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. MER-C 10:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Rowers from Toronto to Category:Sportspeople from Toronto

Nominator's rationale: Also merge to Rowers from Ontario

We don't subcategorize sportspeople by city and what sport they played. See this CFD[1] in regards to Canadian Ice hockey players including those from Toronto. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. We have an entire category tree of categories for sportspeople by city and sport containing over 400 categories - including several for Canadians by city and sport. This particular category is one of 31 such categories in Category:Rowers by city or town. We also have eight subcategories of Category:Volleyball players by city or town, 43 of Category:Rugby union players by city or town, 17 of Category:Rugby league players by city or town, 26 of Category:Field hockey players by city or town, 18 of Category:Basketball players by city or town, 13 of Category:Competitors in athletics by city or town, 11 of Category:Boxers by city or town, 92 of Category:Cricketers by city or town, 11 of Category:Cyclists by city or town, and nearly 200 of Category:Footballers by city or town. Ice hockey categorisation may have bucked the trend, but they're the anomaly, not rowing. ‎Grutness...wha? 04:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep -- This is a well-populated category. If it were not I might have supported nom. Toronto is a big city so that the category is appropriate. Those for smaller populated places should be upmerged e.g. to province or county. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately WP:OCLOCATION has not been practised in a large number of cases. While usually the town or province where someone lives is entirely trivial, this will require a broader nomination. There are only few occupations that are clearly linked to location, e.g. mayors of, or bishops of. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be being practiced quite well - with emphasis on the last sentence "However, location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories." In many (though not all) cases, these sportspeople by city categories are subdividing very large categories. Without such subdivisions, we'd have 2000 articles in "Cat:People from Mexico City", nearly 10,000 for London, around 4000 for Tokyo, 7000+ for Los Angeles, 4000 for Sydney... Even medium sized cities would have overloaded categories (Auckland 2200, Liverpool 2800, Winnipeg 2100). In the category nominated, the parent Sportspoeple from Toronto even now has over 1600 undifferentiated articles, and splitting further (rather than merging) would seem the more logical option. Grutness...wha? 14:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is part of my point. What use is there in categorizing 10,000 people as being from London if their reason of notability has nothing to do with London (that is, apart from e.g. mayors). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that's why categorising them as sportspeople is important. But what use is there just categorising them as sportspeople among thousands of other sportspeople, especially since their place of birth is often just as important? It may be different where you live, but I've always found that the place a person is from is of massive importance in their identity and notability, no matter what their occupation is. That's why this category intersect tree is a useful one. Grutness...wha? 02:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here we clearly disagree. What value does a place of birth have for anyone if they become notable somewhere else? And if they happen to keep living in their place of birth, their notability is still not related to their birth. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quite a lot, I'd say. As the old saying goes, you can take the boy out of the town but you can't take the town out of the boy. Without going into the whole nature vs nurture argument, it's quite clear that in many, many cases, a person's upbringing, milieu, and/or training is vitally important in their later notability. That's why we tend to get clusters of prominent people in the same profession at the same time growing up in the same small area. It's no coincidence - it's the location of their birth or upbringing, or the supportive environment for their vocation in a particular place which is important in their later notability. Hence talking about, for example, the Mersey Sound and Canterbury Scene in music, the Antwerp school in art, and the Bloomsbury Group of writers. The same is true with sport - some places have better facilities and/or coaches, so it's no surprise that some cities have disproportionately large numbers of players of specific sports. Their location both during life and at birth, is often vitally important in their later notability. Grutness...wha? 09:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look at it this way. We have entire trees of musicians by city, writers by city, businesspeople, architects, artists, actors, doctors, criminals, lawyers, journalists, scientists, models... all by city. Why should sportspeople be any different? Grutness...wha? 09:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Totally agree that this is not a sportspeople thing in particular. It is a much broader issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't call it an "issue" - I'd describe it more as an extremely useful and sensible feature. Where a person is from is a very notable feature about a person, and not splitting people by occupation and location would dump people back into impossibly broad and already oversized categories. I'm perplexed as to why anyone would think that removing that category tree would be a good idea. And certainly trying to delete one category from that tree is far more than just perplexing. Mind you, trying to delete the whole broader tree of several thousand well-populated and well-used articles wouldn't be easy, especially given - as I said - how useful and sensible they are. Grutness...wha? 22:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Note that I have never supported this nomination on its own if that is what you are suggesting. From the beginning I have mentioned that this is a broader issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I realise that - that comment wasn't aimed at you, but at ...William, who has nominated one category out of several thousand similar ones. Either it's useful (as I believe), or none of those thousands are (as you seem to believe). Grutness...wha? 09:01, 7 June 2019 (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: do not rename. MER-C 09:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Strathmore University academics to Category:Strathmore University faculty
• Propose renaming Category:Catholic University of Eastern Africa academics to Category:Catholic University of Eastern Africa faculty
• Propose renaming Category:Academics of Kenyatta University to Category:Kenyatta University faculty
• Propose renaming Category:University of Nairobi academics to Category:University of Nairobi faculty

Nominator's rationale: In line with the large majority of similar categories in Category:Faculty by university or college in Africa Rathfelder (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this seems to be an ENGVAR matter. Faculty in UK English is a group of departments, not a member of staff. Further, Category:Academics by university in Africa predates Category:Faculty by university or college in Africa. Moreover faculty is a redirect via a dab page to Academic personnel, there is no Category:Faculty but there is Category:Academics. Oculi (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, aligning with nearly all siblings in Category:Faculty by university or college (while UK and Ireland are an ENGVAR exception). If all former British colonies require alignment with the UK category, a broader counter-nomination is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is Rathfelder who has brought about the present 'alignment' by speedies such as this one and this one. Note that everything in Category:Faculty by university or college in Uganda uses 'academics'. Rathfelder has speedily moved (around 11 May 2019) 'academics' to 'faculty' for Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Ghana. These countries use UK-English; they tend to have Vice-Chancellors. There is no reason why both 'academics' and 'faculty' should not co-exist in the tree. Oculi (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok thanks for the background, I had not realized the full edit history behind this nomination. Let's then put this on hold and it would still be useful if we would have a broader counter-nomination, possibly with an option A versus option B. By the way, in the website of the University of Nairobi I found the term "academic staff" which sounds more accurate than just "academics". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The terms are interchangeable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I aligned the outliers in countries where the large majority of articles already used faculty. More than 90% of the subcategories of Category:Faculty by university or college use faculty, including the vast majority of Commonwealth countries. I think both academics and faculty are terms widely used, but there is no obvious sign of a cultural pattern. There are a few countries where the subcategories use Academics of ...:Thailand, Sri Lanka, Finland, Ghana. Rathfelder (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thailand was renamed at cfd, as was Sri Lanka. It is rather surprising that Australia is using 'faculty'. Oculi (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that the Sri Lanka Cfr had only a single contributor! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Most commonwealth countries will follow British practice, where faculty and school are academic divisions of a university. The academics would be "faculty members", but academics is a much more satisfactory word. Rathfelder's speedy changes need to be reversed. WP has generally followed local usage rather than trying to align everything, often to American usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If you look at the other Commonwealth country categories you will see this is not true as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Maybe they all need to be changed, but for the time being I think we should establish a consistent pattern for each country. If someone wants to nominate the hundreds of existing Faculty categories that is a different matter. I certainly dont think there is any evidence that membership of the Commonwealth has any bearing. I would want to see clear evidence of local usage. Rathfelder (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ENGVAR. In most Commonwealth countries, academic staff are not referred to as "faculty", which would be seen as an Americanism. The term is only used for a division of the university, not its staff. Also reverse speedies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2019 (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. MER-C 08:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Musers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: No clear indication of what purpose this category serves. Added subjects seem to be a hodgepodge of YouTubers with different areas of interest from singing to large hair bows. While I'm not suggesting any nefarious motivation by the category creator, this category seems like an "in spirit" contravention of WP:NEOLOGISM, since "muser" is not a common modern term and without any context or explanation, we're lumping people into this category, when it's so vague it could indiscriminately encapsulate thousands of people. I am not inflexible, so if others have strong arguments for why it should exist and for why it's not just a marketing neologism, I'll happily consider standing aside. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cyphoidbomb: lol we did that at the same time --DannyS712 (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Does this refer to people who use Musical.ly; if so, I would suggest it is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Cyphoidbomb and Peterkingiron: Shouldn't this category be merged to Category:Internet celebrities? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Marcocapelle Or, rename it to Category:TikTok celebrities. Störm (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am neutral between merging and renaming. Something needs to happen anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: This category is for musers (creators of Musical.ly, now TikTok). --CptViraj (Talk) 17:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from Lisa and Lena there are no creators directly in this category. In most articles "muser" is not mentioned at all, except 3 articles with "Muser of the Year" as an award. In some articles Musical.ly is also not specifically mentioned, while other articles are about internet celebrities in general who are just as well popular on e.g. Instagram. "Muser" is a very weak characteristic, to put it mildly. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2019 (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. MER-C 10:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Television series based on Internet properties to Category:Television series based on Internet-based works

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Internet-based works, and for clarity. Trivialist (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename, this is an obvious case of WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2019 (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: categories empty → delete. MER-C 08:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging

• Category:Sports originating in the 1970s to Category:Games and sports introduced in the 1970s
  • Category:Sports originating in the 1980s to Category:Games and sports introduced in the 1980s
  • Category:Sports originating in the 1990s to Category:Games and sports introduced in the 1990s
  • Category:Sports originating in the 2000s to Category:Games and sports introduced in the 2000s
  • Category:Sports originating in the 2010s to Category:Games and sports introduced in the 2010s

Nominator's rationale: The "Sports originating in" category is essentially the same as the "Games and sports introduced in" category (i.e. decade of introduction); and in addition the "Games and sports introduced in" categories have categories by year and decade, and extend back over more decades. Probably some should eventually go to the year category rather than the decade category, but this would have to be done manually.Hugo999 (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually disperse to year categories, upon nominator's suggestion. With the low amount of articles in these categories that should not take too much effort. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agreed, but for some the year is not stated (and for Airsoft might be 1970s not 1980s!) so they should be transferred to the appropriate new decade category (or to the same decade where the decade is not obvious from the article!). Have started transferring articles. Hugo999 (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Sports originating in the 1970s and Category:Sports originating in the 1990s have been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All now emptied - Hugo999 (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2019 (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.