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.
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia is not for WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. It is not our job to determine who the rightful leaders of nations are. Both leaders in this category so far currently wield very real political power. ― Tartan357Talk21:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This is for unofficial, not unrightful. This could include leaders who have not been 'officially' given the title, but still lead. The current leaders in the category might have to be removed, though. ―Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 22:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qwerfjkl, unofficial according to whom? I fail to see how we could ever pin that down, and your inclusion of the current Prime Minister of Samoa and President of Belarus (those people seem pretty "official" to me) doesn't exactly inspire confidence that this category can be adequately defined. If they don't belong, who does? Who gets to decide this? ― Tartan357Talk22:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tartan357: Unofficial meaning not given the title by through the normal political process. Also, I added the people to the category per a the request on WP:AFCRC, which I agree was in error (i.e. those people should probably be removed from the category). ―Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 22:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qwerfjkl, and who gets to determine what the "normal political process" is? This seems like an obvious WP:POVCAT. The people included will always be "official" according to someone. As for the two people included so far, being "unofficial" is far from a defining characteristic in reliable sources, so WP:CATDEF is not met. I fail to see how that will be any different for anyone else. ― Tartan357Talk22:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qwerfjkl, that seems fine to me, and would probably satisfy your WP:AFCRC request. I'd suggest renaming this category instead of deleting it and creating a new one, since they'd be serving the same purpose. ― Tartan357Talk22:23, 28 May 2021 (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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Small category with no realistic chance of ever having more than a handful of members. Very few astronomical objects from this catalogue will be notable since they are extremely faint and in external galaxies. Lithopsian (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The telescopes of astronomers are getting better all the time. Just a question of time IMHO. Unnecessary to delete, such an untapped potential. --Just N. (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2021 (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.
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. I will create a redirect on the proposed target category. It looks like there may be possible to reach a consensus to use "Iranian" rather than "Persian" for other pre-1925 categories. Not referred to in this discussion but also relevant is this 2018 discussion.Good Ol’factory(talk)01:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Before 1925 the country seems to have been more generally known as Persia. The subcategories, going back many centuries, are sometimes called Persian and sometimes Iranian, without any obvious reason for the difference. Can we agree on some sort of uniformity? Rathfelder (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a deliberate distinction was probably not intended. Articles about Persian, Azerbaijani and Kurdish people in Iran may well occur in all these Iranian and Persian categories. When all of this is to become more consistent, Iranian is preferable over Persian, unless we say "of the Persian Empire". But the latter is largely deprecated in en.wp and replaced by Safavid Iran etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite happy to switch all the Persian categories to Iranian if that makes more sense. I dont like different names for the same thing. Safavid Iran covered a much bigger territory, so it would be better as a parent for Iranian categories. Rathfelder (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sort of fascinated of being witness of skirmishes between all those dedicated world historians among us. ;-) Sorry, but I never took interest in Iran except for past Pahlevi war times. --Just N. (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We're in 2021, not pre-1925, times are different. 'Iranian' (which is the more correct variant) is commonly used in scholarship to refer to pre-1925 Iran and its people. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I claim no expertise here at all, but it's apparent from looking at the articles that these are not intended to be different. Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2021 (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.
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 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:Television series with screenplays selected in The Black List
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.
Delete This list might be defining to the original scripts but the Wikipedia articles are more focused on the actual show, with a little background on the writing process. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see Black List as defining. And haven't we had the same proposal before? It's just same days /weeks ago. How is that possible? --Just N. (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2021 (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.
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.
Delete for Now Listed in all the infoboxes but not treated as defining in the articles which mention it in passing. The articles could all use some editor attention so I don't rule reconsidering later if/when a main article is created. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2021 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Recreated old Cfd and started a discussing in the talk page. But supposedly nobody monitors category talk pages so here we are; Many kinds and synonyms of types, what about form? systems? kinds? Not asking for re-deletion just a category explanation. Dpleibovitz (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2021 (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.
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.
Oppose'. I'd guess that very few Ancient Roman plebeians would ever get an own article. For sure to know /navigate those few is quite interesting! --Just N. (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2021 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:containerize, the articles in the category are on the one hand a violation of WP:SHAREDNAME and on the other hand a violation of WP:NONDEF. An example of the latter is Finance Commission. The category should not be deleted because a number of subcategories are defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2021 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: the top category and its subcategories are out of sync. It should be either "scholars of Islam" or "Islamic studies scholars", but at least consistently applied. Note that it concerns more than just the name, because Islamic studies is a specific academic study, so it has a much narrower scope than "scholars of Islam". Option A is definitely the easier solution, while option B is more precise (but possibly more precise than needed). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Option B. And no, I see nothing 'tautologous'. Islamic studies ist simply the name of a branch of study. Just like cultural studies etc. --Just N. (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Split -- This category is covering two quite different things. The Irishman is a scholar of Islamic art and architecture. Others are probably Christians looking in to Islam. Conversely, others are Muslims studying their own theology. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As noted, "Islamic studies" is a particular academic field, which makes it a too narrow descriptor. "Scholar of Islam" is the more open and inclusive formulation. Dayirmiter (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically they are, but that term is used very little in an Islamic context and only in modern times. In the past the term theologian was an exclusively Christian term. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. But I confess to have some doubts: could Islamic studies scholars be just the Western Colleges name of nowadays and the other the older one from Arabic institutions of higher education? --Just N. (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2021 (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.
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 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.
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.
While the Freemasons welcome Catholics to join, multiple Popes have repeatedly held that Freemasonry is incompatible with Catholicism and could lead to excommunication. I could certainly imagine this combination being defining but it's not in practice because the violation is so widespread and enforcement so lax. Composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and President John Kufuor both seem to have been publicly Catholic and Freemasons with no repercussions. The only biographies I found that discussed the combination were two ordained priests (1 and 2) who both created controversy, but no sanction, for publicly supporting Freemasonry. Wikipedia has potentially thousands of biography articles with this technically forbidden but common combination and all the current articles are in separate categories for Catholics and Freemasons so no merges are needed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we take a broad historical view, in many places this intersection was very common. On a worldwide scope it is not defining enough to categorize by this intersection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment How come that so many people contributing here are dedicated historians? Just like parliaments filled with lawyers. --Just N. (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2021 (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.
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 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 13#Category:Ancient Roman proconsuls
