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:Delete - following cleanup to remove actors improperly categorized by film, the remaining material does not require a category for navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE nothing more than broader and less relevant articls. Hometech (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2009 (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 merge, but perhaps a rename for clarity should be considered. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Corrections were necessary to the category placement and I made them. No valid reason to merging two categories that serve different purposes, as shown by their content. Hmains (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now. Occuli (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2009 (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:Delete - small eponymous category with little or no likelihood of expansion. The characters subcategory is empty and up for speedy deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OCAT. The film's article and navbox already serve as sufficient navigational hubs. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2009 (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:Delete both male and female categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic per WP:Cat gender. Stepheng3 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the single entry is in fact a duo, a married couple, to judge from other categories in which it has been placed; and is thus not a 'male classical musician'. (There is the large Category:Female classical musicians, in which the couple also appears - one might as well make symmetrical blunders.) Occuli (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per both. No need to disciminate by gender. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the male, upmerge the female to its parents - overcategorization based on sex. Merge the female to insure they remain within the category trees. Otto4711 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CATGRS states that categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic. There does not appear to be a specific relation of being female to being a classical musician. Otto4711 (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Either there should be no female categories or their should be matching male ones. I do not really mine which. Groupings with persons of both sexes should be in the parent category, not either sexual one. Gender is an inappropriate term: I have heard of no people of neuter gender! Peterkingiron (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not fully convinced of the utility of a category in the case of musicians, WP:CATGRS explicitly allows for a "female X" category not to be balanced by a "male X" one — the point and purpose of "female writers", for instance, is not the mere fact that there happen to be writers who are women, but the fact that literature by women is externally recognized by valid reliable academic and media sources as a specific type of literature with a very specific historical, artistic and cultural context. Literature by men simply doesn't have that background; in academic study of literature, there's "women's literature" and genderless "literature", but no such thing as "men's literature" per se. That's why there's a women writers category without a male writers category to match it: "women writers" is an externally-defined subject that is specifically and uniquely studied in its own right, but writers who are men are not studied, nor their output academically analyzed for trends and themes and social impacts, as a group defined by their gender. "Women writers", therefore, is "writers who were or are part of a specific, highly encyclopedic and well-documented literary phenomenon supported by tons upon tons of secondary sources", but "men writers" can never be anything more than "writers who have a penis".
And by the way, gender is the correct term for the presentational and social aspects of maleness/femaleness: "sex" refers to the purely physical aspects. That is, "sex" is about what kind of fun bits you have between your legs — while "gender", not "sex", is about whether you're wearing a dress or a tuxedo to your wedding. The fact that one can deliberately choose to toy with convention by wearing the opposite of the expected wedding garb without surgical intervention is what makes it "gender". Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid use in conjunction with the writers example. The view that gender differences can be wished into insignificance amounts to hiding from reality. DGG (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the specific relationship between sex and classical music, which per WP:CATGRS needs to exist for categories divided by sex? Otto4711 (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2009 (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:delete. If a list is desired and can be annotated, I will provide the articles. Kbdank71 14:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These are borderline speedy deletion candidates because we've consistently deleted Category:Dictators and other categories with similar names. To recap the previous discussions, the problem is that there is no NPOV way of coming up with inclusionary criteria or an agreed-upon definition of "dictator". Links to some of the previous discussions follow:
Keep There's a great definition at the parent article, Dictator. Consistent description as a "dictator" in reliable and verifiable sources should be our standard, per Wikipedia policy. The first two precedents are ancient history, and the third for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_15#Category:Former_dictators is one where there was one keep and one delete, making the close rather questionable and its precedent value about zero. Alansohn (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the POV problems that led to the deletion of previous dictator categories persist. The age of a precedent does not reduce its precedential value, and the most recent CFD was 2-1 for deletion, not 1-1, including the nominator. Otto4711 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the categories are intended to categorize heads of state who, as per Wikipedia's deefinition of a dictator, a head of state who took power by force and controls his or her nation with unquestioned and/or unrestricted power. From the Sidelines (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Otto4711 (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whose definition can we use of anything? Any category that references a parent article *should* be using the definition provided there. If you disagree with the definition at dictator, get consensus to change it. Alansohn (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't use the Wikipedia definition for anything since WP is not a reliable source for WP. Nor should we use any definition for a subjective concept like "dictator". Otto4711 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt most people who have to suffer dictators think that dictator is a "subjective concept"; indeed, it bothersomely real and often deadly. But I suppose in the pristine unreal world of some WP editors, none of this matters. Hmains (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* By that reasoning we shouldn't use WP policy. No, WP is not a citable source for a WP article, but a permalink definition is perfectly valid for a category, or a cut and pasted one. Remember all categories' inclusion criteria are to be found on WP. RichFarmbrough, 23:47 19 May 2009 (UTC).
Delete we don't break people up by subcontinent or continent usually; it's by country (former or current). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs, needs, NEEDS annotations for each category member - and since that can't be done in a category in this case, these should be (at best) lists and not categories, per WP:CLN. - jc37 11:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments deleting Category:Dictators. The fact that Robert Mugabe is in the African one demonstrates the POV nature of the category (as he was elected, there is an opposition etc). Occuli (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Occuli, although Robert Mugabe was initially elected, his ammendments to Zimbabwean laws, persecution of political opponents and rigging of elections essentially make him a dictator. From the Sidelines (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)From the Sidelines[reply]
The very fact that there can be debate on his "dictator"-status is a textbook example of why a category is inappropriate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There can be debate on almost anything, and the talk p. of the article is the place for it. The concept is valid. DGG (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added Category:European dictators. It was created after the start of this discussion, but whatever happens to the others should also probably happen to it. If anyone objects to this late addition, say so. If deleted, we could always have another discussion to follow up on this one, but that would seem a bit overly bureaucratic. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. jc37 hit the nail on the head about the need for annotations which screams for a conversion to a list. While we may think we know a dictator when we see one, clearly for some individuals it is not always clear. Also a list can serve to expand on when many of these people switched from being an elected official or military officer to being a dictator. Clearly the category structure fails us in this regard. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too POV. There is no single, clear, objective definition of when a leader becomes a 'dictator'. Robofish (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2009 (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:Delete as empty; without prejudice to re-creation because it was inappropriately emptied just prior to nomination. I hereby "rebuke" the nominator (while maintaining the smile on my face): Don't manually empty a category prior to nominating it for deletion.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also the issue that the nominated cat narrowly equates economics with finance. As an economist who rarely strays into the area of finance, I have a problem with that. ;-) —SlamDiego←T 05:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's hard to discuss the pros and cons of this proposal because the category in question has been depopulated. --Stepheng3 (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree Category:Economics journals itself is not an ideal name for a category, but as it was the nominated cat had only 2 articles in it, as opposed to the 50 odd in the main one. Naming etc. is a separate issue I think - all that really matters here is that the nominated category serves no purpose (and never did). DJR (T) 14:56, 17 May 2009 (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.
