Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 17 July 19 >

July 18[edit]

Category:Comedians from Ontario[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: No rename; no consensus to upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Comedians from Ontario to Category:Ontario, Canada comedians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Category:Quebec comedians and fix the ambiguous nature of the current name. Of course if the reverse is deemed better... Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there is your larger question of FOOian comedians or Comedians from Foo. But also whether we even need a provincial split from the Canadian comedians cat. I have a feeling our colleague John Pack Lambert will think not, and I may agree with him on this one. Quebec is a distinct culture and nation within Canada so there may be an argument for some exceptionalism in that case... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of got there in looking at the comedian tree and this one needs some kind of renaming. Even if you don't think that it is ambiguous, then if should be changed to Category:Ontario comedians to match Quebec or that one should be changed to match this one. Oh, and from the introduction for the category, 'Comedians from Ontario, Canada.' So someone realized that the name is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As we don't have Category:American comedians by state (or some such) I do think we should delete upmerge this one. Or if kept, renamed to Category:Ontario comedians as you propose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to an upmerge, if that is where consensus is going to be, we probably should include Category:Quebec comedians. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support upmerging the Quebec category, as it's a recognized national/ethnic entity within the Canadian federation. 00:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename; support upmerge. I support an upmerge of this to the parent categories for the reasons discussed. But if kept, I oppose the renaming because the current name matches the standard format of the subcategories of Category:People from Ontario by occupation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the category currently seems small, I think it could be expanded. People by X occupation from Y subnational entity is an established format at least for countries that are large or culturally diverse in their various locales. I have had multiple friends from both Ontario, California and Ontario, Oregon, but I never thought there might be location confusion until someone suggested it here. The stard with all US cities except about the 20 largest is to virtually always pair them with the state name, so I do not think there is any reason to expect any confusion. The current name also helps show that this is place of origin location and not a type of commedy identifier. The potential for confusion here may be low, but I think it helps if we keep these two concepts clearly distinct. I understand why Shawn made his comment, but I think he ignores the general ambivalence I have about making categories that excessively subdivide the real world based on what fictional things were set there, in part because I never was able to understand it enough to express it in the discussion that caused him to think I have a vendetta against Candian sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 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:Songs written by New Found Glory[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: Split. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs written by New Found Glory to Category:Songs written by Jordan Pundik, Category:Songs written by Chad Gilbert, Category:Songs written by Steve Klein,Category:Songs written by Ian Grushka, Category:Songs written by Cyrus Bolooki and Category:Songs written by Joe Moreno or as appropriate.

Nominator's rationale: Split. Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way. Making categories of songwriters by band member affiliation is a huge headache and not at all helpful to navigation. This has been discussed before in respect of The Bee Gees ,The Miracles and Lady Antebellum which resulted in a split. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Makes no sense to have it by band. What if they had an ever-changing line up that leads to dozens of drummers, bassists, etc - it implies they all were credited in writing songs. Lugnuts (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split. This is the consensus. Songs are normally credited by people who wrote them, not by a band, choir, ensemble or other musical group that wrote them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While we certainly categorize songs by songwriter, I think having these in the artist category (Category:New Found Glory songs) is sufficient in this case. Most of the songs in the category are listed as being written by the band, not by an individual member, and AFAICT none of the band members are individually notable as songwriters. Having separate by-songwriter categories for each band member would not really give any additional value since the band's songs are already grouped in the by-artist category. Jafeluv (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I did put a note on the creator's talkpage. I note, if I remember correctly, of the 5 entries, 2 are credited as written by "New Found Glory," one as Steve Klein, and 2 are silent as to who wrote the song. I have no problems with deletion, if somebody wants to verify and create categories by individual songwriters at a later stage, they should be free to do so. It is only the format we are really discussing here. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:31, 25 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:Marcel Proust scholars[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) 19:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Marcel Proust scholars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: User:Stefanomione continues to create "Fooian scholars" for bio articles where well-known authors are mentioned, even if only in passing. Only George Painter seems to be defined by his work as a Proustian scholar. The rest are relatively trivial mentions and if this trend is allowed to continue, Stefanomione will create a myriad of such categories, I'm certain, which seem to me to be a sort of academic version of WP:OC#PERF. (FYI, he's also created Category:Marcel Proust translators, which I am not nominating). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:44, 18 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 Americans in Texas[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) 13:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African Americans in Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not part of a category tree, nor should it be, as there is no precedent to list people by ethnicity/ancestry by state within a country - WP:OC. Mayumashu (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteCurb Chain (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The high migration from state to state in the US makes this and sister cats potentially overlarge. It works when we have politicians by state, because the person actually has had to run for an office there, but this category just invites to many people being subcated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 18 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 Americans in Nebraska[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) 13:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:African Americans in Nebraska to Category:African American in Nebraska
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Is part of the tree Category:Ethnic groups in Nebraska, but, as such, it should be about the experience of being African American and not a list of African Americans from Nebraska. Mayumashu (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the creator of this category I intended it to be wholly inclusive the experience of African Americans in Nebraska, as you said. It is far from a list. However, the singular form of the word is inappropriate, as it does not capture the pluralistic perspectives contained within the category. • Freechildtalk 15:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that last phrase mean? How does changing from plural to singular in one word eliminate a reference to pluralistic perspectives? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 19 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 Americans by state[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) 13:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African Americans by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category tree that never developed, nor is there precedent to categorize individuals by their ethnicity/ancestry by sub-national location. Mayumashu (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteCurb Chain (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this category has existed since December of last year, but only has two categories, Texas and Nebraska. While expecting it to have categories for every state would be a bit excessive, if it was a useful cat one would expect the state with the highest percentage of African-Americans (Mississippi) and the state with the most African-Americans (New York at least as of 2000) to be included. The fact that neither of those states have this category suggests that it is not a category that can get enough attention to be made useful at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 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:African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska[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: Rename to Category:African American life in Omaha, Nebraska. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska to Category:African American in Omaha, Nebraska
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Intended to be, or should be, about the experience of being African American in Omaha; WP:OC to list categorize individual people by ancestry/ethnicity by state within the U.S.; the supracategory for the experience of being African American is Category:African American. Mayumashu (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this suggestion too Mayumashu (talk) 15:06, 19 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:Wisconsin elections, 2011[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wisconsin elections, 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There really is no point to this category. There was one page in it, and it was unlikely to gain a second page, so that one page should just be in left in the parent category. Rrius (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With a set of categories by year or by country/state/province it is accepted that there will be some with many articles and some with few but because they are part of a categorization scheme it is accepted that every year or country with an article will be in the appropriate category even if there are only one or two members for some years/countries. There is a tag referring to the page where this is explained but this is not referred to anywhere on the so-called “Help” article on categorization. But what seems unnecessary is to create year categories for each state (back to 1861), see Category:2008 in the United States by state where for most of the states the only content of the category (eg Category:2008 in Alaska) is the subcategory for elections. Only California seems to have much content other than elections! Hugo999 (talk) 09:12, 18 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:Kyoto Purple Sanga players[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Kyoto Purple Sanga players to Category:Kyoto Sanga F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The club was renamed by its organization remained the same. See Kyoto Sanga F.C. Mayumashu (talk) 05:30, 18 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:Women by occupation and subcategories[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Women by occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, or at least Rename. Modern style guides consistently recommend parallel treatment for male and female professionals, rather than qualifying their professions by gender ("woman engineer", "male nurse") as it enforces traditional gender stereotypes: with no gender qualification, all engineers are assumed to be men, and nurses are all women. Note that Wikipedia has no parallel Category:Men engineers, etc categories.
Here are some quotes from some style guides I found online:
  • ...the unnecessary use of such modifiers subtly implies that there is something abnormal about being a woman doctor, or a black one, and that the norm for doctors is white and male. [1]
  • By including a reference to sex, you imply that women or men are oddities in certain situations or occupations...[2]
  • Depict men and women equally in the workplace.[3]
  • Non-sexist language is free of sexual stereotyping and treats men and women equally.... Avoid gratuitous adjectives or qualifiers that create an unnecessary distinction between sexes.[4]
In addition, please note that "woman" is a noun and "female" is the correct usage as an adjective in those cases when a professional's gender is actually relevant to their notability. E.g., some references from style guides I found online:
  • For clarity, careful writers use female as an adjective only and woman as a noun only.[5]
  • If you need to use an adjective, it is female and not "woman" in such phrases as female MPs, female president.[6]
  • Use “woman” as a noun, and “female” as an adjective.[7]
64.93.125.3 (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is a presumed difference between men and women when it doesn't exist. For example, we have a subcat category:Female economists. I think this is unnecessary, as the gender or sex of the employee does not change the quality of work.Curb Chain (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, concubinage is an occupation? Here I thought it was a type of personal relationship.  :-S We might just as well have Category:Husbands and Category:Divorced women, which are equally pointless ways of categorizing people. 64.93.125.3 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument for removing Category:Concubines from Category:Women by occupation, not a matter for cfd. What about Category:Sportswomen? In any case the subcats are not tagged so cannot be deleted. Occuli (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Women by occupation, as it is a subcat scheme for Category:Women. We have had many cfd discussions about 'female' vs 'women' (as adjective) without any obvious consensus. Occuli (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not think anyone has yet come up with a good explanation of why we have any of these categories. Our current rules make Category:women engineers and Category:male nurses very likely, and actually encorage these types of categories. I think it would be best to accept that it is never really useful to put people in to categories based on their gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
While this seems ethical for a world where everyone is equal and treated fairly at all times in every situation, the truth is we are not in that world, and because of that certain adjustments have to be made to reflect women's achievements accurately. It is not "abnormal" to be a female doctor, there is nothing weird about it, but it is certainly of notability because of the documented history of this population. That is what makes it notable. What makes it notable to be a woman? Because of the documented history of women around the world. It is a scholarly discipline and recognized in academic studies. To not note these women and their accomplishments is to ignore an important part of American culture which has changed over time, and is still a long way from reaching equality.
Men and women are not equal in the work place in the USA by a long shot, and this should be reflected (to not address it on Wikipedia is to pretend it's not true). In many work-places, women are still not paid the same salary as a man. Women are criticized if they choose to have a family, get married, or get pregnant. Women have long been given the rap that we work less than men (because we may choose to work at home or take care of family, and people do not consider this actual "work"). Women are passed by more for raises and promotions. Women are nowhere equal in the workplace.
I think you and many people here are also confusing sex and gender.
"Female" is currently a disputed term between women. Some women are offended by it because they feel it dehumanizes them. Some women are not offended by the word. This is a real, current issue of dispute in the women's community, at least on the internet. Many people on Wikipedia have shown to prefer not causing controversy. While I don't feel categories already named "female" should be changed, those that are named with the word "women" being changed to female might be taken as an aggressive move to the women who are offended by the word, and these women will speak out about it at some point. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't question that articles that are specifically about issues of discrimination against women in the workplace, the historical background of women in various professions, etc are legitimate and encyclopedic. Likewise some individuals may be notable primarily for breaking gender barriers in their profession. What I question is the legitimacy of categorizing professionals by gender when gender is irrelevant to their work. Please note that WP already has a policy about such over-categorization; WP:CATEGRS sets out this general principle:
Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic.
For example, sportspeople should not be categorized by religion, since e.g. being Catholic or Protestant is not relevant to the way they perform in sports.
Similarly, being male or female is not relevant to the work one does as an engineer, economist, nurse, etc.
As a personal note, let me point out that I am, in fact, an engineer who happens to be female, and one old enough that I can recall being told to my face by my male fellow students in university that women should not be allowed to study engineering because we were taking jobs away from men and would only quit when we got married anyway. Then I was the first woman hired into a group of 40+ male engineers at a large aerospace company, and my male colleagues who worked in other buildings used to come around to my desk to gawk at me as if I were some sort of freak. So, I know first-hand that women have fought a hard battle to be accepted in technical professions and that the issues of subtle discrimination in the workspace are real and ongoing. OTOH, supposing I were notable enough to be listed in Wikipedia, I would object very strongly as being ghettoized as a "woman engineer". After all, I do exactly the same work as my male colleagues, and I'm a mechanical engineer or a software engineer, not a "woman engineer". 64.93.125.3 (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point: you would prefer for the category to not point out women who work in these fields as an exception to the rule. I work in a career where women happen to be the majority--and that is actually very rare in my opinion. But I think that deleting the category altogether is not the answer. Perhaps you and I, and other women of WP can work together to find a way to recognize women's achievements in the working world without making some people like yourself feel singled out as an oddity. I feel like the category should be evolved rather than deleted, and maybe we can work on that together? We could talk about this on the discussion page and I could alert women in the Women's History Project to get involved. I think it's a very important issue. What do you say?--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I'd be open to the idea of keeping the parent category and turning it into a place to put articles like Women in engineering, Women in medicine, or Pink-collar worker, rather than a scheme for categorizing people by gender. Those type of overview articles seem to me to be the right place to discuss the historical and cultural background, how/when different careers opened to women in different countries, provide links to articles about women who are notable for being pioneers in those careers, present current statistics about the number/percentage of women in such fields, etc. That kind of material is clearly encyclopedic. OTOH, it is still not clear to me what useful purpose it serves to categorize individual engineers, economists, physicians, etc by gender when there is no difference in the actual work they do; there's no "woman engineering" or "man engineering", so why do we need Category:women engineers or Category:men engineers instead of just Category:engineers? WP guidelines already say gender-based subcategories are inappropriate, and modern writing style guides pretty much all point out that such qualifications are in fact sexist or patronizing. I'm sure that's not your intent in wanting to recognize women's achievements, but to me the real achievement for women in my field was when I started to feel like we were being treated the same as our male co-workers rather than singled out because of our gender.  :-P 64.93.125.3 (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you entirely. Feminism will have reached its goal when there is no noticed difference between genders (or other groups who are stigmatized). When we don't have to make a big deal out of women for achieving a certain goal--I think this will take longer than just 100 years though, due to our history. Anyway, I was thinking the same as you. I think renaming the engineering category to Category:Women in engineering or Category:History of women in engineering would change the perspective--maybe these would just be articles, but I think there would end up being legitimate groupings for a category like this. Then we could start to re-invent the category (and other occupation categories like it) to inform people about women's contributions to these areas. That way it's not simply categorizing us as "women engineers." I understand your aversion to being called a woman engineer. I mean, if we got a president who happened to be a woman, I would not want her to be called a "woman president." She's the president! Plain and simple. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Suggestion There are many related discussions going on about categories being necessary for research, but the way categories are currently structured is not very useful. This suggestion was 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. Another editor said it can be done through Semantic MediaWiki and that it's a massive technical challenge. Any thoughts? USchick (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that's an incredible idea, but I still think we should create categories or articles similar to Category:Women in engineering without actually labeling individual people as "women engineers." Some people might want to do research on the history of the actual topic. If a category is created like this, related articles could be written about the contributions women have made in engineering. To me this doesn't single women out as an oddity but, again, recognizes their achievements individually. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you've got it backwards.... we don't need a category like Category:Women in engineering until there are a sufficient number of articles on that topic that it's confusing to keep them in the parent category. It's not necessary to create a subcategory before writing those articles. Heck, the current women in engineering article is basically just a stub -- how about filling that in before declaring we need a whole category for this topic? On top of that, I'm highly skeptical that we'll ever see such a number of articles written that would justify converting categories like Category:Female poker players, Category:Women sheriffs, Category:Female explorers, and so on. 64.93.125.3 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I didn't really do any research to see how many articles we have for this subject in particular. There are some subjects that do have enough articles to warrant a category of their own I believe--like women in writing types, etc. They are already created, all they would need is to be placed in the parent category. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good solution for Category:Women by occupation is to rename it Category:Women in the workforce, then subcategories can be explained on their category pages that they should not list individual people, but contain articles like those you suggested: Women in engineering, Women in medicine, Pink-collar worker, etc. Categories must specifically say in description they are not to have specific people, or some editors might start listing people in there. I agree, we should not label people as "female/woman" of their occupation. That defeats equality. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're reaching convergence here. Here is a somewhat more specific revised proposal:
That should get us most of the way there. WDYT? 64.93.125.3 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this will take lots of thought rather than simply making broad deletions.... There are certain categories I do not want to touch, because I don't know enough about them, for example Category:Concubines. From what I know, concubines have several definitions, depending on what country this woman was in, etc. etc. That's my only issue. I prefer myself not to work on issues that I don't have a lot of knowledge in. But by definition a concubine is a position that was only held by women so having women in a category called concubines seems a little redundant. Again I know very little about the history of concubines so... I just don't feel comfortable editing this category myself. But I do agree with the other suggestions like renaming to Category:Women in the workforce, recategorizing Women in engineering, and removing individuals. I would like to hear some other WP women's ideas about it, too, and I hope they will speak up on this. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I caution deletion of Category:Concubines and similar categories that have historical significance. Concubine may be a negative term today, but in Biblical time, wives gave concubines to their husbands. USchick (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the exact point.... I know little to nothing about Concubines, so I wouldn't want to do anything to that category. I think it would be best to only work on categories that we have knowledge of and understand. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're in agreement here. Concubinage is defined as a personal relationship, not an occupation. All I'm suggesting at this point is that we remove Category:Concubines from Category:Women in the workforce, since it clearly doesn't belong there. Whether Category:Concubines should be deleted entirely is a separate discussion and one I also don't want to enter into at this point. 64.93.125.3 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep kind of per Henriettapussycat's excellent explanation (although I do not agree with the proposed rename to "Women in the workforce"). My opinion is basically that while there do exist categories here for which, in Our Modern Age, it's no longer necessary to treat women in those fields as unusual, to get rid of the category tree - or even to get rid of those categories, because of category members from longer ago - would do a disservice to the encyclopedia, making it more difficult for readers to learn about historical women. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I am proposing with the idea of these other Women in (whatever occupation) articles, is that we expand on them and note particular women important to the history in the articles. Much like a history book. I'm of the view that any woman is notable for being a woman. I realize that's an extreme view. So I that's why I'm suggesting we take more time to brainstorm and think about how we would make these categories better and find a way to do it that is much more than just labeling people as this or that. We want to do two things: make research easy, and reflect women's contributions. That is our goal, so we have to seriously think about how to do that. If there are particular women who are in an occupation and have especially contributed, they should be noted. I am not sure how to do that.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This has 61 subcatgories, most/all of which are not going away any time soon. The purpose of categories is to help readers find articles. The articles are not going away either. It does a disservice to WP to delete high level categoies like this. It makes the category system a mismash. Hmains (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I am not proposing we delete any articles, only that we follow WP guidelines for not pointlessly subdividing other categories for grouping people by topic (economists, engineers, poker players,...) by gender when gender is irrelevant to the topic. 64.93.125.3 (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that you try expanding articles like women in (whatever occupation) to note more about the history and particular contributions made by women. I intend to do this myself with articles in these categories. I think this is a project that should be further discussed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History. Then perhaps discussing name changes for the categories. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename main category; delete most sub-categories per 64.93.125.3. cmadler (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Women can be notable as women for their occupation in ways that men may not. The first male doctor is probably not notable. The first female doctor in this country, that state, of that race probably is given some of the historical boundaries put up to keep women from some of these occupations. Would suggest that the articles in these categories be improved and make sure people are included in them only if their gender is a NOTABLE characteristic related to that profession. Beyond that, supporting women's articles, and content featuring women, supporting female contributors is a WMF goal and deleting/merging articles like this one appears to actively work against that goal. --LauraHale (talk) 02:44, 22 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:Idiomatic names[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Idiomatic names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems to me to be a case of overcategorization of unrelated topics by shared naming feature. The fact that the name of the things in this category are idiomatic is a feature of their names alone and has nothing else to do with the nature of the things themselves. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unrelated entries/itemsCurb Chain (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we categorize by qualities of things, not by qualities of their name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: this is not quite true, there are categories such as Category:French loanwords. Therefore, it is not a valid argument for deletion. GregorB (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you see a significant difference between categorizing words that are borrowed from another language versus categorizing names of things that have English names that are idiomatic? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 19 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.

Subcategories of "People from Zagreb County"[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following seem to be overcategorisation:

In most cases, these hold only one article (the largest has three). Each is for a small settlement - in some cases, a place with a population of fewer than 1000 people. Upmerging them all to Category:People from Zagreb County would result in it being bloated out to a mere 16 articles. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because these categories usually contain people who did not live at a time when the Zagreb County as it is today existed, so seeing such a category on those articles would be grossly anachronistic. The same issue exists with all other Croatian counties vs. towns - the former are all a 1997 invention. I understand the desire to avoid having too many tiny categories, but having articles tagged in a wholly incoherent manner would be worse. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very good point that I failed to notice. WP has a long way to go in having categories accurately reflect geopolitical shifts over time - it is hard work and cannot be done perfectly, but here there seems no reason to be misleading purposefully when it can be avoided. Notes giving some explanation of this fact, that the counties only came into existence recently, and therefore, though thinly populated, cats by town are necessary, should be put on each cat page Mayumashu (talk) 15:17, 19 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_18&oldid=1079914868"