Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 24



Category:Recipients of Skanderbeg's Order

 * 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) 01:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Recipients of Skanderbeg's Order to Category:Recipients of the Order of Skanderbeg (1990–)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match recently renamed article. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- This seems to be about an Albanian honour. As a national award, it does not necessarily fail WP:OC, but where these are awarded to foreigners, they often relate to people who get many honours, and contribute greatly to category cliutter.  In sampling articles, I found two Albanians (who deserve to have the category), but also two Americans (one with about 10 lines of categories, mostly awards), a British academic serving in numerous international roles and will a long list on honours.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename if Kept The category should match the main article. No opinion on the underlying notability of the award. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to reflect the article's name. "Scanderbeg" orders and awards have been issued during three distinct periods: pre-WWII, Communist era, post-1990. --Mondiad (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to reflect article title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (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 associated with the Hague Peace Conferences

 * 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: purge and rename to Category:Delegates to the Hague Peace Conferences (plural seems to be required). – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People associated with the Hague Peace Conferences to Category:Participants of the Hague Peace Conferences
 * Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:OCASSOC and remove non-participants from the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Question. Does the proposal mean that those involved in the Hague Secret Emissary Affair would be removed from the category? Those involved did not participate in the conferences. Also, what about Nicholas II of Russia? He did not participate directly in the conferences as far as I know, but he proposed that they be held and was fairly instrumental in making the first one happen. The conferences could probably be said to be one of the highlights of his reign. The same might be said (to a lesser degree) about Theodore Roosevelt and the second conference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * People of the Hague Secret Emissary Affair can have their own category, as a sibling of this one. (That would actually imply a category split instead of a rename). Nicholas II and Theodore Roosevelt should be mentioned in the respective articles, they do not have a strong enough connection with the participants of the conference to be in one category with them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Nicholas has a strong enough connection to the conference to be somehow categorized with it, however—possibly just in Category:Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 (perhaps not for Roosevelt). I'm not sure of a separate category for the Hague Secret Emissary Affair people, though—it would be quite a small category. If the wording was changed to something like, then it could include them, since they were designated as delegates to it, they just weren't accepted once they arrived. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Both alternatives (a Delegates category instead of Participants, and Nicolas II directly in Category:Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907) work fine for me. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename and purge to, or something like that. Heads of government who did not attend should not be in.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This Category With no objection to creating the more narrow/non-subjective categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2016 (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.

Religious 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: rename all to Category:Law about religion by country, Category:Law about religion in India, Category:Law about religion in India, Category:Law about religion in the United Kingdom, Category:Law about religion in Australia, Category:Law about religion in Canada, Category:Law about religion in France, Category:Law about religion in Pakistan, Category:Law about religion in Russia and Category:Law about religion in Singapore. The discussion is not clear whether the smaller categories were to be merged or renamed, but the new name gives scope for increasing the membership by adding case law. This close is therefore not a precedent against merging if the categories do not in fact expand. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Religious law by country to Category:Legislation concerning religion
 * Propose renaming Category:Religious law in India to Category:Indian legislation concerning religion
 * Propose renaming Category:Religious law in the United Kingdom to Category:British legislation concerning religion
 * Propose merging Category:Religious law in Australia to Category:Legislation concerning religion, Category:Religion in Australia and Category:Australian law
 * Propose merging Category:Religious law in Canada to Category:Religion and law by country, Category:History of religion in Canada and Category:Canadian law
 * Propose merging Category:Religious law in France to Category:Legislation concerning religion, Category:History of religion in France and Category:Religion and law in France
 * Propose merging Category:Religious law in Pakistan to Category:Legislation concerning religion, Category:History of religion in Pakistan and Category:Pakistani law
 * Propose merging Category:Religious law in Russia to Category:Legislation concerning religion, Category:History of religion in Russia and Category:Russian law
 * Propose merging Category:Religious law in Singapore to Category:Legislation concerning religion, Category:Religion in Singapore and Category:Singaporean law
 * Nominator's rationale: rename because this category is not about religious law (law of religions) but instead it is about legislation concerning religion. This is a follow-up on this discussion in which the United States category was renamed similarly. Simultaneously I'm proposing an upmerge of smallest country categories and a removal of "by country" in the name of the top category. Participants to the discussion may either vote for rename + upmerge, rename without upmerge, upmerge without rename or keep. Note that the Canadian category stands apart because it only contains case law, not legislation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support all. The scope seems to be much clearer. Dimadick (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but I would prefer the targets to be Category:Law about religion in India etc, so that the same category can deal both with legislation and case law. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of a name like that suggested above by . e.g. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum isn't about legislation but case law and is quite important in this category (absent currently). The category ought to be properly populated, e.g. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 isn't included currently and I'm guessing there are a lot more existing articles that should feature in the category. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (as nom) The alternative rename is also fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2016 (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:War crimes in Jordan

 * 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) 01:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting war crimes in jordan


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete following Category:Jordanian war crimes, as suggested by one editor at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_8, and requested by the nominator there (see talk). – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I note that the only member of the category is not specifically "a war crime" and should be removed. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - there were war crimes in Jordan (Black September in Jordan for instance).GreyShark (dibra) 22:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-defining characteristic of the article(s) of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete only member of the category is not in itself a war crime, even if some war crimes occurred in it. (War crimes occur in many wars, maybe even most, but that doesn't mean that the article on the war itself belongs in a war crime category.) SJK (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2016 (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 who refused Padma Awards

 * 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. For anyone wanting to listify, the contents of the category = Sukumar Azhikode, Sitara Devi, S. Janaki, Salim Khan, Vilayat Khan. Khushwant Singh, and Romila Thapar. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people who refused padma awards


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable and defining. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wondered about this category, so I checked, it is the only category that starts "People who refused..." No people who refused Knighthoods, Conscription or even Academy Awards. There are probably several reasons why this type of category don't exist, one is the reason for refusal which would vary from person to person, so there would not be a unifying reason to have such a category. I am sure other editors will let us know of other reasons. Apologies for WP:BEANS --Richhoncho (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Listify before deleting. In accordance with WP:OC we discourage categories for award recipients.  The same consideration should apply to those who refused.  A common outcome is to listify.  This would provide a means of noting their stated reasons for refusing.  If not reason has been published, it may be questionable, whether the award was offered.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete According to the article, Padma Bhushan, this is the third highest civilian award in India. Refusing that doesn't seem defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, people have refused the award for too many different reasons (and one of whom didn't refuse but sent it back later). There is no commonality between these articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Listify per Peterkingiron. The refusals have typically gotten enough press that collating them in some form makes sense. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2016 (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:Indian Chartered Accountants

 * 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 and upmerge. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 20:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting indian chartered accountants


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary.Upmerge. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Indian accountants. We categorise by nationality and occupation, not by specific qualifying bodies. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Indian accountants. Oculi (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per discussion immediately below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to general accountants category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2016 (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:Chartered Accountants

 * 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 and upmerge. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 20:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting chartered accountants


 * Nominator's rationale: There is no such category at global.It is unnecessary. Upmerge. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose There is a difference between a chartered accountant and an accountant. Please refer books for the same here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capankajsmilyo (talk • contribs) 10:49, 24 February 2016‎


 * Support, as for the Indian sub-cat. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Chartered accountants to match the main article chartered accountant (CA) and populate. This is a recognized qualification, and defining characteristic for those who are so licensed. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't need Category:Chartered accountants when we have . There is no standardised process worldwide whereby someone becomes "chartered", and anyway, as Fayenatic said in the discussion above, we generally categorise by nationality and occupation, not by specific qualifying bodies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – there is nothing here apart from the Indian subcat, dealt with above. Oculi (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We could populate it with non-Indians, as chartered accountants exists primarily outside of India. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why we would want a separate category for chartered accountants as opposed to just one for all accountants? Wouldn't this be like categorizing carpenters but then having a separate category who achieve the higher-lever qualification of "master carpenters"? Anyway, I suspect that it's quite unlikely that there are that many bio articles for people who are notable as an accountant but are not chartered accountants. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If they are CGAs or CMAs then they are not usually also CAs. So, yes, there should be many, And ofcource criminals who don't hold qualifications but are accountants, in scamming clients, etc. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So, what exactly is the rationale for having separate categories? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a defining characteristic, the same as all other end-level categories. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are they defined by being accountants, or are they defined by being accountants who are chartered by a particular entity? I would say the former, in almost all cases. This is the case especially since the process and requirements for being chartered differs widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction—there is no unifying qualification uniting these across all places. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and Populate -- In UK (and I suspect other Commonwealth countries), a chartered accountant is a higher qualification, than other accountancy professions. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think everyone knows that and it is not in dispute: the question is—why do we want a separate categorization scheme? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete not meaningfully distinguishing, like having all sorts of categories for doctors and lawyers based on their certifications and licensing credentials would also be trivial. Just a quick perusal of how we could break down Category:California lawyers by their own bar association's designations see . Seems more an advertisement than actually conveying something defining, because I don't see any prohibition to be a specialist in everything. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't fail SMALLCAT, I don't see why we wouldn't classify lawyers by the jurisdictions they are accredited to practice in, since they are defining characteristics for lawyers. Practicing jurisdiction is different from citizenship and place of birth, two things which we do categorize under, but which does not mean that the lawyer themselves can actually practice there -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Category:Accountants is perfectly sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tend to keep per WP:DEFINING. For reference, I scrolled through the Scottish accountants category (picked a country randomly), and quite a number of accountants seem to be defined by being a chartered accountant. So as it's not just a one-country issue I think there is a case for this tree. These accountants are not defined by having received their charter from any particular institute, but does that really matter? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete having a category for accountants is enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2016 (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:Films produced by Jeta Amata

 * 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. In both cases, categories remain for films directed by these individuals. However, this deletion makes the parent "Works by" categories unnecessary and pointless for navigation, so I will speedily delete these under WP:G6. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting films produced by jeta amata


 * Propose deleting films produced by sarah begum


 * Nominator's rationale: Most film producers don't get significant notice. This is the beginning of a lot of deletion nominations, beginning with very sparsely populated examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, it would be helpful to nominate multiple categories simultaneously if they have the same rationale. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have merged these two discussions. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The category is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme of Category:Films by producer. Tanbircdq (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Jeta Amata is a Nigerian director who seems to produce his own films. Sarah Begum is an English anthropologist and journalist by profession, who apparently has recently produced a number of documentary films. Neither one seems to be a professional film producer. I am not certain whether there is scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both are filmmakers who produce films so it seems reasonable for them to have this category. 86.153.74.179 (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete especially the Jeta Amata category. The film was both directed and produced by him (there is only one entry) so this is a case of duplicate categorization.03:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose categories for film producers/directors films seem to be in common usage. 31.49.133.154 (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dimadick's sound analysis. While I don't disagree with having this genre of categories, there is no point in having these specific categories for occasional/non-professional producers and with only a single title listed. They do not help readers nor help navigation. Cavarrone 19:08, 19 April 2016 (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:Transport disasters related to the European migrant crisis

 * 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'll move the contents to appropriate categories, as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting transport disasters related to the european migrant crisis


 * Nominator's rationale: This category is unnecessary. It contains no actual disasters and is supplemented by Category:Migrant boat disasters in the Mediterranean Sea AusLondonder (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - "related to" should not be used in category names as it is inherently subjective (although this particular case isn't as bad as some). Apart from the subcat referred to in the nom (which might need to be upmerged) the category currently contains just 2 lists of incidents (which should not be in a disasters category). DexDor(talk) 07:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is essentially an empty subcategory of Category:Migrant boat disasters in the Mediterranean Sea, which include the "Transport disasters related to the European migrant crisis" (all shipwrecks since 2015). The only article which is not included in Category:Migrant boat disasters in the Mediterranean Sea is List of migrant vehicle incidents in Europe, but after the August 2015 incidents, no other transport incidents took place on land. Nykterinos (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Migrant boat disasters in the Mediterranean Sea. It is still a rather small category, with no reason to subcategorize. Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge but rather just upmerge to both parent categories: Category:European migrant crisis and Category:Migrant disasters in Europe, since one article is about cars rather than about boats. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per Marcocapelle. The article about vehicles needs to be recategorised.  It lists three incidents, one where the clandestines suffocated and two where they were injured in accidents.  However the vast majority of the trouble is maritime.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2016 (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.