Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 2: Difference between revisions

By hassandigitaljhb@gmail.com / January 29, 2026

Line 119: Line 119:

*: Nicholas was born in France as a French citizen. He was not “no longer a resident of the country”, he was from birth a citizen of another country. For that matter the article actually says so little about his being an architect it is not clear he even was a 20th-century architect. For all we know from the article all of his architectural work could have been done in the 21st-century. We would be advised not to put people in categories that intersect occupation and century when we have no evidence the person was actually doing that occupation during that cebtury.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 16:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

*: Nicholas was born in France as a French citizen. He was not “no longer a resident of the country”, he was from birth a citizen of another country. For that matter the article actually says so little about his being an architect it is not clear he even was a 20th-century architect. For all we know from the article all of his architectural work could have been done in the 21st-century. We would be advised not to put people in categories that intersect occupation and century when we have no evidence the person was actually doing that occupation during that cebtury.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 16:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

*:: One can have dual citizenship. He is Montenegrin both by ascendancy and for being a resident citizen of Montenegro later in his life. The French article states that he was working as an architect until 1989 when the then-Yugoslav government contacted him about the dynasty. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 22:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

*:: One can have dual citizenship. He is Montenegrin both by ascendancy and for being a resident citizen of Montenegro later in his life. The French article states that he was working as an architect until 1989 when the then-Yugoslav government contacted him about the dynasty. [[User:Place Clichy|Place Clichy]] ([[User talk:Place Clichy|talk]]) 22:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

*”’Support”’ triple merge.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 15:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

==== Category:Fictional characters with intellectual disability ====

==== Category:Fictional characters with intellectual disability ====

Category:Historical constitutions

Nominator’s rationale: I see no difference between a defunct and a historical constitution. Benboy250 (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I can’t tell the difference either. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge we generally use defunct for things that are no more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Former constitutions. I’m doubtful about both terms. I’m looking at Category:Defunct government institutions, and there seem varied examples there, and I’m even questioning whether a constitution, is an institution. Category:Constitutional history seems to use some form of the word “history”, or “former”. Hence “former” seems the term for both trees. All that said, I’m not thrilled with this name either. “Constitutions no longer in use”, maybe? –
jc37 20:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit that I am not keen on any names. What is clear is this is 1 topic so we need 1 Category. Catrgory:Constitutions no longer in use works for me. I think “former” is just as good. What I am sure of is we should not have 2 categories with no clear reason for 2 categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not Sure, As far as I know, historical constitutions are not necessarily the same as defunct constitutions. For instance, the constitution of the United Kingdom can be dated back to Magna Carta, which is certainly historical. But whether the Magna Carta has been completely defunct is quite debatable. The same may apply with the Canon Laws of the Catholic Church or Vatican and other political entities with a long constitutional history. Because I’m not a professional, this may require an opinion from a professional law researcher. —Aronlee90 (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It helps if people review the contents before commenting. Magna Charta is not in the historical constitutions Category. Everything in the historical constitutions Category is a constitution that is no longer in force.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. There doesn’t appear to be a meaningful difference. By definition, any former constitution is historical in the sense that it’s from the past and likely historically noteworthy. Creating a cut-off point in time for “historical” would be subjective and arbitrary. Mclay1 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Literary characters introduced in 1600

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Characters in As You Like It * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 03:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: I don’t like it. All the entries are from As You Like It, and the play doth contradict itself, saying in the intro that the first performance may have been in 1603, whilst the performance history section suggests maybe 1599. A quick check indicates that most sources appear to support the latter, but I’m going to start a discussion in the play’s talk page. In either case, ’tis not 1600. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2026 (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:Animals on the Internet

Category:C Sharp programming language family

Category:Fictional characters with neurotrauma

Category:20th-century Montenegrin architects

Nominator’s rationale: I think that we should repurpose this underpopulated category ^SMason_Garrison 15:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alt merge to Category:20th-century architects and Category:20th-century Montenegrin people. Putting an architect directly in an artist category seems a bit odd. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The one article is in Category:Yugoslav architects, which is a sub-cat of 20th-century architects so does not need to go in that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 20th-century Montenegrin people since the subject is already in the 20th-century architects category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Double merge as there are now 2 members (Nicholas, Prince of Montenegro (born 1944) has been added). –
Fayenatic London 13:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Does Nicolas really belong here. In the 30th-century he was a French citizen living in France who claimed a defunct monarchies title. It dies not appear he even becomes a resident of Montenegro until the 21st-century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Triple merge to Category:20th-century architects, Category:20th-century Montenegrin people, and Category:Montenegrin architects, per Marcocapelle and Fayenatic. You don’t stop being Montenegrin because you are no longer a resident of the country (or for any other country). Place Clichy (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas was born in France as a French citizen. He was not “no longer a resident of the country”, he was from birth a citizen of another country. For that matter the article actually says so little about his being an architect it is not clear he even was a 20th-century architect. For all we know from the article all of his architectural work could have been done in the 21st-century. We would be advised not to put people in categories that intersect occupation and century when we have no evidence the person was actually doing that occupation during that cebtury.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One can have dual citizenship. He is Montenegrin both by ascendancy and for being a resident citizen of Montenegro later in his life. The French article states that he was working as an architect until 1989 when the then-Yugoslav government contacted him about the dynasty. Place Clichy (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support triple merge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with intellectual disability

Category:20th-century Slovenian women nurses

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 18#Category:20th-century Slovenian women nurses

Category:Hughes family (United States)

Category:Foreign ministers of the Republic of China

Category:Muslim communities of Russia

Nominator’s rationale: rename, these categories contain peoples rather than communities. See precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_21#Category:Muslim_communities_of_the_Caucasus. If this goes ahead a new parent Category:Muslim peoples by country should be created. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the ping. still delete —Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep. I’ve actually changed my mind. The concept behind “people” seems to be identity politics and not just ethnic descendance. If so it’s dangerous: collective identity groups want in the long run “power” (not just legitimate cultural autonomy) over neighbouring ethnic groups. See e.g. Bosnia ethnic conflicts that triggered civil war, massacres and ethnic cleansing. Another example is the ethnic terrorism in Kashmir. The word “people” can become quite toxic if it boosts claims to power by big ethnical groups. So I’m against using “people” in the category names. — Just N. (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slovak politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category’s talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) GoldRomean (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Split Category:Slovak politicians to Category:Slovakian politicians; Category:Politicians from the Slovak Socialist Republic and Category:Slovak politicians with at least Category:Slovak politicians in Czechoslovakia and Category:Slovak politicians in Austria-Hungary as subcats.
Nominator’s rationale This category is mixing politicians from Slovakia or Slovakian politicians, a country that is only 88% Slovak where there are Hungarian political movements and places where Hungarian is the official language, with politicians who are ethnically Slovak which includes a large number of politicians who were such in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and in Czechoslovakia. I think we should split this category so that we have Category:Slovakian politicians for those who have been or were politicians in Slovakia the country formed in 1993, Category:Politicians from the Slovak Socialist Republic which would be for politicians who were such in the Slovak Socialist Republic which existed from 1969-1990 and Category:Slovak politicians we would limit to people who are ethnically Slovak who were politicians outside of those entities, many of this group would also go in Category:Czechoslovak politicians, some in whatever the politicians in Austria-Hungary/from Austria-Hungary Category is actually called, and there may be some who were involved in the meeting in Pittsburgh in 1917 where the plan to form Czechoslovakia was agreed on at a meeting of ethnic Czech political excites and Slovak immigrants living in Pittsburgh with possibly a few from Cleveland, Detroit and other industrial cities in that general region who would not fall under that heading. We may further want Category:Slovak politicians in Czechoslovakia to cover those who held office before the Slovak Socialist Republic was formed and any others who were Slovak by ethnicity who were nationals of Czechodlovakia but not properly said to be from the Slovak Socialist Republic, and there may be enough to form Category:Slovak politicians in Austria-Hungary. I have doubts that we would have enough people who were clearly Slovak by ethnicity and not just descent and clearly politicians and not just activists to create and other sub-cats by nationality, but if we can find at least 5 to coherently place in any other such category I would support it. I would say we should not create a Catrgory:Slovak politicians in the United States, but if someone can write a reliably sourced article that is more than a list on the topic American politicians of Slovak descent I would support Category:American politicians of Slovak descent. I know in Detroit the Slovak immigrants settled in Delray by the Hungarian immigrants, and because the city went to ekecting city council members at large about 1920 we really did not get prominent politicians from either group. Cleveland and Pittsburgh got a lot more Slovaks, and so there may actually be enough from there and in the general regions with enough sources to justify such an article, but I have not done enough digging. I am sure there are enough sources to justify American politicians of Polish descent as a full article whether or not we currently have it but I am not sure about Slovak descent. That is outside this nominations scope. What is clear is that we need to seperate the Slovakian politicians out. Politicians are without question deeply influenced by the country or polity in which thry operate so splitting this category in this way is without question what we want to do. How to split other categories between Slovakian people and those who were Slovak by ethnicity but nationals of another country will be different in each case. For one thing there may only be some occupations where being from the Slovak Socialist Republic is defining enough to justify a category. Other places we may just want to have all 1918-1992 people in the Czechslovak category, and then examine if the intersection of that occupation and the ethnic identity of Slovak is defining enough to meet our categorization of occupation by ethnicity. It is in the case of politicians at least in Czechoslovakia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I am sure it is in other cases but I think thry need to be examined in manageable groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming any category to Slovakian. This is only is an obsolete synonym for Slovak, so let’s not give it a meaning it doesn’t have. Creation of Slovak Socialist Republic politicians looks like overcategorization to me. FromCzech (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is supposed to categorize people by shared trait. People who are Slovaks but nationals of Czechslovakia or the Austrian Empire and prleiple who are nationals of Slovakia but ethnically Hungarian do not actually share a trait. We need to not try and force them all into one category. These are different things and should not be conflate into one category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alternately we could use Politicians from Slovakia. The point is we should be keeping ethnicity and what country a person is a national of separe and not use language that marginalizes Hungarians living in Slovakia and other non-Slovak people in the country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for Slovak versus Slovakian, let’s wait and see how this other discussion ends. Meanwhile I would not have an objection against creating Category:Slovak politicians in Czechoslovakia and Category:Slovak politicians in Austria-Hungary. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The rationale confuses nationality with ethnicity. Neither “Slovak” nor “Slovakian” are terms restricted to the post-1993 independent country. Of course there were Slovak people and a Slovak nation before 1993, and they should be called that. Place Clichy (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2026 (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:Twin teammates in sports

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 15#Category:Twin teammates in sports

Category:Sports Direct

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 (non-admin closure). GoldRomean (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Frasers Group is the parent company, many items listed are related to Frasers rather than Sports Direct Update6 (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2025 (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:Former American Episcopal clergy

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: Manually merge per Fayenatic london. Which is basically a delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 03:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: Do we really need an 3+way intersection of Former occupation + nationality+ former religion ^SMason_Garrison 14:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This is probably well beyond this discussion, but looking at Category:People by former religion, I really question why we are categorising people based on former belief. If limited to those whose occupations were in a specific organisation, maybe. But even that seems pretty iffy. If someone does does do a group nom, please ping me – per WP:CANVASS, I’m explicitly asking for notification, if someone would be so kind. – jc37 19:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: if former religion categories would not exist, articles might be put in a religious category if a person had been an adherent of that religion in the past, and that would be a quite awkward situation. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If that’s inappropriate categorisation, then we could just address that I suppose, but I get what you mean. And I’m not thrilled with “former” categories in general, because they can become an open-ended bloat of overcat. But to go beyond this a bit, do we categorise people by being – for example – dues paying members of an organisation, or only just those in advanced leadership roles/officers, etc? Job titles are one thing, but mere membership? And this without talking about levels of participation, or those that claim to be “lapsed”. Per EGRS, we don’t categorise by intersections of mere membership in a religion for various reasons, perhaps we shouldn’t be categorising by mere membership in an organisation. – jc37 23:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Part of the issue is that any sort of “weight” of notability varies wildly by location and time period, and the socio/cultural inluences of the region or time period, all of which require explanation – thus a list at best. Perhaps the way forward would be to look at non-religious organisations first, so that the issues may be more clearly highlighted. – jc37 13:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that Paul G. Chandler was defrocked by the Episcopal church but is still an Anglican priest. pburka (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2026 (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:Serbs in Yugoslavia

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 03:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale technically we could have both these categories. The current name could be for a topic category, with the target as a sub-cat. The parent could have sub-cats about communities in Yugoslavia that were Serb, general articles on the topic of Serbs in Yugoslavia, etc.. The target is for Biographical articles on people in Yugoslavia who were Serbian/Serb. I am not at all clear which of those two forms is better. However what we have in this category right now is only biographical articles so I think we should rename for now with no objection to creating this more general category when people find or create articles on the subject that are not biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep. No better solution! — Just N. (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2025 (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:Lists of tallest buildings in Georgia (U.S. state)

Category:Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery by year

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 subcats; keep parent. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 03:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: I don’t see why we need to diffuse Category:Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery by year of award. We don’t do that for other Category:Fellows of learned societies, like Category:Fellows of the IEEE has over 2500 people in it. This might be a case for lists, but there’s no need to categorize by year of nomination. ^SMason_Garrison 04:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator to the closer. It wasn’t my intent to question the merits of the Fellowship as there are many other categories like Category:Fellows of learned societies. I think that can be a followup question. ^SMason_Garrison 16:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. I also don’t see the need to diffuse a merged category that would have (currently) 862 elements in it, and the year of election is not defining. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So this discussion involves some WP:Diffusing conflict? E Eng 13:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or defusing categories? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could diffuse by nationality, similar to how I’m cleaning up [[Category:Fellows of the Royal Society by nationality]]. ^SMason_Garrison 16:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: strong keep parent category. As awards go, this is defining, as it is both the sort of thing one would definitely think to include when introducing a speaker, and something that automatically conveys notability to its recipients, per WP:PROF#C3. That is, it literally defines the reason why we have an article on its recipients. It is not quite the top-level award for all of computer science (that would be the Turing Award) but I think it’s second only to that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RevelationDirect, living down to their name, has demanded that I reveal what they appear to believe is a deep dark COI secret. It is not a secret and I do not believe it to be a COI. Anyone who looks up my name and finds the Wikipedia article about me (for instance, as linked from my user page, but not in an encouraging way) will see that it belongs to this category. The reason I do not believe it to be a COI is that I categorize anything to do with the article about me (beyond basic factual accuracy) as Someone Else’s Problem. However, I do believe that I have inside knowledge to contribute to this discussion, not through WP:CREDENTIALs and not through belonging to this category but rather through personal experience working a professor and having sat through and sometimes chaired many many committee meetings about promotions of other faculty members to steps beyond the ordinary full professorship, both within this discipline and across disciplines. Invariably the first thing that comes up, for promotions at this level, is whether they have any society fellowships. It’s that important. I also have long experience regularly participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators, where the story is much the same: one of the first questions regularly asked, often in the nomination statement itself (including two current nominations), is whether they have a society fellowship. It is from these experiences both in Wikipedia and outside it that I firmly believe this category to be defining. I don’t think having knowledge of this subject from off-Wikipedia should be disqualifying any more than having knowledge of it from within Wikipedia makes my participation in any way problematic. I would say the same about most of the other fellowship categories in other disciplines, of varying selectivity (some more, some less; I could tell you which ones I think are which but comparisons are odorous). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~~Possibly~~ delete including parent category, it seems like it is almost equivalent to notability (as defined in Wikipedia) and thus not useful to categorize by. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Note I tagged the parent category, Category:Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery, to give more flexibility with potential outcomes. – RevelationDirect (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, Including Parent per WP:OCAWARD. Limiting the award to the top 1% of your organization’s members is less meaningful when the ACM has around 100,000 members. The fact that there are dozens of articles per year suggests this award is non-defining and, indeed, the biography articles generally mention it in passing. We already have the very long List of fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery for any reader interested in this topic. – RevelationDirect (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this reasoning (too many people in the category) were valid, then categorization by nationality would be non-defining; after all, there are so many more people born every day into each nation. Since this is so absurd, the obvious conclusion is that reasoning by number of members in a category is not a good way to determine whether it is defining. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my wording was unclear: my concern is that so many awards are given out that it dilutes their value thus making it non-defining for navigation. (I have no objection at all to 1,000 entry categories and, in fact, would favor merging these yearly ones if we end up keeping the parent.) RevelationDirect (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because the percentage is low, it’s defining regardless of the base number. And it only looks like it’s mentioned “in passing” because it’s the sort of thing that can be said very concisely. Just looking at the articles for the 2024 Fellows, Susanne Bødker includes it in the first paragraph, Marsha Chechik and Carla Chiasserini give it a prominent section heading, Qi Tian is nothing but Fellowships, etc. Generally speaking, the better-written the article, the more detail is provided about Fellowships (in the ACM, IEEE, APS, etc.). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sub-cata and the parent catrgory. This clearly does not meet our guidelines for award categories. Award categories are not meant to be fellowships at the level that passes academic notabiloty. Award categories are meant to be things at the level of the Noble Prize where winning it is a key biographical detail that receives significant coverage in reliable sources and is going to be mentioned any time a person writes something on the person ever. That is not even close to the case for this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you intend to delete the entire Category:Fellows of learned societies hierarchy, singling out this one for deletion is insane. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I mean, what next? Category:Fellows of the IEEE? E Eng 13:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge subcats, keep parent cat. Per David. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge subcategories into parent category, because breaking these items up by year just fragments the information with no real benefit; keep the parent category because a career recognition sufficient to establish article-worthiness is more than important enough to merit a category. When a learned society determines that a person’s achievements put them at the top of their field, yes, we can categorize on that. It is lead-worthy information and frequently included in summary biographies elsewhere. Per WP:OCTRIVIAL, For biographical articles, it is usual to categorize by such aspects as their career, origins, and major accomplishments. Fellowship in a learned society is a major accomplishment. (We have categories for what universities people are alumni of, and graduating from a school, even a top-notch school, is less significant than having a successful academic career.) Nuking the category for ACM Fellows would make the encyclopedia less useful, all for the sake of a bad reading (a reading that ignores how learned societies work) of an obscure guideline. It would be wiki-lawyering off our nose to spite our face. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent category. Bubba73 ^{You talkin’ to me?} 01:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we have many articles on electrical engineers after the IEEE was founded who are not fellows of the IEEE? Just on overlap Category rules I doubt we need the fellows of the IEEE Category. It maps very closely with electrical engineers who are notable enough to have an article so essentially overlaps with the electrical engineers Category and just leads to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are unaware, but IEEE encompasses many specialties that are not really electrical engineering. Computer science, optical engineering, geoscience and remote sensing, plasma physics, and underwater acoustics, to name a few. So although one could make a crude estimate by comparing search result sizes that the IEEE Fellow category has maybe 50%-60% the size of the electrical engineer category, I think there may also be many people within the IEEE Fellow category but not otherwise within the electrical engineering category hierarchy. Therefore, the categories have different purposes: categorizing a person as an IEEE Fellow should not be taken as implying that they are an electrical engineer, and there are many electrical engineers who are not and should not be categorized as IEEE Fellows. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge subcats and keep parent cat per David Eppstein’s insightful explanations, as well as what Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction explained. I honestly feel that CATDEF needs a more nuanced reform with input outside the typical CFD crowd, but that’s a story for another area of the site. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:55, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge subcategories and keep parent category as breaking it up by year fragments the results and makes finding people harder, especially as there is no singular page listing all of the names. ₪RicknAsia₪ 07:53, 8 January 2026 (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:People with lower case names and pseudonyms

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) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator’s rationale: This isn’t a defining characteristic; it’s just a stylization. We don’t have categories for mononymous people, which is probably more definitional than eschewing uppercase letters. If this is kept, it needs to be renamed to correct the misspelling (lowercase) and the logical error (and vs or). pburka (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we categorize articles by things about the subject, not by things about the subject’s name. This is at best trivial and is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete feels akin to WP:SHAREDNAME, grouping by type of name. – RevelationDirect (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per trivial characteristics guideline. – T C Memoire 14:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above —Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion as per WP:TRIVIALCAT (mentioned by several) and WP:SHAREDNAME (mentioned by RevelationDirect) Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 23:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category was created because a list was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with lower case names and pseudonyms. I would have voted to keep the list, as these examples are intentionally breaking a rule (Letter_case#Multi-word_proper_nouns); but it’s gone now, and despite support from Herostratus at AFD, a category is less justifiable than a list. – Fayenatic London 13:13, 8 January 2026 (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:Dark adventure

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply