Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 15 July 17 >

July 16[edit]

Category:Ecoregions of Central African Republic[edit]

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: speedy deleted per sole author request. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ecoregions of Central African Republic: category replaced with Category:Ecoregions of the Central African Republic consistent with other categories for the country.

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:Filipina beauty pageant winners[edit]

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 & rename to Category:Winners of beauty pageants in the Philippines; revisit if this creates problems with Category:Beauty pageant winners by nationality. This form has local consensus but is inconsistent with the wider tree so there may need to be a further discussion to decide if either the tree should be altered or if the Filipino category should be an exception or if it should be renamed again to conform to it. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Filipina beauty pageant winners to Category:Filipino beauty pageant winners
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Only suggest because although Filipino and Filipina seem to be different gender usage, there are two different categories for female beauty pageant winners, and since people tend to say "Filipino" more, I think this merge would be appropriate. If someone feels Filipina would be better, whatever. Just as long as there aren't two categories anymore. Shakesomeaction (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a democratic name, even if Wiki is not a democracy. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are we trying to categorize people who won pagents in the Phillipines, or Filipino people who won pagents. There is a very high overlap between these two cats, but they are not neccesarily the same. A filipino working in the UAE (there are a lot, and the UAE makes sure to keep them unquestionably foreigners) might win a beuty pageant there (at least in theory). Would we want that person to be in this category, or not. On the other hand, an American in the Phillipines might in theory participate in a beuty pagent run by Filipnino people. Should they qualify for this category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dunno how this would help decide, but most notable Philippine beauty pageants have specific stipulations requiring Filipino citizenship (and Filipino ancestry). Several contestants (of part Filipina ancestry) have been dethroned before for not having a Filipino citizenship. The most recent being Venus Raj, though she was reinstated because it was a technicality. FWIW, I think it's the latter. i.e. It would include a Filipina winning a pageant in UAE, but would exclude a purely American citizen of non-Filipino ancestry winning a Philippine pageant (it may be noted that Americans of Filipino descent often have dual citizenship per Republic Act No. 9225, they can even vote in Philippine elections).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Winners of Filipino beauty pageants. I think the intent of these categories is to categorize people by location/national affiliation of the pagent. It is basically along the same lines of Category:Alumni by university or college in the Phillipines and the other members of that cat and similar cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am ok with either of Good Ol'factory's comments. I made the one I chose in part to avoid getting mocked for misspelling Phillipine or Phillipines because I always get confused about how many ls there are and how many ps there are. I think the last one is probably the best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2011 (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:Toronto Blue Jays draft picks[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Toronto Blue Jays draft picks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-defining characteristic. This holds true for all draft picks categories, and especially true in baseball, where players are regularly drafted by multiple teams in different years. Back in 2007, there was a consensus to delete the container category but this was not included in the discussion.TM 15:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Draft-picks cats just act as a way to put sportspeople in even more cats, which is not needed, they already tend to be in a mind-boggling number of cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2011 (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:Songs with music by Will Grosz[edit]

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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs with music by Will Grosz to Category:Songs with music by Wilhelm Grosz
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article name space. Richhoncho (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming, possibly with redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2011 (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:Members Parliament of Sri Lanka[edit]

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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Members of 1st Parliament of Sri Lanka to Category:Members of 1st Parliament of Ceylon
Propose renaming Category:Members of 2nd Parliament of Sri Lanka to Category:Members of 2nd Parliament of Ceylon
Propose renaming Category:Members of 3rd Parliament of Sri Lanka to Category:Members of 3rd Parliament of Ceylon
Propose renaming Category:Members of 4th Parliament of Sri Lanka to Category:Members of 4th Parliament of Ceylon
Propose renaming Category:Members of 5th Parliament of Sri Lanka to Category:Members of 5th Parliament of Ceylon
Propose renaming Category:Members of 6th Parliament of Sri Lanka to Category:Members of 6th Parliament of Ceylon
Propose renaming Category:Members of 7th Parliament of Sri Lanka to Category:Members of 7th Parliament of Ceylon
Nominator's rationale: Prior to 1972 Sri Lanka was known as Ceylon and its legislature was known as the Parliament of Ceylon. Renaming would bring some consistency. obi2canibetalk contr 13:48, 16 July 2011 (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:African American women[edit]

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 as a container, move individual articles to relevant subcategories. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hispanic and Latino American women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Ethnicity_and_raceCurb Chain (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is already a category with a host of subcats (bearing the admonition "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable"), so (a) categorising the list is nonsensical; and (b) deleting the category would leave the various subcats (many of which are valid) adrift. I agree with the admonition: being African American is not in itself worthy of categorisation, so the articles at the top level should be removed. Eg Melonie Diaz is in a valid 'descent' subcat of the 2nd one, so can (should) be removed from the top level. Occuli (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If the category is retained, it should be populated only by subcategories, on the model of Category:African-American people and the many many subcategories. My understanding is that in the context of U.S. history and culture, "African American" is here understood as an ethnicity with a particular cultural heritage and as a specialized academic field of historical study, not as a genetic "race." Second, while standard policy is not to categorize by gender, WP:Cat gender allows for exceptions (and I could list many) when "a topic is of special encyclopedic interest." "Encyclopedic interest" should not be tested by "does this serve my or someone else's political agenda?" It should be tested by whether the topic is a recognized field of study, which "African American women's history" indeed is. These search results are one indicator of the validity of "African American women's history" as an academic field: the search parameters were "African American women" in the title, plus a university publisher. Based on the current wording of WP:Cat gender, I can't find any criterion by which this category can be deleted unless all categories labeled "African American" are deleted. (To clarify, "African American women" is a subcategory of "African American people," not a separate category.) Cynwolfe (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How far will you take this categorization? Is every African American woman a special point of interest? What's next? Category:African American female actors? Generally you would have to make a male counter-part in most of those categories, as they are equally "interesting" in a historical perspective. Anything else would be sexist. I believe you would also have to look at Irish American categories, as they have a history dating back several hundreds of years, and is also an academic field. (See this link.) Oh, and I also believe that Swedish American would fit the "academic field" categorization. (See this and this link.) Where do you draw the line? Nymf hideliho! 08:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are suggesting anything here, let me just say, if it were my way in this place the creation of categories would be endless. YES that is the truth. People would be able to create to their imagination's delight. Women would not be put down by being told that their achievements are some fabled dream and be shut down immediately. I believe, to be honest, that if people want to create a "Swedish Americans," "Irish Americans," categories, go ahead, create to your heart's content. I would not create them only because they would be immediately deleted by people here in this small group. They would be called invalid. In nature, when things don't work, they die out. Humans do not choose what plants and animals are useful so we must get rid of them (and I know someone will find a tiny exception in their research--I am speaking broadly). That is how Darwin explained it. We would find out what categories didn't work because they would be the least used, least populated. Wow, logic here. If you wish to take the task to create a Swedish American category, I have absolutely no problem with it--I think it's great! But I warn you, many of these people will not listen to reason. And the point is you never draw a line. There shouldn't be a line drawn. Wikipedia has unlimited space. Use it. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your concern is "sexism," your analogy to Irish American doesn't connect: "Irish American" is comparable to "African American," which is a label for many subcategories within Category:African American people. The only question here is Category:African American women as a matter of gender, unless you delete all "African American" categories. My argument is purely legalistic: WP:Cat gender supports it as "a topic of special encyclopedic interest" because there is a substantial body of scholarship that deals with African American women's history. As for acting, professional bodies that present awards such as the Oscars and Tony Awards do distinguish between actors and actresses. My personal feminist goals have nothing to do with how topics are categorized as research tools. Categories should be supported by fields of scholarship. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is ironic people keep mention Irish American--I am of Irish descent. In spite of that I would not create a category based on Irish Americans because there is not a lot of need for it. I actually think any category people want to create should be allowed on Wikipedia, but there are a lot of people who are a bit stuffed here, so that's not going to happen. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regard to your interpretation of the WP:Cat/gender guideline, does being an African American women automatically make you a point of interest? If not, how do you separate the two? Nymf hideliho! 14:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American women is and should be a container category, so no individual articles would be in it. Ideally, there would be an article explaining what "African American women's history" is, or this could be a section of women's history. My biggest concern with categorization in general is when it becomes a form of OR; articles are far too often categorized in disregard of the WP:CAT guideline that it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. So no, women who happen or appear to be "African American" shouldn't automatically be categorized as "African American women" (which should only be a container category anyway); if you read the article, it should be clear to you that this woman has been discussed by RS as part of African American women's history. That means the editors who are doing the categorizing need to slow down, read, and think. An admitted rarity. But that's what guideline requires. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not judging by appearances--I've categorized based on the already-made categories. Now if this is a problem, then that is something that needs to be taken up with someone else. I simply placed people in the "women" category. If you find it to be dubious that people are marking others with ethnicity solely based on looks or presumption, that's not an issue that I have been involved in. These were women that were already in the African American people category. I admit I may have been a little too extreme at first, I may had done things the incorrect way, as I was simply wanting to look at women of all ethnicities in an even playing field and it was hard for me to research because the majority of Americans in any given category is of mostly white, European/English ancestry--- but as I've said time and time again, for me it's a women's issue. I was under the assumption, since I am not often on Wikipedia, that many people are categorized that way due to this category. I simply saw making a women's category for each, and yes, even for people of Scotch-Irish descent, even for people of Irish descent. That category is simply to be a container category and if anyone feels like emptying it out, sure do it. This really is the final time I am saying this. This has caused me way too much grief to continue discussing it. Maybe if I had made gendered categories for Americans of Irish descent like myself, this category would have not caused such hoopla!--Shakesomeaction (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can be more polite this time.... The thing is, in the United States, the African American women are considered what is called a "double minority." Which means they have had to work double harder for notability. That is not to say that your struggle is not valid. There is a category for Swedish women: Category:Swedish women. You are notable because you are a woman and I assume you are Swedish (since this was the example used last time). You are notable because you are a woman, and women are a social minority. (Actually I know nothing about the politics in Sweden, but obviously someone found Swedish women notable.) I hate the term minority, to be honest, but that's just how it goes. There are people who will try to say these categories mean nothing and should be deleted. Should they be deleted? It's just a matter of who cares the most. Many people care about deleting this very category. I wonder who will care the most about Swedish women?--Shakesomeaction (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The case you are making is that you are assuming that people treat women differently. That's certainly not my case. I certainly don't treat women less valuable than men.Curb Chain (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
many if not all of those ethnic "groups" are not sourced, some of them are not anthropologically sound, if you were to ask an individual from one of these ethnic groups, they will use another ethnonym and endonym.Curb Chain (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will also comment that the subcategories are built on the model of American women by occupation.--Shakesomeaction (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would also propose that the overall problem here (which needs to be addressed elsewhere) is that categorization should not be exempt from WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH; that is, an article should not be placed in a category unless reliable sources can verify that the topic belongs in that category. Categorization should not be a sneaky way to insert POV or a political agenda. Categories exist to aid readers in researching a topic; topics should be verifiable as such. That's why I support Category:African American women as a container category: because RS verify that African American women's history is a recognized field of study that users can be expected to research as a focus. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no political agenda here. I am solely trying to make women's categories here to make women's history in the US easier to research, and that is my only reason. Hispanic and Latina women actually are recognized in the United States. A quick search for me came up with a syllabus at University of Michigan for a Special Topics course which was looking at Hispanic women who have made history (it says Spanish, but they are all of Hispanic heritage). I understand that source is not verifiable, it's not a good source, but it only serves as an example to show in the US that this really is a topic that is of importance, just the same as "African American women." Considering that Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority in the United States, I would be hard pressed not to find a thing about Hispanic women and their history that would be considered verifiable sources. This is definitely not WP:SYNTH on my part. For example, I am an Irish American women. There is little if any research on Irish American women out there. I would not create a category on Irish American women. While it's my belief that people of all heritage should be recognized no matter the amount of research done, that is not how it goes on Wikipedia, and I only create these categories according to the guidelines, which I have made myself familiar with. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on further reflection the only thing I can see that might be a problem with Category:Hispanic and Latino American women is it needs a rename to Category:Hispanic and Latino women because this is repetitive--the category name was given based on parent category's name Category:Hispanic and Latino American people, which is repetitive in itself, in my opinion. I still feel that this category is of scholarly importance. Hispanic women are recognized in the United States in research, college courses, and in literature. If there is not enough evidence based this or what people may find otherwise, I will give this category a rest, but I feel as a container category it would be useful. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources to prove that entries belong in "your" categories, you should provide them, before listing them into the category.
There is a big difference between people who speak castillian, and people who are actually castillian. For example, I speak english as my first language, but I am not english. Hispanic people may be only related by their culture, which I am not sure if that is your purpose for you category. One thing's for sure: "Hispanic" is a "race", and it is a porous definition at best, of an ethniticy.Curb Chain (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hispanic is listed under ethnicities on Wikipedia, and is meant to describe the Spanish countries of Central and South America. I'm not trying to be a expert on this topic--I am solely a woman creating categories for easy research on American women's history for my friends and me. It would definitely be better if a woman from America and who was Hispanic created the category. Hispanic is considered an ethnicity in the United States. Hispanics can range in race from mixed, black, to white. I did not make the category "White women." This is taken from census data.--Shakesomeaction (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please read race and ethnicity.
  2. Please read ethnicity and culture.
  3. I am not sure if you are confusing culture and language.
  4. Please do not make categories solely for your friends and yourself: material created for leisure may be deleted from wikimedia projects
  5. It wouldn't matter who created a category (or, page) if the creation was out of (good-)reason.Curb Chain (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have category:white people or category:white women for this reason.Curb Chain (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This category was nominated about 6 days ago from today here. I am going to notify those who opined in the discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I find it really interesting that canvassing does not apply ON WIKIPEDIA? What is up with that? that's a ridiculous roundabout rule.--Shakesomeaction (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing, wikiepedia-sense, indicates a intentional biased informing of a specified group. I did no such thing as I informed ALL past participants of the administratively closed-discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A week ago it was clear these needed to be deleted and it still is the ase. There is no justicfication for creating cats that merge nationality, ethniucity and gender. This is a triple intersect which is higly discoraged, and there is no reason here. These cats put people together who have virtually nothing in common, and considering how many occupation or specific ethnicity subcats the non-gender divided parent cats here have, this ma=inly just functions as a way to create even more categories that one person could go in, which we do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::I suggest you use a spellcheck. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Category:African American women may say it is a container category, but it is acting as the container category for a bunch of other categories that were made without any proper consideration of the rules of categorizing gender. The subcats have not been made with proper consideration of whether we need to sub-cat women by gender and race in that field, and some there is no clear precedent for even seperating out women in the field. The whole process of breaking up the cat into even smaller categories has not been endorsed, and I think we need to really consider why it is being done at all. I do not think there is enough consensus for cateogrizing African American females, and so even less for any of the occupation sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of these categories have been clearly based on the American women categories. Category:American female lawyers, Category:American women in politics, Category:American women's rights activists, Category:American women in business, Category:American women judges. These types of categories exist in other countries too, separated by gender, and there appears to be no violation. But if you believe there is, I think you guys may want to nominate them for deletion--since you tend to be the one who nominates women's categories the most I suggest you look for them. --Shakesomeaction (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah they aren't violations of the policy if you see Category:American_female_lawyers, Category:Iranian_women_lawyers. If these are violation of policy, then I suppose all women's categories should be deleted, as they don't conform. Also I have been spoken to about what happened on the previous occasion, so that is another issue. It's become clear to me that although there is a clear con census off of Wikipedia for these types of categories, the few editors who patrol these categories for deletion do not welcome categories that note women's personal history in this way, and that is why I am discontinuing any more of my work on any of these categories. Hey, I give up. Thanks, you win. I figured you guys would delete African American Women once you got a chance. And I apologize for insulting you, it was immature of me. I have anger issues sometimes, and it was an inappropriate way to react.--Shakesomeaction (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff existing is not a justification to keep other material. Cleanups and changes of consensus can take time and for many areas, you can go though several revisions before the 'final' solution is found. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#Precedent in usage. When particular questions have been addressed in major points or in general, it isn't necessary to reinvent the wheel every time a round thing with spokes turns up. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that no other similar categories exist (i.e. no Category:Greek American women etc.) has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of this category. Please judge the notability of this particular grouping on its own. Plenty of sources specifically discuss African American women. 5 million in Google (click, with plenty of books talking explicitly about them (click). Whether we like it or not, the grouping is notable in the US.
Most importantly, the rationale of the nominator (WP:CAT/EGRS) does not support deletion. Please read further to the Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Special subcategories subsection. I quote:
Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created.
And yes, African American women as a topic has artifcles and significant subsections related to it. See African-American Woman Suffrage Movement and African Americans in the 1960s#Change in the status of women.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've cited other policy and guideline support for this category above, but would also like to support Obsidian Soul's reasoning in its entirety. I too am unclear about what specific criteria for deletion are being evoked here. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After the outcome of this debate, List_of_African_American_women will still need to be deleted as b/c if this category is kept, that page will be made redundant per its deletion discussion, and if kept, will still be made redundant as the category has been madeCurb Chain (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. I said it in the earlier discussion and I will say it again. Women's history is difficult enough to find information on if one is doing research in that field, but it is even more difficult if you want to learn about women of color and their contributions to history - which are often glossed over or ignored altogether in most general history classes, I might add. And much like an unsigned comment in said previous discussion, there are print encyclopedias on women of color, so Wikipedia should be making information like that accessible as possible to those scholars and budding scholars who need it for whatever reason. There's no need for an online encyclopedia to be behind on the times. Caterfree10 (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In response to most "keep" posts above, this has nothing to do with a subject (such as African American women) being notable or not, but rather that people shouldn't be categorized this way according to the guidelines. Keep the two apart. Number of Google hits or works on the subject is completely irrelevant in this discussion. Nymf hideliho! 19:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite the specific 'guideline' you are referring to? Categories, like everything else, rely on notability. Otherwise, what else is the minimum threshold for categories then? Subjective "shouldn't" rationales aren't really a very clear way of explaining anything. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is not enough to show that female lawyers are a group that fits criteria. You have to show that African-American female lawyers are such a group. You can not just say "because females in general are a noticed group, we can apply this to African American females".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The specific argument here is that "African American women's history" is a recognized scholarly field, that is, a topic of special encyclopedic interest and a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right, as can be demonstrated by books on the subject published by university presses (not the "number of hits" but the quantity and quality of RS available). Only the Category:African American women has been nominated for deletion, not the subcategories within it. The existence of these subcategories depends on whether there are articles to populate it; as discussed above, an article should be placed in a category only if it's clear from the body text why, based on RS. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And being a scholarly field does not mean that we need a series of categories that use said terms. I suppose that you could make a better argument for Category:African American women's history in the United States for articles on the topic of African American women's history in the United States, especially if we had a lead article. The issue with a category based on race is that everyone can be thrown into it even if the fact that they are of that race is defining for them. How do you propose to limit membership to only individuals where this characteristic is defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose following the WP:CAT guideline that it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. If the biography discusses the impact of its subject on African American women's history, based on RS, then it belongs in a subcat of the container Category:African American women. I confess that I have no response to the logic of deleting a category because a body of scholarship is devoted to it. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, no objection to that. Where I suspect the problem will be is if this closes with a cleanup of the subcategories, several editors will go ape over the emptying of the children categories. That may lead to edit wars. But that is not a reason to not choose the correct option. I will ask, is it better to try and cleanup up the contents of those categories manually or is it easier to delete and allow recreation for properly sourced articles? I'll bet the latter wins this discussion. However no matter how you get there, the mere existence of the subcategories will be a magnet for improperly sourced articles. That in the long run will be a maintenance nightmare. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a sock puppet account--my other account is now inaccessible (which I did myself), because I chose to exit this conversation, but I wanted to make this comment. I agree with the views of Cynwolfe and Obsidian Soul. I will admit that I was overzealous at first when categorizing, and should have put a bit more thought into creating the category. That was a bad decision on my part in spite of the intentions. That said, that and any category that is made similar to it should solely be a container category and not have individual women in it. Women should be recognized individually for their achievements. Thanks.--Shakesomeaction2 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Race + gender can be important characteristics in terms of defining people. It is also important for understanding women's history in a broader context, race related history in a broader context. --LauraHale (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not reallyCurb Chain (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That really particularly depends on your point of view. This appears appears to be a WP:POINT because it was mentioned on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 15. Beyond that, you have yet to offer up a single source that says this category is not notable, that the United States is a post racial society, that African American women have not faced dual discrimination because of their race and gender. I've provided you sources, at your request, but you're just saying: "Well, in my opinion, this isn't important." It is a well established way of sorting people and discussing people in an American context. The group has historically faced dual discrimination because of race and gender. This situation has not changed. Beyond that, it will create ill will on Wikipedia because it makes WP look institutionally racist and sexist. --LauraHale (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not at all: this was a procedural renomination of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_11#Category:African_American_women. Well, it makes wikipedia a soapbox. And I believe that racism or this "hostility" is the result of certain people's perception, really.Curb Chain (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is not established that this is defining from this discussion. Important or nice to have is not a reason to retain a category. In addition, the existence of the first one seems to be creating a problem in other discussions with the arguments that as long as we are keeping the parent we should not delete the children and then here saying retain as a parent category. So if the only firm reason to retain the parent category is to hold children categories which are then justified by the existence of the parent we will never have a resolution. Delete this and then see if we need any of the children categories. And as I said above, most of the articles included in the children categories probably can be removed since the articles would not support their inclusion in these category trees. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Vegaswikian: This is a well defined group. There are academic study programmes dedicated to research this category: Department of Africana Women's Studies @ Clark Atlanta University. If this category was not notable, can you explain the existence of such academic bodies? --LauraHale (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that "Africana" is the feminine form of "Africanus" meaning "African male". Sure, category:African women is notable, as they exist, but what is the notability of African American women? Where is category:Asian American women? Where is the category:Australian American women? Where's category:European American women?Curb Chain (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The use of african american is rendered moot by One-drop rule.Curb Chain (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have yet to see a single argument against this category citing WP policy and guidelines rather than personal feelings or political views about race, ethnicity, and gender. Since this is getting long, let me reiterate the policy-based arguments:
    • There are 17 subcategories of Category: African-American people that serve as precedents for using "African American" as an ethnic designator for a culture in the context of U.S. history and society; see Precedent in usage. This has nothing to do with "racial" categorizing, and the emotive "one drop" remark should be struck. Historically, this has been a self-designation for a group as a matter of cultural pride. Universities teach courses on the subject of African American history, and some have African American studies departments. There is a vast amount of RS that indicate the value of the category as a research tool.
    • Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Special subcategories: Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created.
      • A distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right: A substantial number of books from university presses cover the topic "African American women's history". One indication is a title search of "African American women" with a university publisher, as shown here.
      • These books could be used to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article called "African American's women history," which could also be summarized and "see also" referenced at women's history. The category reflects a topic of special encyclopedic interest, as required by WP:Cat gender.
    • Category:African American women is and should be a container category.
    • Articles should be placed in subcategories of Category:African American women only if clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" (see WP:CAT).

Now, my opinion above is only a weak keep; I'm open to persuasion if specific policies and guidelines indicate that the category should be deleted. I can't find any, and so far nobody who supports deletion can either. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment and suggetion This same discussion is springing up in different places because the way categories are set up currently is not very useful. A suggestion has been proposed to convert categories into a series of database-searchable fields of metatags, with the "types" of fields determined by the software as dictated by consensus, but the field metatag "values" directly editor-determined like any other. Every biography, for instance, would have field types for sex, birthdate, and deathdate, and fields that can handle multiple values for religion, ethnity/race, places of residence, educational institutions, occupations, military ranks, awards, etc.; and then you could search from any article for others that shared however many fields you want to check off, or from within a field index. There would be a centralized process for creating or removing fields, so that way individual editors could not decide that "shoe size" or "breast size" should exist as fields, and field values could be tagged as equivalent so we wouldn't have arguments about whether British or American spelling should be used. Then and only then would we not have arguments over whether we should have categories for women but not men, intersection categories for religion and a particular occupation, or whatever. Someone else suggested that this can be done using Semantic MediaWiki. I think it's a worthwhile effort to look into doing this. USchick (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a followup comment, I think we create serious problems anytime we separate "Women" categories out of "People" categories. If you're doing research, unless you're a serious WP editor and understand the back-end labyrinth process, you'd never think to go looking for women separated out of the "people" category. USchick (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Obsidian Soul and Cynwolfe. Googling (or Google-Booksing) "African-American women" shows the extent to which it exists as a defining category outside WP. Here's an illustrative online bibliography. Dsp13 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2011 (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:Cape Verde-type storm[edit]

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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cape Verde-type storm to Category:Cape Verde-type hurricanes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose renaming to match the main article Cape Verde-type hurricane. If name is kept as-is, it at least needs to be pluralized to "storms". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2011 (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:Bailando por un sueño participants[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bailando por un sueño participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizing people by project. We don't have categories for "People who were on Dancing with the Stars", etc. So this should go as well. Dismas|(talk) 02:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator is only sort of corrected, there is a category for those who participated in the Australian dancing with the stars series. I just nominated that for deletion though. The more clear precedent is that we do not categorize actors by TV shows they appeared in, so there is no clear reason why we should characterize non-actors in a TV series. For all I know some of the participants here are actors which would make things even worse, but that is another issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2011 (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:Managed File Transfer[edit]

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: Speedy rename C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Managed File Transfer to Category:Managed file transfer
Nominator's rationale: Fix capitalization; not a proper noun. See category's main article. Cybercobra (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2011 (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/2011_July_16&oldid=1074807558"