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. I have added Emilio Castro to the category. I don't think there's anything preventing a user from moving the articles about Roman Catholic theologians to Category:Uruguayan Roman Catholic theologians and creating it as a subcategory of Category:Uruguayan theologians. (LDS Church general authorities are not generally referred to as theologians either within or without the church, but in any case it looks like there are no articles for the persons referred to.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Uruguayan theologians to Category:Uruguayan Roman Catholic theologians

Nominator's rationale: They are all Roman Catholics Rathfelder (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful. OK, so far, let's say that all those people shown right now are Roman Catholics. But there is as well Emilio Castro, a Methodist minister from Uruguay, who was a Liberation theologian; he also deserves being categorized as theologian. You decide... --Fadesga (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for now, there is nothing in Emilio Castro's article about his work as a theologian, but in principle there is no objection in recreating Category:Uruguayan theologians as a parent category whenever necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Exactly. In some countries all the theologian articles are from the dominant denomination. If we get more diversity we can recreate the wider category. Rathfelder (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If there is just a very limited number of Urug. theologians with articles I'd see no need at all to create a specialized category ->prospect of a future gap. Sure someone could recreate it but why this detour? Unnecessary! --Just N. (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are significant numbers of non-Catholic Uraguyans. Someone has presented a clear case of a theologian who does not fit. For example Eduardo Gavarret, and Walter F. González are both Uruguayan General Authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such they have both given multiple addresses in the General Conference of the Church which are looked to as having authority. Gonzalez served in the preseidency of the 70 (which up until 10 years ago gauranteed an article, he probably should have one) and here [1] is a BYU listing of his speeches. Prior to becoming a general authority Gonzalez was director of the Church Educational System in multiple nations. Clearly there is no reason to assume "Uruguayan theologian" implies the person is Catholic, so this should not be merged. This merger proposla may have made sense in 1960, but it ignores the huge changes in the religious compostion of Latin America over the last 60 years. Although Uruguay and Argentina have seen more a rise in secularism, while El Salvador and Guatemala are now majority Evangelical Protestant, many of whom are Pentecostal. A tendency of the established religious inteligensia to ignore Pentecostalism even though it is in some ways the largest strain of Christianity world-wide should not be perpetuated in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2021 (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, but I don't think there's anything preventing a user from moving all four articles to Category:Chilean Roman Catholic theologians and creating it as a subcategory of Category:Chilean theologians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Chilean theologians to Category:Chilean Roman Catholic theologians

Nominator's rationale: They are all Roman Catholic. Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I have checked the four articles and this is indeed the case. The parenting should be changed too, to Category:Roman Catholic theologians by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not a Latin America insider but as a reader I do know that there are at least all sorts of protestant denominations. Just by hazard none of their theologians has got an article up to this date. Only four entries. Well, really unnecessary renaming. --Just N. (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Chile is now probably close to majority Evangelical Protestant, much of which is Pentecostal. There are also significant numbers of Latter-day Saints, and there are other religions. There is no reason to assume that long term all theologians from there will be Catholic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• So when articles about non-Catholics appear we can recreate it. Rathfelder (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2021 (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. I was going to rename the category, but before doing so I purged it of individuals not convicted, and the category was left with no contents. (None of those included in the category were convicted, though all were accused.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Buddhist teachers accused of sexual misconduct to Category:Buddhist religious leaders convicted of sexual abuse

Nominator's rationale: we hardly ever categorize people by accusations, we do categorize by conjunction. A similar category is Category:Catholic priests convicted of sexual abuse. Renaming implies that the category should be purged, articles not about convictions no longer belong here after the rename. In addition, less importantly, this seems to be a bit broader than just teachers, so "religious leaders" may be a better fit. If that suggestion is adopted, the category should be reparented to Category:Buddhist religious leaders. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: in parallel there is also Category:Hindu religious leaders convicted of crimes. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Indeed, convicted is much more factual than accused. --Just N. (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2021 (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: administrative close: no action to be taken was proposed here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm pretty new apologies if this is in the wrong place!) I'm confused about the Soup categories. I was adding refs on Shorwa and found many variations that directly translate to soup, and some sources that explicitly distinguish it from soup. I feel that it might be a distinct category within soups? rowan.lucas.smith (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a discussion to be held on Talk:Chorba. It is recommendable to ping previous contributors to the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2021 (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) 01:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Subjects of "This is Your Life" TV series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorise performers by series or performance venue (see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 19#Category:After Dark (British TV series) participants). I'm not convinced this category is defining for its subjects. A similar category was deleted way back in 2005. The category's name is also incorrect; a better name would be something like Category:Subjects of This Is Your Life (British TV series). Listification may be appropriate. Graham87 11:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I created the category. This not about performers or participants in reality TV shows so Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by series or performance venue is not relevant. The subjects of the programme were (and are) truly noteworthy in their own way for significant achievements, and each programmes was about the story of their life. Creating lists always seems a very poor substitute when we have a system of categorisation that does a much better job. If there is a wish to rename, I would have no objection as long as the 200+ articles categorized can be automatically updated, but it would be useful to be able to discuss the rationale for such re-naming  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, After Dark isn't a reality TV show either and I've linked its categories for discussion debate above. In other words, the idea of "performers" in this case is very broad. As for the reasoning for renaming the category, see the last point in Wikipedia:Categorization#Naming conventions. Whether the category is moved or deleted, a bot (probably JJMC89 bot) would handle all the necessary article changes. Graham87 15:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF, e.g. John Alderton is not primarily known for being the subject of "This is Your Life" TV series, that is just a nice detail. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - John Alderton is not principally know for being from from Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. Nor is he known principally as a Jacob's Award winner, but these are also categories deployed on his article. Categories are not intended to solely identify subjects through their "principal" attributes. Neither are the subjects of this series necessarily "Notable" in the way that Wikpedia defines the term. There are many individuals who have no Wikipedia pages who nonetheless did incredible feats and made enormous difference to the lives of others. These are not your reality show contestants or "Big Brother" contestants - these are a unique group of people who have been recognised by one TV series for having done something remarkable or noteworthy with their lives.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to nominate Category:Jacob's Award winners as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. If this was a reality show where contestant become known primarily through the show, this would be defining. But these are already notable people who get a performance based on being so notable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify if no current list exists. Grutness...wha? 03:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously delete and listify as PERFCAT. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify if no current list exists. --Just N. (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a very obvious performer by performance category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2021 (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 to Category:Massacres of Armenians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Persecution of Armenians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary container cat (containing just the subcategories Armenian Genocide‎ and Anti-Armenian pogroms‎). If the related rename of Anti-Armenian pogroms to Anti-Armenian violence goes through, then the genocide subcat would easily fit under that. (t · c) buidhe 10:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Massacres of Armenians per actual content. Otherwise, merge somehow instead of delete (the content should not disappear from the anti-Armenian tree). Meanwhile I populated the category slightly better. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That also works for me. (t · c) buidhe 14:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Massacres of Armenians is best to match the actual content. Other persecutions like the [[[Assassination of Hrant Dink]] has its own category like Category:Anti-Armenianism in Turkey. --Just N. (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2021 (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 keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Anti-Armenian pogroms to Category:Anti-Armenian violence

Nominator's rationale: Not all the events in this category were pogroms. Alternatively, Category:Violence against Armenians (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The suggested name would imply events not involving mass murder. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, articles not about pogroms can simply be moved to the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2021 (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. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:The Atlantic (magazine) to Category:The Atlantic
• Propose renaming Category:The Atlantic (magazine) people to Category:The Atlantic people
• Propose renaming Category:Works originally published in The Atlantic (magazine) to Category:Works originally published in The Atlantic
• Propose renaming Category:The Atlantic (magazine) articles to Category:The Atlantic articles

Nominator's rationale: Match with page title, The Atlantic. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - obvious possibility of confusion with the ocean. Surprising that the article is at The Atlantic. Oculi (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match article name. I think the chance of confusion is minimal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard of the magazine so I would be immediately confused. What % of the world-wide audience have heard of this magazine? Looking at Atlantic (disambiguation) it's even more astonishing that the article has managed to stay at The Atlantic. Oculi (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the U.S., it's still widely known as "The Atlantic Monthly", their old name before the website. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think they originally dropped the "Monthly" solely because they switched to a 10-times-annually publication schedule. I just think it would be highly weird to suspect that someone might be trying to categorize things about the Atlantic Ocean in a category named "The Atlantic" or that a person would think that such a category refers to the ocean. I know we often shoot for lowest-common-denominator at CFD but sometimes it does get a bit extreme. Following the lead article is almost never a bad idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for Now I disagree with the main article name as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and would support an WP:RM of The Atlantic. But this is a CFD nomination and is the wrong venue to second guess decisions in the article space. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Good Olfactory, e.g. the chance that someone sailing on the Atlantic Ocean ends up in Category:The Atlantic people is negligible. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as to Category:The Atlantic (magazine), where the target is liable to pick up irrelevant articles. Neutral on rest. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - obvious possibility of confusion with the ocean. Unnecessay! The old category name is much better to inform at first sight! --Just N. (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose confusion with the ocean is way to likely to make such a rename at all doable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2021 (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) 01:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nine Entertainment Co. to Category:Nine Entertainment

Nominator's rationale: C2D. Securinehigh (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2021 (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) 01:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Members of Unit One

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT)

Unit One was a group of Modernist artists that put together a single gallery exhibition in 1933 that went on a tour which lasted until 1935. Artistic schools certainly can be defining but this short lived one event grouping isn't treated that way in the articles: 7 of the biography articles mention it in passing, 1 in the lede, and 3 not at all. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is close to WP:PERFCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete members are listen in the Unit One article, which seems like enough. Grutness...wha? 03:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Convincing reasons! --Just N. (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2021 (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) 01:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Bohemian Club members

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)

Bohemian Club is a gentlemen's club in San Francisco and it certainly has had many famous members including Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan, Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., and Wallace Sterling. Tellingly though, none of the articles even mention this association, while some others make a passing reference. Simple membership in an organization is rarely defining. The category contents are already listified within List of Bohemian Club members for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I would say that the Bohemian Club membership is defining in the biographies of artists and creatives such as Jack London, Peter R. Arnott, Willis E. Davis (painter), Charles Warren Stoddard, James F. Bowman, Henry Edwards (entomologist), Daniel O'Connell (journalist), Joe Knowland, Wallace Arthur Sabin, Nino Marcelli, Richard Bunger Evans, Domenico Brescia, Ulderico Marcelli, Porter Garnett, George Sterling... even the poetess Ina Coolbrith. Since the category answers suitably for more than a dozen persons, I don't think we should delete it just because other Bohemians exist who were not very involved in the club. Such people can simply be removed from the category. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: I could see a potential category for artists associated with the Club's Bohemian Grove art exhibitions and Grove Plays like Jack London since they do mention it more prominently, although they were generally only "honorary" members so the current category doesn't work for them anyway. A more narrow category for the club-owned Grove that avoids WP:PERFCAT would certainly address my concern of category clutter under articles for politicians and businesspeople. (Rename to Category:Bohemian Grove people and purge?) - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary membership would only be less than regular membership if it the honor was ignored. Ina Coolbrith was an honorary member but it was vitally important to her. I don't think renaming is appropriate here, nor deleting of the category. The only suitable action is to remove the category from biographies where it is not defining. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the association is either defining or not, regardless of the title. My point was that, since they're not full members, it creates ambiguity around the inclusion criteria for a category based on membership. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very much non-defining. We almost never categorize by membership in an organization. (t · c) buidhe 14:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A club where Ambrose Bierce, several painters and writers and scientists met with rich patrons of the arts can't be seen as non-defining! Even me as not being deep into West Coast history I see a cultural studies value to be pointed to and which is beyond individual biography considerations. --Just N. (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being a member of a specific club is not defining and categorizing by such leads to category clutter. If the membership means something to the history of the club itself we can have a list on the article on the club. Such categorization inevitably leads to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Background Just notice that this category was deleted in CFD in 2006 (right here) and listifed and deleted again in 2009 (right here). - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2021 (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.