and Wikipedia gets harmed because citations to those journals become much harder to detect monitor. This is an WP:IAR category, that exists because of technical limitations of WP:CITEWATCH (see also WP:1Q). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Just, wow! Here I was wasting my breath trying to find common ground to reach a consensus. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a list could work (provided it is not deleted), then why could a page in Wikipedia space, as a subpage of WP:CITEWATCH, not work? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because redirects from mainspace to that Wikipedia namespace list would get deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think @Marcocapelle: was proposing list pages in the Wikipedia namespace without the redirects (but pinging so they can correct me if I'm mistaken). - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that wouldn't work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why not rename the category, as I suggested above? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it need renaming? The current name is accurate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because WikiProject categories go on talk pages. Which again wouldn't work here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rename target that I suggested above was Category:IDOSI entries for WP:CITEWATCH, which I think is a more succinct and less kludgy name. It would be a maintenance category, instead of an IAR mainspace category. There are two issues here that seem the most important to me. One is to not break CITEWATCH, and this rename would satisfy that. The other is that the category really should not be the kind of category that it is currently, and I continue to think it should be deleted if it remains as it is. There is no reason to IAR when there is actually a perfectly good fix for the problem. Even if the current name is "accurate", there are better name choices that are, in fact, more accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 19 October 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.

Category:Death care industry[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Funeral-related industry. bibliomaniac15 17:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Manual merge. Unnecessary layer where the lead article was given as Death care, but this redirected to a US-specific article. The result will bring "death care companies" and funeral directors (individuals) under a common parent. I suggest that Category:Cremation be added into Category:Undertaking, so Category:Crematoria need not be separately added there. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge both to Category:Funeral industry. Undertaker or Funeral Director is the usual British term for practitioners, but undertaking is ambiguous: gas water and electricity companies are statutory undertakers and as such allowed to dig up roads to lay pipes. Undertaker/ing is thus best avoided. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Category:Undertaking was just tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 06:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer the proposed merge to Category:Undertaking. All of the "industry" proposals are very ...rich-person-centric? It definitely doesn't feel neutral. In most of the world, and throughout most of history, undertaking is something that families and communities did for themselves. You wash the body yourself, you dress (or undress) the body yourself, you carry the body to the grave/cremation site yourself. Maybe you buy a coffin, but maybe you make it yourself. Maybe you can afford to buy a grave marker, and maybe you can't. I've seen graves marked by a puddle of concrete in which someone wrote the person's name and dates with a stick. Weathered homemade wooden markers may be the despair of cemetery maintenance staff and historians, but sometimes the choice was, and still is, between a piece of wood and nothing. There's no "industry" inherent in burying people, and putting this word in the cat's name is commenting rather disparagingly on a particular subset of the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undertaking is an ambiguous word. Rathfelder (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/merge both to Category:Funeral-related industry per Peterkingiron (Undertaking is ambiguous). — Qwerfjkltalk 21:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/merge to Category:Funeral-related industry. GenuineArt (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The word for "funeral-related" is funerary. So if that's the route you all wish to go, then it should be Category:Funerary industry (as a subcat of Category:Service industries. - jc37 19:21, 29 October 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.

Category:Medieval physicians of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. The subcategory is already part of Category:Physicians from the Ottoman Empire by century. Upon deletion of this category, the two articles in the subcategory (or at least Sabuncuoğlu Şerafeddin) should be added to Category:Physicians of the medieval Islamic world. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 10 October 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_10