Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 29

< April 28	April 30 >

April 29

Category:People from Singapore

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Category:People from Singapore

Category:People in Sierra Leonean law

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. No consensus on further deletions which need to be discussed in a dedicated venue Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People in Sierra Leonean law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap with Category:Sierra Leonean jurists‎, which is the only thing in the category. Jurists is the term used in every other country category I've seen. Rathfelder (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we do not have a tree for Category:People in law. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both -- Jurists (except possibly in USA) refers to scholars in legal theory. Jurists has two subcats, for judges and lawyers. Sierra Leone as a former British colony will fellow the British practice that judges are selected from practising lawyers, so that judges should be a subcat of lawyers. The rest is wholly redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large tree of Fooish jurists and I agree with Peterkingiron that it's projecting the American system on the rest of the world, quite inappropriately, but demolishing it is beyond the scope of this discussion. Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, in a fresh nomination, we should rename Category:Jurists to Category:People in law with all its subcategories except in the US. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- I have spent some time sampling the Lawyers category. A number of those listed were also judges; some were politicians whose bios do not mention them being lawyers. My conclusion is that the Lawyers should be the parent category, with judges as its subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In all juristictions I am familiar with judges are recruited from lawyers. There are obviously many more lawyers than there are judges. And being a lawyer, at least in the UK, involves more than just having a law degree. But I dont know how these terms are used in the USA. Rathfelder (talk) 20:10, 6 May 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.

Category:Serbian people by status

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: merge. MER-C 09:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Serbian people by status to Category:Serbian people

Nominator's rationale: unnecessary intermediate category. Only 2 sub categories - children and billionaires. "Status" is a bit ambiguous as the basis of a category. Rathfelder (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is a partially developed tree at Category:People by nationality and status. Oculi (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Category:People by status. It feels as a case of WP:OCMISC but not sure whether merging all of it is the best solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a wider discussion about Category:People by status and how it relates to the much better developed tree relating to occupation. Neither status nor occupation really apply unambiguously to all the sub categories, but if we were to try to seperate them we would need some clear definitions. Being a criminal, a philatelist, a rebel or an inventor, for example, might be thought as an occupation for some people, but not for others, but I'm not sure that calling it a status is better. Rathfelder (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that is the root category. See discussion at Category_talk:People_by_status. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support nomination per the latter discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 8 May 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.

Category:Government officials by nationality

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 09:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Government officials by nationality to Category:Public officials by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Category:Government officials by nationality and Category:Civil servants by nationality‎ taken together show that in some countries they use one term and in others the other for what are presumably similar roles. It would be nice to devise a category in which both could sit and in which officials from all countries would appear. Is "Public official" a sufficiently neutral term? Rathfelder (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question, the British and Canadians are in both trees, so are the trees really mutually exclusive? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely, but most countries appear in only one of them. Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many nationalities in both trees to simply ignore the problem: Indian, Japanese, Moroccan, Nigerian, etc. Before merging the parent categories we'd better establish at country level whether government officials and civil servants are actually one and the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Category:Civil servants has a proper main article at civil service. Government official redirects to official, as does Public official. The official article is in very bad shape - OR/unreferenced, etc. However, before we deal with categories, we should discuss the scope and title of the article there, on Talk:Official. Also we need to consider other synonyms such as government functionary and public functionary. Only after we figure out the proper name for Wikipedia articles we should try to clean up the relevant categories. Please ping me if a discussion article's talk is started. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the official article helps. Official is used in too many different contexts. Ideally we need a term which doesn't bring in unacceptable overtones. How about People employed by public authorities? Rathfelder (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with Piotrus's approach. Its quite a difficult problem, but I dont think the present situation is really defensible.Rathfelder (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- In UK, Local Government Officers work for councils, but are not civil servants: only crown non-military employees are civil servants. No doubt the practice in this will vary from country to country. The present title probably does well enough, but national subcats may need different titles according to local usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK Government officials would not generally be thought to include Local government officers. I think we have a problem in relation to individual countries where different terms are used for much the same things. Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must withdraw this. It needs a wider discussion when someone devises a more viable solution. Rathfelder (talk) 20:10, 17 May 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.

Category:British Saint Lucia people

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: merge/delete, they are effectively the same in this case. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:British Saint Lucia people to Category:British expatriates in Saint Lucia

Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Governors of British Saint Lucia, which is already a sub cat of British expatriates in Saint Lucia Rathfelder (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The main article of the one item is List of colonial governors and administrators of Saint Lucia, which encompasses both periods as a French and a British colony. The category is limited to the British period, which is why "British" is in the title. I am not sure that expatriate is really an accurate description of a governor or the like appointed by Britain to fulfil that role. The result is that this is an ill-described and misconceived category. No doubt there will have been a lot of British people who were sugar planters there, but there is probably a more specific category for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since the article is no longer in this category, a merge and a delete will have the same result (also because the subcategory is already in the target). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to sort biographical articles into different colonial periods. Most of the inhabitants stayed, regardless of the change of ownership, and in the small colonies there are not enough articles to be worth separating. Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 3 May 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.

Category:Military musicians

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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military musicians to Category:Military band members

Nominator's rationale: These are all in the same class as Category:Musicians by band, and can be named in a similar manner. This would allow the more specific categories to be in the Musicians by band container category as well.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The Corps of Army Music is not a band, it's a corps; every British Army musician is a member of it. This category is part of the Category:British Army soldiers tree, which refers only to non-commissioned soldiers, as opposed to Category:British Army officers (although there is currently no Category:Corps of Army Music officers, there could be). The nominator should have done a bit more research before including this category and it should be removed from the nomination. But in actual fact, there's no need to rename any of them. The current titles are the best. Military musicians are commonly called military musicians, not military band members (bandsmen once upon a time, yes, but that's generally been superseded) and putting them in Category:Musicians by band would be completely inaccurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know that about the Corps of Army Music. Happy to back away from that one if the others pass. What I'd say to your greater point is that "musician" is not a rank in the US military. It's a job like cryptographer. So I could see Category:Military musicians staying as is. But the bands themselves are bands. Membership in them is not a job, it's an assignment. My somewhat tautological suggestion is that we should categorize these bands like bands because they're bands. And bands are categorized as "(band name) members."--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- because military bands inevitably consist of musicians and no non-musicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that different from other bands? For example, Tommy Dorsey is in Category:United States Army Band musicians and Category:The Dorsey Brothers members and Category:Original Memphis Five members. Surely he is a member and a musician in all of those.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:36, 1 May 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.