Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 18: Difference between revisions

July 18

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:People targeted by Pegasus spyware

• Propose deleting Category:People targeted by Pegasus spyware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)[reply]

Category:People targeted by spyware

• Propose deleting Category:People targeted by spyware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)[reply]

Category:People using unaccredited degrees

• Propose deleting Category:People using unaccredited degrees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• Listify if not kept, the bar for lists is usually lower than for categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 London 12:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, as non-defining. JBchrch talk 13:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on whether this is a defining trait or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South African male lawyers

• Propose deleting Category:South African male lawyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)[reply]

• 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]