Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 18



Category:Wikipedians in south west London

 * 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 along with Category:Wikipedians in South East London to Category:Wikipedians in South London, which is the natural merge target since it has not been nominated. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedians in south west London to Category:Wikipedians in London
 * Nominator's rationale: "South West London" appears to be too broadly or vaguely defined to make a useful user category given that South West London is a disambiguation page in mainspace. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Merge the other subcategories of Category:Wikipedians in London into the parent too? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * does this not apply to all sibling categories too? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Such as? * Pppery * it has begun... 13:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedians in East London, Category:Wikipedians in North London, Category:Wikipedians in South East London and Category:Wikipedians in South London. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedians in South East London should also be included. The other ones are at least associated with an article rather than a disambiguation page in mainspace, so don't belong here. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Procedural comment, I have tagged Category:Wikipedians in South East London too. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. If diffusion is useful at all, I would rather prefer by borough. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2022 (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:Albanians in Montenegro
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 8%23Category:Albanians in Montenegro

Category:Filmed police brutality
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 8%23Category:Filmed police brutality

Category:Filmed landslides
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 8%23Category:Filmed landslides

Category:Filmed deaths
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 8%23Category:Filmed deaths

Category:People targeted by Pegasus spyware

 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  13:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people targeted by pegasus spyware
 * Nominator's rationale: Absurd category created today. Politicians and activists often claim they are being spied, sometimes merely as a politically motivated attack but Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV and can't use such a category. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Clear WP:OVERCAT of a non-defining characteristic, one that indeed produces potential BLP and NPOV issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I was not notified about the deletion nomination. This is not spygate. Contrary to OPs claim, none of these people claimed they were being spied upon, they did not even know. It was independent reliable sources that reported their names. All the names in the category are reliably sourced from WP:RS. The incident has been extensively covered in reliable Indian and international media. Moreover, the hacking has also been verified by independent third party labs such as Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto and Amnesty. Links:
 * --Venkat TL (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Three reasons why I haven't notified you:
 * 1) I am not obliged to notify you as per community consensus.
 * 2) You already got these categories automatically watchlisted since you created them.
 * 3) Your recent talk page history shows that too many editors have been complaining about your contributions and evidently you don't recognize opinion of people with whom you have content dispute.
 * If you think like that then you will realize that I am only trying to make it fair for you.
 * Nobody said this category concerns Spygate. Your sources only verify the existence of spying allegation but they don't justify creation of the categories. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why your statement has a link to spygate if you are not implying it, remove? Venkat TL (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned why I wikilinked to Spygate. It was only for highlighting the already known possibility of claims of being spied to have been politically motivated thus we can't take these claims at face value. That is another reason why categories cannot be used for it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to have not read the links I shared. Neutral indpendent third parties with no dog in the fight in the Indian politics have reported it and others have verified and confirmed it. This is not a "politically motivated claim".Venkat TL (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) You already got these categories automatically watchlisted since you created them.
 * 3) Your recent talk page history shows that too many editors have been complaining about your contributions and evidently you don't recognize opinion of people with whom you have content dispute.
 * If you think like that then you will realize that I am only trying to make it fair for you.
 * Nobody said this category concerns Spygate. Your sources only verify the existence of spying allegation but they don't justify creation of the categories. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why your statement has a link to spygate if you are not implying it, remove? Venkat TL (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned why I wikilinked to Spygate. It was only for highlighting the already known possibility of claims of being spied to have been politically motivated thus we can't take these claims at face value. That is another reason why categories cannot be used for it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to have not read the links I shared. Neutral indpendent third parties with no dog in the fight in the Indian politics have reported it and others have verified and confirmed it. This is not a "politically motivated claim".Venkat TL (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, it is not a defining characteristic of these people. A list seems to be perfectly valid though. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If a list is valid, so is a category. The claims of BLP violations are without substance, as it is sourced independently. The category is a historical event related category. Venkat TL (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A list does not require that the characteristic is defining for its subjects, so the bar for lists is lower. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BLPCAT as well as not being a defining category. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2022 (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 targeted by spyware

 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Qwerfjkl  talk  13:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people targeted by spyware
 * Nominator's rationale: Absurd category created today. People often claim they are being spied but Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV and can't use such a category. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Clear WP:OVERCAT of a non-defining characteristic that produces BLP and NPOV issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLPCAT and because allegations of spyware, like most other human rights abuses, often cannot be verified in practice and do not necessarily result in a conviction. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 15:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I was not notified about the deletion nomination. This is not spygate. Contrary to OPs claim, none of these people claimed they were being spied upon. It was independent reliable sources that reported their names. All the names in the category are reliably sourced from WP:RS. The incident has been extensively covered in reliable Indian and international media. Moreover, the hacking has also been verified by independent third party labs such as Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto and Amnesty. Links:
 * --Venkat TL (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied to each point at Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 18 since it concerns same message. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * --Venkat TL (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied to each point at Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 18 since it concerns same message. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * --Venkat TL (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied to each point at Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 18 since it concerns same message. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * --Venkat TL (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied to each point at Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 18 since it concerns same message. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied to each point at Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 18 since it concerns same message. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, it is not a defining characteristic of these people. A list seems to be perfectly valid though. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If a list is valid, so is a category. The claims of BLP violations are without substance, as it is sourced independently. The category is a historical event related category. Venkat TL (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A list does not require that the characteristic is defining for its subjects, so the bar for lists is lower. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BLPCAT as well as not being a defining category. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2022 (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 using unaccredited degrees

 * 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.  ✗  plicit  12:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people using unaccredited degrees
 * Nominator's rationale: Non-defining trivial category per WP:COPDEF, WP:CATDEF and WP:NONDEF. Categories are not for any verifiable trait some Wikipedians may find interesting. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  09:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, see also this earlier discussion in which Category:People using unaccredited degrees was specified as a merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm almost tempted to nominate Category:People who fabricated academic degrees as well. Is there no end to meticulous hyper-splitting category clutter? --Animalparty! (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Listify if not kept, the bar for lists is usually lower than for categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is largely about people with degrees from degree mills, who use them to mislead the public into thinking they are better qualified than they are. Such people need to be highlighted as frauds, which is often what they are guilty of.  I would want to distinguish those who have undertaken a substantial course of study but in an institution which has not been endorsed by national authorities, either because they consider the subject twaddle (e.g. homeopathy) or for other reasons (which may apply to some theological colleges).  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not the purpose of categorizing, nor of Wikipedia, to 'name and shame' people who have committed misdeeds. Wikipedia is not an advocacy outlet nor should it be used to highlight those who "need to be highlighted as frauds" (Picture, for analogy, categorizing "people who've been fired from a job for poor performance", or abortion opponents categorizing people who've had abortions because they think the public "needs to know" this one thing). And of course the absence of a topical category does not preclude mention of the topic in the article prose, if warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that naming and shaming would not be a good reason to keep. The question is rather whether this is a defining characteristic (which I am hesitant about). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. &#8213; <span id="Qwerfjkl:1654421508867:WikipediaFTTCLNCategories_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_15" class="FTTCmt"> Qwerfjkl talk  09:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Still no consensus on whether this is a defining trait or not. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 14:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The prime purpose of categories is to navigate between articles sharing some connection, and in this case some readers may find it useful to navigate between bios of individuals who have augmented their reputations in a similar way. I also consider it a useful sibling to Category:People who fabricated academic degrees. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, as non-defining. JBchrch   talk  13:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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:South African male lawyers
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting south african male lawyers
 * Nominator's rationale: There arent any other categories of male lawyers as far as I can see.  Do we want this one? Rathfelder (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I find it questionable that the intersection of "lawyer" and any gender meets WP:EGRS, but especially in an occupation where most people are male. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 14:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - should be preceded by the creation of  (there is Category:Women lawyers and Category:South African women lawyers). Oculi (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete ERGS rules are such that we do not need a male cat for everything we need a female cat for, or the opposite.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2022 (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.