Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 20



Linguists by language

 * 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 all but Category:Basque-language scholars, Category:Hebraists, Category:Indo-Europeanists, Category:Sanskrit scholars, and Category:Tangutologists; rename Category:Sign Linguists to Category:Linguists of sign languages. All others appear to only contain linguists (including the sign language one, which I'm decapitalizing due to the existence of multiple sign languages). The non-renamed ones are closed as no consensus, and can be renominated, perhaps after having certain category members removed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Propose renaming:
 * Category:Ainu linguists to Category:Linguists of Ainu
 * Category:Australian aboriginal languages scholars to Category:Linguists of the Australian aboriginal languages
 * Category:Austronesianists to Category:Linguists of the Austronesian languages
 * Category:Basque-language scholars to Category:Linguists of Basque
 * Category:Hebraists to Category:Linguists of Hebrew
 * Category:Indo-Europeanists to Category:Linguists of the Indo-European languages
 * Category:Jurchenologists to Category:Linguists of the Jurchen language
 * Category:Khitanologists to Category:Linguists of the Khitan language
 * Category:Mesoamerican linguists to Category:Linguists of the Mesoamerican languages
 * Category:Sanskrit scholars to Category:Linguists of Sanskrit
 * Category:Sign Linguists to Category:Linguists of Sign language
 * Category:Southeast Asian language scholars to Category:Linguists of the Southeast Asian languages
 * Category:Tangutologists to Category:Linguists of the Tangut language
 * Category:Urdu linguists to Category:Linguists of Urdu
 * Rationalle: These categories should all be consistant. Please note that if some other renaming scheme is chosen, then Category:Linguists of Yiddish should be included.
 * Note - I have purposely left out categories which appear to be related to subjects like culture from this nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. These categories are not necessarily restricted to linguists, but in at least some cases include historians and other scholars who study all aspects of the culture, history, literature and language of a particular people. In my experience, this is the case with regard to Category:Tangutologists, Category:Khitanologists and Category:Jurchenologists.  For example, Nie Hongyin, in his article "Tangutology during the past decades" (1991) states that "Tangutology, [is] a comprehensive branch of research into the Tangut historical culture through its own documents and literature", and the category Category:Tangutologists includes non-linguists such as the historian Yevgeny Kychanov and orientalists such as Stephen Wootton Bushell and Eric Grinstead.  Changing the category "Tangutologists" to "Linguists of the Tangut language" would require creating a separate category for non-linguist scholars of Tangut culture, history and literature which would also need to include some linguists from the "Linguists of the Tangut language" category who have also studied both Tangut language and Tangut history, culture or literature.  This would be very confusing, especially to readers who are familiar with the common term "Tangutologists" which is widely used to refer to scholars of all aspects of Tangut studies. I will strike my oppose !vote if Tangutologists, Khitanologists and Jurchenologists are removed from the discussion as these three categories are analagous to categories such as Category:Sinologists and Category:Tibetologists which are (presumably deliberately) excluded from the discussion, whereas the other categories look as if they are intended to include only linguists. BabelStone (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support rename for the four categories that currently use linguist. The other categories are not limited to linguists and should be kept with their current broader purpose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in general but Category:Sign Linguists probably refers to practitioners, rather than lingusts in the normal sense. Category:Sanskrit scholars are probably more concerned with literature in Sanskrit than with lingustics; Similarly Category:Hebraists; I have not checked Tangut, Khitan.  Category:Indo-Europeanists are scholars of Indo-European studies a branch of linguistics concerned with deducing the precursor language: Category:Scholars of Indo-European studies would be better.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support those containing linguist already per JPL. ChemTerm (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposal based on a combination of the above arguments:
 * Rename per nom the categories which are clearly for linguists of a specific language or language family: the 'Fooian linguists' ones, minus sign linguists, plus the Australian aboriginal one.
 * Upmerge Category:Sign Linguists - it only has one article Jill Morford, I do not think either the new or old names are appropriate, and aren't terms mentioned in her article or references, and if a linguist subcategory is made to hold Prof. Morford later, it will likely have a slightly different scope to the current one.
 * Examine the fooologists categories individually. It appears almost all members are linguists, but a few aren't and many are linguists AND something else. Perhaps in some cases linguist categories could be subcategories of the fooologists, or the foologists could be split into a linguists and a scholars/historians category. In any case, the categories currently sit in Category:Linguists by field of research, so if there are non-linguists in them something should be done.
 * Rename Southeast Asian language scholars per nom - all current contents are linguists.
 * Split Basque-language scholars into itself and Category:Linguists of Basque and move the former out of the linguists tree. Same for Sanscrit, where it appears virtually none of the members are linguists.
 * --Qetuth (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Colonies categories

 * 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 on any of these.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Genoese colonies

 * Rename Category:Genoese colonies to Category:Colonies of the Republic of Genoa
 * Nominator's rationale This will link the colonies to the sponsoring country in a clear linkage. I do not think we need to add former to this category, but figured since it was the only one without that word it should be considered seperately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm unclear what you are trying to achieve here. Are you trying to standardise naming, in which case why not use "Former"? Or did you not chose "Former" as Genoa is also implicitly a "former" coloniser? However, when it comes to categorising the island of Xios/Chios and Genoa, neat categorisation becomes hard as, for some of its time, it was not a territory of the Republic as such, but of the Giustiniani family of Genoa. Hence just calling it "Genoese" is more accurate. (PS if you could use some punctuation it would make your proposals easier to understand) Ephebi (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Genoa could only have had colonies when it was a republic. "Former" is clearly redundant becasue there are none today.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment colony is a much less clear term than people seem to think, as shown by some of the misuses of the term in the German category. I think there is something gained by making it explicit what this category is about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So again, I ask what are you trying to achieve through this change? If you think the meaning of colony is obscure, then why are you proposing 'Colonies of the Republic of Genoa'? Would you not be better off addressing your issue through the talk page of the relevant article or Be Bold and edit the actual page? Or reading a dictionary? Ephebi (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You last excessively rude line was entirely uncalled for. The connection of the colonies to what they are of is not clear in the current name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - get rid of adjectival form when referencing territorial entities. ChemTerm (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Former British colonies

 * Rename Category:Former British colonies to Category:Former colonies of the United Kingdom
 * Split out Category:Former colonies of the Kingdom of Great Britian for those that do not fit in the new category.
 * Rename Category:Former English colonies to Category:Former colonies of the Kingdom of England
 * Rename Category:Former Scottish colonies to Category:Former colonies of the Kingdom of Scotland
 * Nominator's rationale Colonies are connected to specific countries, so a rename to the specific targets is needed. We also need the split to recognize the particularities of historiy involved, since we can not classify as "of the United Kingdom" things that gained independence before its creation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Further discussion needed here, I think. You should be aware by now that there are differences between UK, Britain, etc. If you are just trying to standardise grammar then you should propose e.g. [:Category:Former colonies of Britain]] etc. If, however you are trying to change the scope of the category then you need to be explicit and provide references. 11:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge all to Category:British colonies (except Scottish). The few that remain colonies are now known as dependent territories.  All the English colonies became British ones.  "British" is the normal adjective both for UK and GB.  All the English colonies (except possibly a few abandoned before 1707) became British ones, so that there is little need for a separate category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment some of the contents of the English category, such as New Albion (colony) did not exist at a time more recent than when the Kingdom of England was around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - get rid of adjectival form when referencing territorial entities. ChemTerm (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-name to Category:Colonies of the British Empire which is the common name of a territorial entity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment however there is also the article English colonial empire. I can see merging Category:Former British colonies to Category:British Empire, but I really do not think we can justify merging the English and Scottish categories.  The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland clearly existed and were clearly sponsoring colonies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY. "British colonies", "English colonies" and "Scottish colonies" (and similar) is what we find in the literature, whereas "Former colonies of the United Kingdom" is very much a minority term. Also, there was zero substantive difference in the British Empire when Ireland joined the UK in 1801, so the boundary between GB colonies and UK ones is arbitrary. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Former Belgian colonies

 * Rename Category:Former Belgian colonies to Category:Former colonies of Belgium
 * Rename Category:Former Danish colonies to Category:Former colonies of Denmark
 * Rename Category:Former Dutch colonies to Category:Former colonies of the Netherlands
 * Rename Category:Former French colonies to Category:Former colonies of France
 * Rename Category:Former German colonies to Category:Former colonies of Germany
 * Rename Category:Former Italian colonies to Category:Former colonies of Italy
 * Rename Category:Former Japanese colonies to Category:Former colonies of Japan
 * Rename Category:Former Norwegian colonies to Category:Former colonies of Norway
 * Rename Category:Former Portuguese colonies to Category:Former colonies of Portugal
 * Rename Category:Former Russian colonies to Category:Former colonies of Russia
 * Rename Category:Former Swedish colonies to Category:Former colonies of Sweden
 * Nominator's rationale These places are defined by being possessions of the country named. The linkage is of the place to the country, and so the x of y format is the best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. These existing and proposed categories are synonymous. While there might be some grounds if you thought readability would be improved if we needed to tease out the meanings to cover e.g. Category:Former colonies of Imperial Germany from Category:Former colonies of the Third Reich it does not appear that you are making such a case. So is there any other reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? If not, then I would kindly suggest we do not create unnecessary work. 11:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What is a German colony? A place where Germans settle? The parent categories use the noun form, renaming makes the relations much more transparent. ChemTerm (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me better to make it clear that these are connected with the country, not the nationality. The question is what country is possesing and sponsoring the colonies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The German category is a mixture of various things that includes 1-places held as colonies by the German empire, 2-places held as colonies by Brandenburg/Prussia, 3- Colonia Tovar which was settled by immigrants from Baden in 1843 thus within the indepdendent country of Venesuela. I am thinking the last does not belong, but I am hesitant to remove it because doing so would probably have someone attacking me as being disruptive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I just removed three items from the Belgian category which existed long before 1830. This rename would help to at least prevent the placement of things it categories that predate the formation of the countries in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The German category says it is connected with the German Colonial Empire article, which clearly limits its scope to possesions of the Germany Empire in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which would suggest we should prune the category of things not so connected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * REname removing "former". This is redundant.  I do not see any purpose in splitting German colonies.  I suspect that German settlements did not always claim sovereignty.  The 3rd Reich did not have colonies that I have heard of other than occupied territories that it temporally conquered.  The occupied terriroies might appear as a sub-cat of the German one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue with the Germany colonies has nothing to do with the 3rd Reich. The question is should we mix together things connected with German states before the 1870 formation of the German Empire, and things connected with the German Empire.  Also I have to say it is only slightly clear what Peterkingiron wants the final name of these categories to be, does he want Category:French colonies or ;Category:Colonies of France?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with the current names is illustrated by Goygol (city) having been in Category:Former German categories. Goygol was founded in the 19th century under the auspices of the Czar of Russia.  However the people who settled it were German.  Thus is was placed in Category:Former German colonies.  This illustrates the problem with the current name, it is ambiguous if it is about the nationality of the settlers or the national affiliation of the colony itself.  The new names would make this clear.
 * Comment Since Brandenburg/Prussia is the clear predecessor of the German Empire, and since all the actual colonies we have were as a result of actions of Brandenburg/Prussia, I think there is a workable arguement for the unity of the German category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * JPL, are you having a nice conversation with yourself? Please use punctuation and indents etc to show that you have tried to make a coherent response to questions, in a way that others can follow. As it it is, your mass of in-line responses gives the appearance that you are questioning your own logic. Thanks Ephebi (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You excessive rudeness is entirely uncalled for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The name former is needed in these categories because many of the articles are on places that exist and to describe them as colonies without the former might give the impression that they are still colonies when in fact they are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - get rid of adjectival form when referencing territorial entities. ChemTerm (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-name to Category:Colonies of the Belgian Empire. Was it an Empire? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, as WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for bulk CFD nominations. We are seeing far too much of this nonsense at CFD recently, and Admins ought to come down on it like a ton of bricks. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Doen't the fact that the current names have been misused for things that have no connection with the country in question have any power to suggest we should rename these categories so that they make the connection to the country more explicit?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * keep as is No good reason is offered to change this standard WP naming pattern. The names are clear and certainly the common name in the underlying articles which these categories are supposed to be navigation pointers to. Hmains (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The former is needed because many of the articles are about things that currently exist, and thus if the former was not there we would be implying the places are currently colonies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Former Austrian colonies

 * Rename Category:Former Austrian colonies to Category:Former colonies of Austria
 * Nominator's rationale This seems the best rename. However, I am not sure if it is really a good idea to use the name the is mainly applied to a country formed after World War I for things that existed in the 18th century.  I am of half a mind that this category should just be deleted, or moved into a category for Hapsburg posessions.  It clearly needs individual attention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: The two pages are referenced to by this category span both the short-lived Austrian Empire and the Hapsburg Empire. You would do better to do some editing and find a better home for them and then delete the category. Ephebi (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't that constitute emptying the category out of order which is not allowed. If you think we should delete the category shouldn't you just say that here.  We should not go around emptying categories to prepare to delete them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment both of the articles in this category were Austrian controlled in the 18th century, and the Austrian Empire article relates to the period 1804 to 1867, so neither of them relate to the Austrian Empire as defined in wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The article we have that covers the ruling authority over these domains is Habsburg Monarchy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is Category:Kingdoms and countries of Austria-Hungary which might point to the possibility of creating a similar category for the Habsburg Monarchy. That category is odd because Austria-Hungary is formed in 1867 yet it includes a kingdom that did not exist after 1849.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - get rid of adjectival form when referencing territorial entities. ChemTerm (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, as WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for bulk CFD nominations. We are seeing far too much of this nonsense at CFD recently, and Admins ought to come down on it like a ton of bricks. (And note to closing Admin: why on earth is the Austrian category being singled out from all the other categories listed above? This is a highly undesirable trend here at CFD: "picking on" a few categories which are part of a wider scheme, instead of templating the entire set and discussing them as a whole.) --Mais oui! (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Austrian category is being singled out because the Austrian Empire was not a colonial empire and none of the contents of this category were part of the Austrian Empire. The history of Austria is complexed and different from the other places involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Colonial people of the French and Indian War

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:Colonial people of the French and Indian War
 * Nominator's rationale The whole idea behind this category is inherently flawed. We group people who participated in wars by what polity they were connected to, not by some odd formation of an idea of what they were.  There is no article on Colonial people and no logical standard for whats makes a person "colonial" that works in a trans-national way.  Since this groups together those who fought on opposite sides in the war it is an illogical category and should be deleted.  It is not needed because the child categories are connected into the war in more logical ways.  Also, at heart this category is trying to make colonial as a racial type category in opposition to the Native American participatns in the war, yet elsewhere we have Native Americans being placed into colonial categories, such as Molly Brant being in Category:New York colonial people.  So it is clear that colonial is a term that has an application to specific colonies.  Trans-colonial categories that gorup people from colonies of different nations should be avoided, because the contours of who is colonial is psecific to the places in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a top-level category that organises the two two opposing sides. Ephebi (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Response that claim is false. There are multiple opposing sides, not all of them colonial.  There is no good reason to seperate out some of the people on both sides in a category that at the same time excludes participants on both sides.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * keep as is. The category states inclusion and exclusion criteria and the inclusion criteria matches the contents of the category.  Categories are for navigation to articles of common content and this does that. Hmains (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:French people of the French and Indian War

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:French people of the French and Indian War to Category:People of New France in the French and Indian War
 * Nominator's rationale The term "French and Indian War" is limited to the North American operations of the war. Thus while these people are French they were operating in New France, and so at some level were "of New France".  This will also merge this category with the French-Canadian one into a name that reflects the reality of the time and avoids an arguably anachronistic term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This category is already a child category of Category:People of New France.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. 'New France' (as WP defines it) included Louisiana etc, thus not really appropriate for a category that relates to the Canadian Provinces and the wars against the First Nation tribes there. 00:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It would help if people understood the scope of the French and Indian War. The war began in what is today Pennsylvania, and lead to the loss of all of French control over new France.  It was a war between Britian and France, with Native American participation on both sides.  It was by no means limited to the present domain of Canada, and a large part of the fighting happened in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.  This very response shows that the use of "Canadian" is being interpreted in an anachronistic way.  There is no reason to try to impose lines that were not drawn until 1783 and not enforced until 1796 on a conflict that existed in the 1750s and 1760s.  This category relates to a specific war, and is not a general category for multiple wars, as the response suggests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * do not rename The current name reflects the fact that every one of the articles indicates the person was born in France and simply was assigned military duties here in this war. Nominated name is therefore not a helpful navagation tool, as it is misleading and factually incorrect.  Hmains (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Represented Contemporary artists in Dubai

 * 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) 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting represented contemporary artists in dubai


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and confusingly named category, currently populated by one gallery in Dubai, not by any artist articles. We already have Category:Art museums and galleries in the United Arab Emirates, which at the moment isn't big enough to need subdividing. Arxiloxos (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete horribly complexed name that does not fit into any accepted naming plans. Anyway we classify artists by nationality, not by place of work, so this is disruptive to the general method of classifying artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete single entry. Ephebi (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians Interest in Optometry

 * 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) 00:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians interest in optometry


 * Nominator's rationale: Category:Wikipedians Interest in Optometry was originally created with incorrect grammar and capitalization. The correctly formatted Category:Wikipedians interested in Optometry has already been created and there are no links to the incorrect category (it is a soft redirect). There is no need for the original (incorrect) one. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 10:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete -- If there is really nothign to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Linguists associated with Klingon

 * 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) 00:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting linguists associated with klingon


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to e.g. Linguists specializing in Klingon (to avoid the ambiguity of Klingon linguists). The linguists' association with Klingon is in each case a substantial part of their notability. Two could belong to a conventionally named linguists-by-language category: Linguists of the Klingon language. One fellow is a linguist who is notable for acting in a Klingon opera/play: he would not belong to the "Linguists of the Klingon language" category. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete not large enough to justify having this category. We do not need lingusits categories for every possible language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete' only 3 entries.  Listify. Ephebi (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People self-identifying as alcoholics

 * 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) 00:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people self-identifying as alcoholics


 * Nominator's rationale: Same reason as Category:People self-identifying as substance abusers nomination below. Extremely vague term with serious BLP implications and unmaintainable as I'm sure so many people identified themselves as such, especially in these gossip magazines/television shows. Secret account 06:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete way too broad to be a useful category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I don't see what's vague about "people self-identifying as alcoholics." It means someone quoted as having used the word "alcoholic" to describe themselves, quoted by a reliable source, frequently their autobiography. Two editors with very different views can surely agree on whether that criterion has been met. It's about as clean and objective as any such category can be. And I don't see what's "way too broad" about a category that currently has 332 entries.
 * My reason for creating the category was that there had apparently been a category "People treated for alcoholism," and the writer Jack London had been inaccurately put into that category. In Jack London's case, it would be hard to dispute that he self-identified as an alcoholic, since he wrote a whole book, John Barleycorn, about his alcoholism. And in Jack London's case, I think it would be hard to dispute that his alcoholism is an important part of his identity. So, I removed him from the inaccurate category and created and placed him into an accurate one. I'm not sure where this leaves things. I don't see any fundamental difference between this and categories such as Category:Gay writers. I don't have any terrible objection to deleting it, but I don't see what the problem is. I see a problem with labeling people, but I don't see a problem with reporting how people have labeled themselves. In fact, I think it is respectful. To avoid the problem of the category being "way too broad," should we put Jack London in some newer, narrower category such as "Alcoholic writers"? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Added: Let me do a very quick, rough spot-check of the first three entries in the category. Tony Adams is said to have detailed his battle with alcoholism in his autobiography. Ben Affleck; weak, it says a spokesperson said "Ben is a self-aware and smart man who had decided that a fuller life awaits him without alcohol," so there's a verifiable source for his alcoholism, but it's not crystal clear that there is source for him self-identifying that way. Buzz Aldrin, it says "His autobiographies Return to Earth, published in 1973, and Magnificent Desolation, published in June 2009, both provide accounts of his struggles with clinical depression and alcoholism." So it appears to me that the category is being used pretty responsibly, and that people are not being dumped into it or being casually labeled, without proper verifiable sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Added: Nor do I see what's "unmaintainable" about it. As long as it's easy to judge whether the page belongs in the category, it's just a fact like anything else. It isn't any different from someone adding a sentence, "Jack London wrote John Barleycorn: Alcoholic Memoirs" (verifiable) or "Jack London wrote The Psychedelic Experience" (unverifiable).Dpbsmith (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I could see London being one of the few exception to the list, considering that he made his alcoholism a key part of his writings, ditto with a few other people on this list. But like nearly none of those people are primarily known for being alcoholics. Secret account 07:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete paints persons so labeled in a very negative light, risking WP:BLPCAT violation for those who are still living, and is almost never a defining characteristic such that the lede would note this identification. The description/definition on the category's page is "People who self-identify as being or as having been alcoholics," in other words, qualifying the category to mean people who may have self-identified as having a problem with alcohol in the past (even though they may have since become abstinent or otherwise do not have problems with alcohol), but this is not what the casual Wikipedia reader sees when she or he is scanning an article and glimpses at the bottom of the page without clicking on the link to the category page. Dezastru (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Somebody created this to get around the obvious problems with having Category:Alcoholics. I agree that it's not really defining; create a list if it's a notable feature of the people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People self-identifying as substance abusers

 * 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) 00:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people self-identifying as substance abusers


 * Nominator's rationale: I understand its was kept before in CFD, but how is beyond me. I'm pretty sure just about every famous person "admitted to substance or alcohol abuse" before, it happens all the time in these gossip news shows and magazines. What about people who admitted using drugs once, "substance abusers" is a vague, unmaintainable, massive BLP implications term, this is way too messy of a category to be kept period. Secret account 06:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete way too broad to be a useful category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete paints persons so labeled in a very negative light, risking WP:BLPCAT violation for those who are still living, and is rarely ever a defining characteristic such that the lede would note this identification. Dezastru (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The previously stated reasons for keeping it are valid. It is not intended to be a tally of casual use (and perhaps this should be more clearly stated on the listing); BLP is moderated by the fact that the context is generally within frank public admissions of past abuse as part of their sobering process, newsworthy actions that brought them to that point, advocacy, such as NORML members, or those whose writing or art are believed to have been inherently influenced by drug use, such as Hunter Thompson or Timothy Leary. "People self-identifying as alcoholics" is an extant valid category as well. This is not unwilling tabloid expose', this is a valid component that shapes some people's lives, some quite dramatically. LovelyLillith (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As others have noted here the definition of the category is impractically broad. The definitional statement contains a link to the Substance abuse article, which itself says that the term has a huge range of definitions, all of which imply a negative judgment concerning the use of the substance, and that the term usually refers to dependence (addiction). The list of possible inclusions LovelyLillith offers is problematic when it is grouping "those whose writing or art are believed to have been inherently influenced by drug use, such as Hunter Thompson or Timothy Leary" together with people who have voluntarily entered rehab programs and subsequently become advocates against drug use. Did Timothy Leary identify himself as a substance "abuser"? This category is also problematic for the same reasons I listed in the alcohol abuse category. It might be more acceptable if at least the name was changed to two separate categories: Category:People self-identifying as having a history of illicit drug use and Category:People self-identifying as having a history of drug dependence." (Or maybe Category:People self-identifying a history of illicit drug use and Category:People self-identifying a history of drug dependence for brevity.) This would (1) indicate that there had been past use without necessarily implying ongoing use (the current category name carries an implication of current or ongoing use), (2) allow for distinction between those who self-identify as having been dependent (James Taylor) and those who merely self-identify was having used illicit substances (Leary), and (3) allow for distinction of individuals who have acknowledged past dependence on prescription medications, which carries less of the stigma than is associated with the term "substance abuse." Dezastru (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Somebody created this to get around the obvious problems of having Category:Substance abusers. I don't think it's particularly defining for those included; create a list if it's a notable feature of those categorized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sociology of innovation

 * 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) 00:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting sociology of innovation


 * Propose deleting sociologists of innovation


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete Sociology of innovation doesn't appear to be fully recognized as a separate field and in particular we have no article on sociology of innovation. The two categories are very sparsely populated and without a good definition of the term, they're unlikely to be populated. Pichpich (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article innovation is mostly sociology, especially sociological organization-theory. Weber's research tried to understand the wellsprings of innovation. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  11:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That some sociologists are interested in innovation is not in question. The question is whether "sociology of innovation" is a significant and well-defined subfield of sociology (e.g. Category:Subfields of sociology) to warrant a specific category. Pichpich (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete without bias. Not to dismiss it as a field of study, but there are only two entries in the category. If it was to get populated more widely in the future then it would be sensible to recreate the category 00:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephebi (talk • contribs)


 * 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.