Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 6

< February 5 February 7 >

February 6

Military historians by war

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. – Fayenatic London 08:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: to clarify that these are historians who studied these conflicts, rather than being somehow involved in the war. The WWI and WWII categs are subcats of Category:Historiography of World War I and Category:Historiography of World War II respectively, so this matches that convention. 5 of the 11 subcats of Category:Military historians by war already use the "Historians of Foo War" format; this proposal would align the remaining 6 with that format.
(This arises out of a contested speedy, copied below). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at speedy
  • Support for consistency, by the proposed rename these categories will have the same format as their sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think in general historian of x topic is just a better formulation. I doubt many people would put someone who fought in Chicakmagua but wrote about medieval France in the Category:American Civil War Historians category. I am more worried that the current names might cause some people to argue they should be limited to historians of the conflict who were involved in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2017 (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:Order of the Colonial Empire

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. – Fayenatic London 20:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Order of the Colonial Empire
  • Propose Deleting Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Colonial Empire
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Order of the Colonial Empire was an award for residents of Portugal's colonial empire. The three articles we have listed are Mozambique Company (which makes sense although it's already well categorized), George V, and Prince George, Duke of Kent. I haven't found a source that says why two British royals received the award but neither is defined by Portugal's colonies. If we delete this category, the recipients will still be listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Portugal. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Portuguese wikipedia says the canonical source of the recipient is here. You have to select between "cidadãos nacionais" (national citizens) or "cidadãos estrangeiros" (foreign citizens) on the bottom left menu. From a quick google search on a couple of recipients, it is a defining characteristic of Salazar, but not of Eça de Queiroz. Therefore, I'd rather have it kept.
Order of the Colonial Empire#Notable Recipients should be expanded. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As the President and Prime Minister of Portugal, Salazar was either awarded or gave himself 4 official medals and doesn't seem to have ever lived in a Portuguese colony. We obviously look at WP:DEFINING differently. (We agree on expanding Order of the Colonial Empire#Notable Recipients though; I added both articles you mentioned.) RevelationDirect (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly this wasn't a purely colonial decoration, although it was perhaps more so than say the Category:Order of the British Empire. However, for someone in Mozambique or Cape Verde I'd suggest that certainly the higher levels of this (certainly Grand Officer, perhaps lower) were at least as defining as Category:Congressional Gold Medal recipients or some of the Category:Order of the British Empire recipients. Whether that is defining enough for Wikipedia I leave to others, but without getting too WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-y I think we should at least be consistent on high-level civilian decorations, and not have one rule for the US/UK and another for "foreigners in Africa". Broadly it seems to be that the top levels of civilian awards are considered defining, roughly of a level equivalent to British knighthoods, of which ~60 are awarded per year in a population of 60 million. So I'd suggest a loose "1 in a million" rule when it comes to these things, I'm not sure where that would put the cut-off here.Le Deluge (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that we categorise all levels of the Order of the British Empire and all the other British honours, from lowest to highest. So this is actually a non-issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An order apparently awarded for merit. A few honorary awards do not make it invalid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The order is not defining to anyone who got it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you would know that how? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually have no idea if this award would be defining for the colonial people for which it was intended. We don't have any of those articles to look at, either because the recipients are not notable or because African biographies are under-represented in Wikipedia. But, ultimately, categories are designed to aid navigation and readers clicking on this one would probably be looking for biographies of people in Africa or Asia but all they would find today would be high-ranking Europeans. (If and when these other biography articles show up, that would be a good point to re-evaluate.)RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that it was predominantly aimed at Portuguese people serving in the colonies, not people from the colonial territories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the order is not defining for the articles that are in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial for those categorized, who only receive the award apparently after they were otherwise notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could say that about pretty much any category for honours, even including such things as Oscars. Do you support deleting all of them? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should have said that the order is not defining to any of the 3 articles currently categorized. It just needlessly adds to category clutter. It probably should be removed from all three as a non-defining category, but out of process emptying of categories because nothing in it is at all defined by it is highly discouraged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2017 (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:Failed DYK nominations

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 in reverse of nomination and then delete redundant category, (merge and deletion were completed prior to this non-admin closure).--John Cline (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two categories that seem to cover the exact same topic. No objection to reverse merging. Pppery 21:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If anything, the merge should be the other way around: Failed DYK nominations is the category currently being used by automated software and various templates, while DYK/Unsuccessful nominations hasn't been used for nearly four years. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there isn't anything to merge at this point. The individual templates had also been in the month categories, and I've adjusted the originals so they no longer specify the DYK/Unsuccessful nominations category, just the month involved (e.g., Category:Failed DYK nominations from February 2013‎). And the set of months under DYK/Unsuccessful nominations, between 2011 and 2013, are all also in Failed DYK nominations, which goes from 2011 to the present day. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very good information BlueMoonset, your efforts serve many and are well appreciated. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge - per BlueMoonset.--John Cline (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - considering BlueMoonset's fine work in this discussion, there truly is nothing left to merge. As the editor who created Category:DYK/Unsuccessful nominations, I am not against closing this discussion early and affirm the category is ready for deletion now. Accordingly, I have added {{db-g7}} to the category in hopes of further hastening this discussion's close.--John Cline (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. Just cleans up the old mess of changing the category without renaming it properly. ~ Rob13Talk 13:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per the above argument. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2017 (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:Leap years

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 on new sub-cat Category:Leap years in the Gregorian calendar; delete Category:Leap years, which I will merge to Category:Years. – Fayenatic London 08:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Leap years (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: (1) In which calendar? (Proleptic) Julian, (Proleptic) Gregorian. (2) Not a useful categorization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2016 December 31 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I notice that in some haste or confusion 1900 has be placed in the leap years in the Gregorian calendar, despite it being a common year. So someone's mixing apples and oranges, and which calendar has which year as leap. It's not that defining, any more than having a category Category:Years where Christmas is on Sunday or such, millions of people lose a day of vacation which is more important than having the option of working 8 more hours in February to boost your income. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial. (1800 is also wrongly categorised in Category:Leap years in the Gregorian calendar.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both categories (Category:Leap years and Category:Leap years in the Gregorian calendar) as trivialities per others. I have also removed 1800 and 1900 from the latter category, which were incorrectly added by 67.100.127.128. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I believe that WP:DEFINING/WP:NONDEF are overused to delete categories, I don't see any reason to get rid of a category on grounds of triviality when the category is a shining counterexample to NONDEF's "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining" statement. In this case, 24.25% of our year articles have "[year] was a leap year beginning on [day]" as their very first sentence, and all of the exceptions are common years. Aside from going by broader chunks of time (e.g. by decade), there's probably no way to categorise years on a more fundamental level. Let's have fourteen year categories: common years beginning on Sunday, leap years beginning on Sunday, common years beginning on Monday, leap years beginning on Monday, etc. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep This is a defining characteristic of years. Hmains (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, note that WP:NONDEF and WP:TRIVIALCAT are independent guidelines. Either guideline may lead to deletion of a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's very little research-oriented need for this, as nobody is ever going to have to cross-reference 1948 with 2016 with 1824 just because those years happened to have a February 29. No objection to listifying, if desired, but the definingness here is on a pretty trivial characteristic rather than a substantive one that actually facilitates any sort of research anybody would actually be using the category system to do. It's obviously not an exact parallel, but I can't help but think of the fact that we rightly kiboshed past attempts to categorize radio stations by their AM or FM frequency, and television stations by their channel number — technically those are defining characteristics of a radio or television station, but practically speaking there's no value in actually categorizing them that way because there's no substantive point of commonality between any two things that happen to share that characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2017 (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:Presidential residences

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 Category:Presidential palaces to Category:Presidential residences. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems redundant to the much-more-populated Category:Presidential palaces pbp 16:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am now signing on to BHG's proposal to merge palaces to residences. pbp 17:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Would you be adverse to the deletion of Category:Presidential palaces, with all the entries being reclassified as residences? All palaces are also residences. I'm not really seeing the need for TWO categories here; the only question is which one to keep. pbp 17:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@pbp I would strongly oppose deletion; if any action is taken, then it should be to merge, but I am not sure where I would stand on merger. If we have to keep only one category, then obviously we keep the more inclusive one. But it seems to me that while in some cases the label Presidential Palace is a mere terminological distinction, there are many other cases where the term is used to indicate either a former monarchical building or a new build in a monarchical style. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Presidential palaces to Category:Presidential residences. I see no value in having two categories (since it's just based on the form of words used in the name of the building, not in any differences in the function or style of the building itself) and the latter includes all the former. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2nd proposition I think the second proposition is better of merging Category:Presidential palaces to Category:Presidential residences. Who decides excatly what a "palace" is vs a "residence"? Residence is a more neutral term that can apply to any living quarter or house, therefore per WP:WORDS I think it should be used. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per second suggestion, or (second choice) keep - the bland "residence" is the NPOV choice. Which ones are palaces may depend on local usage or even editorial preference. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per Purplebackpack. Not all residences are palaces, but all palaces are residences — and I'm not strongly convinced that the category needs to segregate the ones that are palaces from the ones that aren't. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Presidential palaces to Category:Presidential residences. There is no clear, NPOV definition of what is and what is not a palace. I do have to point out that I am not convinced that being "presidential" is a unifying characteristic either. Arguably "president" is a case of shared name, where the actual office is not at all the same in all countries involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2017 (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.

"People from former country" versus "People of former country"

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. A follow-up nomination is called for. – Fayenatic London 08:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: In Category:People by former country, there are 82 categories using "People of X", and only six using "People from X". These six, beginning with people, need to follow the mentioned majority style, as there are no difference whatsoever about subject (people of former countries). Zoupan 12:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – another option would be Category:Almohad Caliphate people etc, a format which is widely used in Category:People by former country. Oculi (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At the very least the categories within Category:People by former country should have a consistent format, either all should have "of" or all should have "from". If the nomination would have contained two scenarios, namely change these 6 to "of" or change the other 82 to "from" I would have preferred the latter because the tree of Category:People by nationality uses "from" as well, and I don't think the two trees are fundamentally different. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But these are historical states and not current nationalities, and that is fundamentally different. There is not any "from" category in Category:People by nationality, except for the special Category:People from Georgia (country). An example where I think this style does a good job is Category:People of Nazi Germany, which not only sounds better, but is clearer than Category:People from Nazi Germany (the wording implies an exclusion of foreign-born people, and also implies expatriates) and Category:Nazi Germany people (implying Nazis?). Again, we are only talking about these six categories.--Zoupan 06:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for clarification, Category:People by nationality uses "from" very often lower in the tree where we have people from country subdivisions. I really don't think the two trees are fundamentally different, especially I think that the nominated categories should allow foreign-born people and expatriates. But in fact I could also very well live with using "of" or "in" in both trees, so I'm not going to oppose here. Things may settle out more clearly in future nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, from current subdivisions. Yes, all-inclusion is what is intended, I just showed the implications of the different forms when we are speaking of former countries.--Zoupan 14:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and nominate the 82 for renaming to "People from". Unless there's some WP:ENGVAR issue that I've not encountered, "People of" isn't normal English, while "People from" is perfectly normal. At least in en:us, it's perfectly normal to say "I'm from [place]", even when the fuller phrase is "I'm from right here, and I've never lived anywhere else", while nobody ever says "I'm of [place]", and the same is true if you use a different pronoun or a noun instead of a pronoun. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, the use of "of" makes it sound like these people are associated with the state, not merely living under its domain. "People of the Abbasid Caliphate", for example, sounds like it would include the caliphs, their courtiers, etc., but exclude the average Baghdadi, while "People from the Abbasid Caliphate" is more clearly intended to include the average Yusef. If es-Sindibad were a historical figure and not merely a literary character, he wouldn't be a person of the caliphate, but he'd be a person from the caliphate. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is "People of" not normal English? Judging by Gbooks hits, it is normal English. For example, "People from the Byzantine Empire" has 0 GBook hits, "People of the Byzantine Empire" has 5.--Zoupan 13:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are also many categories for people from former sub-divisions (e.g. categories within Category:People from former German states and Category:Imperial Russian people). No need for the change. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - per other "Oppose" votes!, although I am really fine with either option. As Marcocapelle pointed out the two aren't fundamentally different at all. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Am I the only one that thinks that the proper usage per historiographical concept is of? That way we also have a consistent style mirroring "Culture/Society/Demographics of the X".--Zoupan 13:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to X polity people like Cretan State people. This avoids the of/from debates, which I have to admit all seem a bit silly to me because I was always told of and from are synonyms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2017 (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:Israeli stage designers

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no Category:Stage designers, but there is Category:Scenic designers (see scenic design.). That seems to be the purpose of this category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 6 February 2017 (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.

Some Indian male occupations

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 all except Category:Indian male fashion designers, for which I find no consensus, although I could not find the worldwide parent for male fashion designers mentioned by user:Johnpacklambert or implied by user:Lemongirl942. If that category is re-nominated then I suggest also nominating its other parent Category:Indian male designers, which was left out of this discussion. – Fayenatic London 15:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: per WP:CATGENDER, A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. That is not the case here: men have not been historically under-represented in these occupations, nor is there a particular male genre of doing these occupations because men differ from the norms of that occupation (because men predominate).
That is why none of these categories has a global parent: see the redlinks for C:Male television directors, C:Male television producers, C:Male film directors, C:Male cinematographers, C:Male filmmakers, C:Male contemporary artists, C:Male choreographers, C:Male television presenters, C:Male fashion designers, C:Male mountain climbers.
Each of the nominated categories has an equivalent "Indian female fooers" (or "Indian women fooers") counterpart: C:Indian female television producers, C:Indian female television directors, C:Indian female film directors, C:Indian female cinematographers, C:Indian female filmmakers, C:Indian female contemporary artists, C:Indian female choreographers, C:Indian female television presenters, C:Indian female fashion designers, C:Indian female mountain climbers.
However, per WP:CATGENDER, a female category does not need to be balanced with an equivalent female category (or vice versa) unless the profession is inherently segregated by gender, as with acting or some sports. None of these occupations is inherently segregated by gender, so the case for each gendered category must be made on its own merits. I am persinally unpersuaded on the merits of all the female categories, but that is a separate discussion, because the two do not have to be balanced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree only if the female equivalents are also deleted. These occupations are not such that awards, competition, etc. is gender based (such as in most sports and acting) or has legal or terminological significance (such as kings vs. queens). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Carlossuarez46: The long-standing guidance at WP:CATGENDER specifically rejects that principle. If you want to pursue a change to that principle, then per WP:LOCALCON this is not the way to do it. Local consensus cannot override a wider community consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to achieve any change, just articulating my position. The closing admin can take them for what its worth. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure that the closing admin will be aware of WP:LOCALCON. I just think it's a pity that you are pursuing your view in a venue where policy requires that it be disregarded. That seems unhelpful to everyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You clearly misunderstand: how often when one category of several similar ones are nominated and there are lots of comments along the lines of why is this category different from others not nominated; often times a closing admin recognizes the fundamental oddness of that and may infer that they stand or fall together and ought to be so grouped. Also, despite WP:CATGRS, these sorts of categories are created and defended, including female versions of these sorts of categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, I understand clearly. Such comparisons are often made, but in this case we have a guideline which has been stable for a decade, and stable in its insistence that such a comparison is not applicable between male and female categories. I accept that you do not support that guideline, but its stability affirms that it reflects a broad community consensus ... so unless and until it is changed, it should be applied here unless you have a rationale for why these categories represent an exception to the broad principle. And I see no claim from you that these categories represent an exceptional case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of a gender segregation in the field is not the only valid basis for a "female/women" gender category — in some fields, there's no segregation per se but women were historically rare enough in the field that their increasing participation has led to the publication of reliable source research into the significance of that fact. A "men/male" category should exist only in the case of a full-on segregation of genders — but a "women/female" category can exist if it satisfies either of those tests. So there are some occupations where a "women/female" category is justifiable but a "men/male" category isn't. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, there is no specific reason to categorize these occupations by male gender. Regarding the above discussion about female categories, I haven't really thought about merging these categories too, since the female categories haven't been nominated and procedurally the male categories can be discussed independently from the female categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There are two different situations where gender categorization is warranted in an occupational category tree: (1) The occupation is inherently gender-segregated in some way — e.g. sports, where men and women do not generally compete directly against each other, but rather each compete in their own separate male-specific or female-specific sports platforms. (2) The occupation is not inherently gender-segregated, but the fact that women were historically underrepresented (and may still be) in the field has led to the production and publication of actual RS research and study into the phenomenon of women joining and participating in the field — such as the considerable literature that does exist into women in politics, whether they do or don't approach the job differently than men do, whether they do or don't have different political priorities, the degree to which sexism did or didn't play a role in Hillary Clinton's defeat in 2016 and Kim Campbell's in 1993, and on and so forth.
    If the occupation fulfills the first criterion, then male and female gender categories are both valid; if it passes the second criterion, then a "women/female" category is justified, but a "men/male" category is not needed; if it fulfills neither of the criteria, then there should be no gender categories at all. All of these, however, fall in either the #2 or neither camps.
    On a strictly technical basis, there's nothing preventing us from creating gendered subcategories for absolutely every category on Wikipedia that exists to contain human beings — but our goal is not a comprehensive system of gendering everything, but rather a carefully managed system of having gendered occupational categories only where gender is relevant to the occupation. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Le Deluge (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Indian male fashion designers as the fashion industry seems to be gender categorised. No opinion on the rest, though my personal preference is to keep as it serves as a good navigational tool and for quickly locating articles by gender. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all All except fashion designers because we could not write a strong lead article that is more than a list. In these cases the combination of maleness and the profession is not defining. Weather it is for femaleness and the profession is a seperate question that should be considered seperately. With the fashion designer one, we maybe should upmerge to the world-wide Category:Male fashion designers category. The problem there is that it is violating the non-defusing rule. The only non-gender specific sub-category is the costume designer one, which is the same as having no workable sub-cat at all, so the set up is too likely to defuse people only by gender, which is only acceptable in singing, acting, modeling and sports where gender is overwhelmingly defining. It is not an acceptable action for design and writing professions, and so we need to follow ERGS rules, and the current set up is violating the no bottom rung ERGS category rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2017 (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:Nikos Oikonomidis songs

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. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Nikos Oikonomidis songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The artist is non-notable and the article about him has been deleted:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikos Oikonomidis (violinists). Sjö (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the singer is non-notable, I find it unlikely that his songs are notable, unless these are all covers of other artists. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category contains anonymous tunes that anybody may have sung. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2017 (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:Chinese performing arts

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. – Fayenatic London 17:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: pointless subcategory with a single parent. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, potentially the only possible difference in scope between the two categories is articles about performing arts by Chinese expatriates (which should be purged before merging), I haven't checked in detail but I suppose that is hardly an issue here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom & above vote. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I don't see the need for this — while in theory it's possible to suss out a potential distinction, there's none present in the way this is actually being used. Nothing in this category would actually be misfiled if it were upmerged to the parent, and even if there were a viable distinction this wouldn't be its name. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My view is that there is a difference between "Chinese" and "in China". Places such as Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan which have large populations of ethnic Chinese do have examples of performing arts. I wouldn't describe them as Category:Performing arts in China though. Lion dance for example is a "Chinese" performing art, but not necessarily in China. I also noticed that Category:Arabic art for example is similar to this situation and is used to denote the ethnicity/culture associated with the word "Arabic". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think Lemongirl942 is right on Chinese having a broad meaning that covers overseas Chinese, some who have retained their oversees Chinese culture for centirues. In Singapore the majority of the population is Chinese. Some of the sub-cats should probably be renamed to relect that this is about a broad cultural phenemenon that exists beyond the coundaries of any specific nation. Additionally the use of China and Taiwan in Wikipedia would probably exclude Tiawan from coverage, even though some of these articles cover things that also occur in Taiwan. Lemongirl942 also underestimates the extent to which some of these arts appear in Chinese cultural communities in Canada, the US, Australia and other places in the world where overall the Chinese are not a large portion of the population but they have large enough concentrations in some areas to produce a broad array of cultural phenomenon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2017 (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:Women atheists

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Women atheists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete, yet another extreme example of WP:OVERCAT, most of the people in this article are not notable for being atheist and for being women. They are either notable women who happen to be atheists or notable atheists who happen to be women. Whatever the case it would seem silly having similar categories such as Category:Women agnostics or Category:Women deists. We don't have any gender related categories pertaining to religons that I know of, expept for stuff such as nuns and monks which is gender based by structure as only men can become imams or monks and only women can become nuns in certain religions. Atheism of course has none of that. Yes there were some women who where vocal atheist and incorporated it in their activism for women's rights, but we already have Category:Atheist feminists which sums up those individuals (both women and non-women) nicely. Which ever way you cut it the category looks like clumping two unrelated facts together. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see no WP:CATGENDER-based rationale for keeping this category.
    For years, there was a series of daft decisions at CFD which left us without gendered categories for clearly-gendered occupations such as actors, and it took months of protracted argument to puncture that erroneous groupthink and uphold WP:CATGENDER. However, categories like this are the mirror image of that folly, by creating a gendered category for which the long-standing guidance provides no support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the absence of a male equivalence speaks volumes as to whether atheism by gender is a notable intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_6&oldid=1138410755"