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:Programmes with changes of network affiliation
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:Overcategorization on a non-defining characteristic. The simple fact of having changed networks does not unite all such shows into a significant grouping of programs that would get discussed or analyzed collectively on this basis -- so while a show in that boat should certainly be categorized for all of the networks that aired it, the simple fact of having changed network affiliation is not itself a defining basis for its own dedicated category. For added bonus, the category has been malformed, with six programs listed on the category page as text and only one program actually filed in the category. While we have deleted at least one differently-named category for this same characteristic in the past (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 2#Category:Multi network television series), and it may have been tried again at other names I haven't found yet, that was long enough ago that I felt it more appropriate to list this for discussion rather than just speedying it as a recreation of previously deleted content. The basis for a category here is not "a number of shows can be found to which this happened" — it requires that those shows would be united by that into a culturally significant group, which is not the case. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2023 (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.
Mild keep, purge. I have to disagree, in that mountain regions develop specific cultures quite distinct from the plain regions neighbouring them. However I am concerned that some content unrelated to mountain culture is placed in these categories, such as Indian culture and Pakistani culture in Category:Himalayan culture. These categories have a meaning only if they are indeed related to mountain culture, not as containers of all countries and regions that have mountains somewhere in them. Place Clichy (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2023 (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:Presiding Bishops of the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America
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 category only has one item in it, therefore it should be deleted. As a sidenote, the article on the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America was deleted after this AFD. Veverve (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2023 (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.
Category:15th century in the Captaincy General of Chile
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 item 1: the content relates to 16th century, possibly the result of a mistranslation of 1500-century. The second needs upmerging as SMALLCAT. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2023 (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.
It was the old administrative and territorial division [...], These confederations corresponded to the great geographic areas inhabited by the Mapuches. We'd call them "state" or "provincial" or "county" governments. All governments are society, but these correspond to geography. William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2023 (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.
@Marcocapelle:@William Allen Simpson: kindly reconsider your vote, I linked this category to more articles after being rename this category will become notable and it will cover all land and airbases of Pakistan army (similar to the Indian & Australian), Pakistan Army & its Aviation Units operates many land & airbases. many bases yet not have article on wikipedia but in future this category will also cover them 37.111.137.22 (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should always follow local nomenclature, not impose that of USA. Not just the USA, also the UK. And Pakistan is a Commonwealth country. "Airfield" is a generic term for all flying facilities, not just those designated as airbases, so has wider coverage. It's not American nomenclature in the slightest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2023 (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 FULL LIST OF NOMINATED CATEGORIES IS ON THE TALK PAGE
Nominator's rationale: rename, this is follow-up on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_3#Academics_in_Europe. Faculty is ambiguous: it may well refer to an organizational unit of a university rather than to people. On the other hand academic staff is entirely clear. So far only Europe has been changed. I have now nominated all countries in Africa and Asia. Possibly the Philippines and Israel should be excluded as they should follow US terminology at all times. Dependent on the outcome of this discussion I will continue with Latin America, Oceania and Canada afterwards (maybe not all simultaneously). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repost one bit as it's buried in walls of text there - I came across https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/academic-staff which seems to be useful for an overview of formal English usage. There's examples there from Australia, India, UK, Zimbabwe, Jamaica, Kenya, Ethiopia, Canada, South Africa, Malaysia, Ireland and elsewhere, that indicate this terminology is common there. Hopefully, this is also a relevant indication of vernacular usage. --Joy (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely in support of renaming, per nom, and also if in doubt check out Joy's link. Haven't we already discussed this "faculty" issue elsewhere and decided to drop the term in favor of "academic personnel/staff".--౪ Santa ౪99°11:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming per nom – As I noted in the earlier discussion, "academic staff" is also used in US universities with the same meaning, e.g. Cornell, thus this is an opportunity for MOS:COMMONALITY rather than using either the British "academics" (which has an incompatible meaning in US English) or the US "faculty" (which has an incompatible meaning in British English). Robminchin (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The WP:ENGVAR-violating drive to impose English-specific terminology and eliminate American-specific terminology in these categories continues, as one might expect it to, with still no attempt at finding common ground, and still no evidence of which terminology is actually used in the specific institutions affected by this recategorization. For instance, my impression is that African and south Asian institutions (likely because of their colonial past) often use English structures, while east Asian ones often use American structures; that distinction is lost in this blind "let's just vote for the dialect I'm familar with" poll. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a blanket rename. There are 2 Engvar issues here: (a) faculty versus academic and (b) the change from 'Foo academics/faculty' to 'academic staff of'. Everywhere (nearly) except the British Isles uses 'foo alumni' and 'foo people': eg Category:People by university or college in India, Category:Alumni by university or college in India. It is not difficult to find examples where faculty/academics are used in the US sense, eg Liberia, Kenya, China, India, Japan, Iraq, Pakistan. I agree with David Eppstein: this is a UK-centric proposal to introduce 'of' globally and to replace 'faculty' whether or not it is the local usage. I am very surprised that no one is offering the usual argument: 'Academic staff of Cairo University' is twice the length of 'Cairo University faculty' (which is not ambiguous anyway as a category name) for no gain whatever. I have no objection to changing 'academics' (which is ambiguous globally) to 'academic staff'. Oculi (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not entirely true. In countries where English language is neither native nor official, we are left with translators' choice, which in reality gives mix usage. ౪ Santa ౪99°12:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we're getting the same content in these example links, because I clicked through them and wasn't really convinced that these contribute to a coherent argument overall.
The Liberia example says "Faculty & Staff" and has nothing underneath, while its navigation goes to "University of Liberia Staff Directory" [1] which doesn't use the term faculty.
The Kenya example lists a single person, while the history page there [2] uses the phrase "Workstations for academic members of staff".
The Chinese example is almost empty as well - it has three links, to a recruitment page that uses the phrase "subsidized faculty dining", a list of academicians, and to an apparent dead link. Its navigation section includes a dictionary that doesn't seem to help explain such phrasing.
The Indian example on other other hand seems to genuinely use the phrase consistently. Our Ashoka University article does so as well.
The Japanese example seems fine, too. It is an 'international' university so that might mean they made an effort to sound 'international' (foreign), though. It would probably be good to get a Japanese speaker to find how their original phrasing works.
The Iraq example doesn't contain much to reinforce, I searched deeper and found e.g. [3] where the term is used multiple times, but some of these uses seem to be bad English, and there is no definition as such but rather it defines "University service employees is any staff member who exercises university teaching, ...". This seems to be less than well reviewed translations.
The Pakistan example [4] is very confusing, as it's a website where the top navigation shows Academics -> Faculties and then appears to list organizational units.
Overall, I really don't think this is the standard of clarity that an English encyclopedia should aspire to :) Granted, we should conduct some due diligence, and try to find a representative set of Indian and Japanese examples to see what the pattern of use actually is in those countries, before doing a blanket move, just to be safe. --Joy (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As we have already established, "faculty" used in this way is an almost entirely American usage and not appropriate for most other countries, where it only has the meaning of a sub-division of a university. "Academic staff", on the other hand, is common and well understood everywhere, including in America. This discussion has already been had and what applies to Europe also applies to Africa (and everywhere else), and clearly should do on Wikipedia for reasons of consistency. Any arguments that the proposed titles should be avoided because they're a couple of words longer are clearly contrived and wholly ludicrous. Reading far better in the English language is a more important concern. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Necrothesp. This is *not* an ENGVAR issue, it is a matter of switching to a form of words that is globally understood. WaggersTALK09:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Academic staff is not used in countries I am familiar with, such as Bangladesh and India. Pick a random Bangladeshi university website, and you will find a faculty tab. It will be impossible to find academic staff. Also, it is much easier to navigate and add categories which start with the name of the university. For example, it is easier to write "Khulna University faculty" than "academic staff of Khulna University". Here is a link to the website of Khulna University, where you will find faculties. This would be a heavy-handed imposition of UK-centric wording when our sources and the universities in Asia refer to the subjects as faculties.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely true. Query "academic staff" Bangladeshi and India university in Google Search and evidently, they understand and use both versions interchangeably (and I will be really, really courteous and say that on first glance they use both equally). ౪ Santa ౪99°11:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why this "UK-centric" trope? UK would be "academics". US is often "faculty and staff", but "academic staff" is also common. The nominator is not from the UK, although appears to be European and currently resides in the Netherlands. William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Followed the link to "Khulna University" as requested. Looks like "academic staff" should work well. Found "Academic council" at top layer. Found "faculties" 4 layers down the engineering tree. Found "teaching staff". Found "residence for teachers", and "residence for staffs". Site prominently listed recent research. Very nice modern buildings. William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is much easier to navigate and add categories which start with the name of the university. For example, it is easier to write "Khulna University faculty" than "academic staff of Khulna University". Better get rid of all those thousands of pesky "People born in" categories then! They all begin with "P"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. That's part of a useful effort, and the result of previous discussions. This term is not the preferred term for either Americans or Brits, but it is understandable without ambiguity across the planet. It is therefore a good way to solve endless conflicts releted to the ambiguity of both faculty and academics. Place Clichy (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to give credit to Marcocapelle for including "the" where it is used in article text and, as far as I have found so far, only where it's used in articles (even where this goes against the rule of thumb that I used in the precedent nomination). – FayenaticLondon15:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename per nom (except any relating to Liberia) -- We have (I think) already made this change for the whole of Europe, because the American use of "faculty" or academic personnel is alien to British English and cognate terms in all (or most) European languages. With a few Muslim educational institutions (and possibly some in Ethiopia), all African universities will be in colonies of European countries. The academic language in such countries will invariably follow the language and linguistic practices of the former colonial power. Accordingly the European precedent should be followed. In Europe and European-influenced areas a faculty is a division of a university, sometimes a level between a school and a department. It is not used of people, who work in it without a further descriptor such as staff or peresonnel. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
University of Liberia uses "faculty and staff", and faculty are in the "staff" directory. It has the same problem as elsewhere with "Dean of the Faculty University of Liberia Cabinet Faculty"; that is faculty means both separate department and academic professor. William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2023 (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:Non-profit organizations based in Port Townsend, Washington
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.