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:Rename. This can avoid the label of "women engineer" rather than just engineer, but it will still address the subject and can hold women in the engineering careers. Just a rename! Perhaps we can write a sentence or two to inform that this category is for women in the engineering careers and articles related to them. It will also match this article: Women in engineering, which can serve as the main article for the category (which needs to be expanded on BTW!). Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This smacks of excessive political correctness. There is no good reason to insist on the longer phrase "women in engineering" over the shorter and exactly same meaning phrase "women engineers". The intent of the category is to group articles about women who are engineers, I do not think we should change it just to meet some political correctness fad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A woman actually suggested category names like this and you agreed with her in that category rename suggestion just a week ago, so... Either you're a hypocrite or I'm onto something. Or both. Also I'm not sure why being PC is a bad thing. Um... Can you tell me why? --Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Well that doesn't make sense, John Pack Lambert; First, such a category shouldn't not exist, but seeing that an article exists on this subject (Women in engineering), the category should point to that.Curb Chain (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I interpreted the previous statements to be in line with wikipedia guidelines. However as this push has developed it has become obvious that the push is not in line with wikipedia guidelines and has no goal of making these categories in line with WP:Cat/gender. I was clued into this when my suggestion that these changes would lead to changing how these categories are used to be in line with our actual politcies was shot down.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole idea of discussions is to sound ideas to help people come to new usderstandings of things. This means that if people are really participating in discussion they will change their mind on things. Thus it does not make any sense to accuse people of being hypocrites. Doing such is just super bad form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming - The rename would be consistent with the name of the parent category Category:Women in technology as well as the name of the topical article mentioned by the nominator. By analogy, the sister category Category:Women computer scientists also should be renamed to "Women in computing." FWIW, I believe the intersection is meaningful within the meaning of WP:Cat/gender. The existence of organizations like Society of Women Engineers and Women's Engineering Society helps to illustrate the defining nature of the intersection. It is not all that long ago that women were excluded from the study of engineering in most U.S. universities (I can't speak for other countries), so a large fraction of the women in this category can be considered pioneering contributors to the phenomena discussed in Women in engineering. --Orlady (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The articles within it are not about women in sub-fields e.g. "Women in civil engineering", but about individual women engineers. The more important head category is Category:Women by occupation which has a mixture of "Female fooers" and "Women fooers", but only four "Women in fooing". The point of these categories is to contain people by occupation. Many such categories may not (yet) have a specific lead article for women in that occupation, but even in the cases that do, and there is no need to follow the title of such an article. (P.S. Category:Female pirates - who knew!) - Fayenatic(talk) 17:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that some women, quite a lot of them, do not like to be referred to as "women engineers." These are simply "women in engineering." The category's name is only changed, but nothing about the category is changed. It can also have articles/categories pertaining to the subject. But a category name like "Females in Pirating" would not make sense at all. So, I wouldn't suggest this--nor would anyone else I suspect. I've never heard of "pirating," although I'm sure the word exists. I know it's only a slight difference semantically, but it makes a big difference to a lot of women. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the cat should contain articles about the concept women in engineering; not women who happen to be engineers (or engineers who happen to be women), so the rename is appropriate to remove the other connotation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With respect, a category "Women in engineering" should contain articles about the concept. But what this category does contain is engineers who are/were women. Therefore your argument seems to be irrelevant; in fact, renaming would make the category name misleading, whereas it is clear now. - Fayenatic(talk) 08:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. As I see it, there are several benefits to such a rename. (1) It avoids the semi-awkward use of "women" as an adjective, which some dislike; (2) it matches the article Women in engineering; (3) it matches similar categories, such as Category:Women in politics. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (1) could be achieved by the use of "female" rather than "women"; I addressed (2) and (3) above on 29 July–note that the longer name would only match a small minority of sibling categories. - Fayenatic(talk) 08:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Renaming would set a bad precedent towards more ambiguous names. "Female engineers" would be explicit, but "Women in engineering" is ambiguous–it would cover women who had been influential in engineering without being engineers. I can't think of any offhand, but consider "women in accountancy": that would include Barbara Mills as Chair of the Professional Oversight Board, even though she was a lawyer and not in Category:Female accountants. - Fayenatic(talk) 08:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this is more ambiguous. This opens the category up for not only including women who are involved in engineering, but topics of women in engineering. Category:Women in Accounting is not a category and has no relevance here, but even if it were, I don't really see a problem. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just using Dame Barbara as an example of a woman who has influenced a profession of which she was not a member, to show that the category "Female accountants" is clearer, and so is "Women engineers". My point is that the existing category is a sub-category of Category:People by occupation, and should be named accordingly. Instead of opening this one up, just create a new category "Women in engineering" which would include the article by that name, new articles on the topic, and this sub-category of female engineers. But there should remain a category that contains only biographies of people with this occupation, not other articles. And until there are other articles, the "main article" link on the category page is all that is needed to navigate between that article and the biographies. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:25, 4 August 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Categories are less ambiguous as they are pluralized, so if the main article can have a hatnote dabbing Rock Band and rock band, then the category can be renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is the 2nd nomination: see here. I created the category but am neutral as to the name. Tim! (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is clear from the main article that there is understood ambiguity. We should not have cat names that are built around people being clear about capitalization rules. Put another way, I do not think we should make cat names that are unclear to those who do not read in case sensitive manners.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response Do you think that category names should be less ambiguous than articles? If so, why? Since there will inevitably be many more articles than categories, it seems like clarity is an acute problem for article names rather than categories... what am I missing here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes category names should be less ambiguous than articles. The main purpose of an article is to contain information about something, so there is a body of text that makes it clear what it is talking about. In the case of categories the main purpose is to group articles. This means that when people put categories in they may not check, and when a category is put up it may mislead people unless it is clear that it is for the right thing. An article has an explanation that makes its contents clear, a category does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 29 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.
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. Precedent and WP:OC#Eponymous has determined that an eponymous category for a musical group needs more than a couple of subcategories and its eponymous article, Mando Diao. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:29, 27 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.
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) 08:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the current names looks like it is a description of the albums and shouts "this is an NPOV violation".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 29 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.
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:Category has already been deleted. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category as it has been moved. Railer-man (talk) 18:07, 27 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.
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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match category:Individual animals. I volunteer to split & rename some articles between species and individual animals afterwards, as the head category "Lists of animals" should be for lists of species. Fayenatic(talk) 17:14, 27 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.
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 & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:User:Stefanomione has created such a tangle of media/revolution categories that I wasn't sure quite where to begin, but to pick up on my statement from my previous Stefanomione nom: the nominated category contains 2 subcats for media that are equally about revolutions. We don't need to set up a parallel category simply for these subcats. They can be adequately contained and sorted in the target category, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whats the point of sorting out revolutions alphabetically, then having another category identical, but not sorted out alphabetically?Curb Chain (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Why would this even be necessary? Especially since most media should theoretically be on Commons, not here. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Axem, as I explain a little here, I think it's because this editor has been problematically using "media" when he means "creative works," across a wide range of categories... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 30 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.
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:Rename. Term "ruling" is too vague, as is "clans". We've seen cases of POV-pushers tying to use this cat for any caste/clan they favour, on the argument "there was once a king from this caste". Rather than let people lump entire 1,000,000+ person Indian castes who produced a half-dozen rulers of a few hectares of kingdom, what say we just rename the cat so that it's clear only articles covering specific dynasties (vice entire groups from which a dynasty or two may have sprung) are included? There's just way too much POV-pushing potential to play up one's own surname as "royal", and I don't see any downsides to just calling it "Hindu dynasties". MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I would suggest nomination of the sister cats as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we approve this one on general principle, can I nom the others for Speedy and refer to this discussion as backing? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would reccomend against that course. In theory you could, in practice there are two few people who particpate in any of these CfD discussions for them to easily become precedent. I would let the CfDs last for a week on all of them. On the other hand I would also say you could nominate the others for consideration before this nomination closes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it's no longer the 27th, is there some way I can expand this specific entry to include them, or do I need to create an "umbrella proposal" for Buddhist and Jain on the CFD for the present day? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:03, 30 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.
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 noting also the other discussions and that the content is limited and contested. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not based on actual objective criteria; no clear demonstration that castes listed here were "ruling" or even that they are indisputably "Kurmi". More caste-cruft. Deletion also floated and supported here at WPINDIA. Part of a larger POV-forking problem in caste articles (see WPINDIA discussion on Kurmi forking). MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The content would go upwards into Indian castes | Indo-Aryan peoples | Ruling Hindu clans ? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague, pointless, impossible to source in a consistent and reliable manner, massive potential for warring. As the nom says, there are major POV and POV-fork issues going on with India-related caste articles and the last thing we need is another magnet for this sort of dubious content. - Sitush (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Kurmi dynasties. With about 2000 pricely states in India in 1940 and more and different ones in the bast, there is no lack of dynasties of India and no reason to go on a war on categories related to them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with said rename, though noting that we'd only have 2-3 articles left in that cat, since only a couple are both dynasties and have "Kurmi" appearing anywhere in the article. So it'd take a minor cleanup, but no objection to the rename (and appropriate changes to its over-cats). MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though in concept I'd still be fine with a rename, I checked through the articles and only one even had the term "Kurmi" anywhere in the article other than said category. And for Shivaji, a whole bunch of different clans claim he was one of them, so it's rather WP:UNDUE to give him specifically a Kurmi cat. Vaghela is the only article that is about a dynasty (vice clan) and happens to have the word Kurmi, but even there is appears to have been jammed in mid-paragraph with some offhand reference to a source which is not footnoted, so I {cn}'ed it for now. I would support a rename, but at this point we only have one article in the whole cat. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:59, 1 August 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.
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.
Merge. There is no reason for proliferation of overly specific century categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Category currently contains only one page. It is not serving a useful purpose. --Orlady (talk) 12:05, 3 August 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.
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. Seems premature, if nothing else. Contains only the main article and the relevant template. Good Ol’factory(talk) 14:07, 27 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.
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. We generally don't categorize bands by band member because it's one of those "performer by performace" forms of overcategorization. This is information that is obviously contained in the articles John Reis and Martin Carthy and doesn't need to be the subject of categories in this way. Good Ol’factory(talk) 14:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, main articles should be sufficient for navigation. In the first case there is also Category:John Reis albums, which seems justifiable as a member of "Albums by artist". Other people don't get a "groups by artist" category, unless their influence has been wide enough that they have an eponymous category; see WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. - Fayenatic(talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a member of a band is not a defining characteristic of a band. (Martin Carthy was not even in the original Steeleye Span.) Occuli (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the opposite of how we would do things. There are some musical groups that being a member of is a defining chacteristic of the people, such as maybe the Boston Pops Orchestra. I would say that this should be limited to groups where having a list of all their members is just not a workable thing. However we would not put the Boston Pops Orchestra into categories based on it having had a given oboe player, no matter how notable that oboe player was. We would not even create a category to include the Boston Pops Orchestra with other groups that its current director has directed. Thus people are a subset of the group, not a group a subset of the people. Another example, we have a category Category:Presidents of the University of Utah and Category:Presidents of Utah State University, we would not reverse the trend and put the articles on those two universities is the category John A. Widstoe universities just because he was president of both. It is not clear that this is similar to that, because it appears any group these people were in is categorized with them, which is a less clear line of them influencing it than the universities presidents case where we would limit the cat to universities the person had been president. This is more like if we threw Harvard, Groningen and Brogham Young University into that cat since Widstoe was a student or professor at all of ther, or maybe just added Brigham Young University since that is the only other place he was on the faculty, and he was later a member of the Board of Trustees for 40 years, and also held a position for a time that made him the direct boss of the university president. I hope it is clear why we do not categorize universities in this way, and I see no reason to do so for musical groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 29 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename both. Bring them in line of the other categories for mayors of specific cities - all of these are in the Mayors of Foo form. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - simply sounds better.Moxy (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per both Moxy and Od Mishehu. "Pepper" 13:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This cat is for people who held the office "mayor of Bytown" or such, the current name could be interpreted to be someone who was a mayor with a connection to Bytown but mayor elsewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 29 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.
Provisional Irish Republican Army actions in Great Britain[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 "actions", noting also this term is used in the parent category. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Erroneously named category. As a matter of policy, the IRA only carried out attacks in England, not Scotland and Wales. All the articles in the category refer to attacks in England, obviously... 2 lines of K303 11:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This is ambiguous, and to be clear, it should renamedCurb Chain (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support original rename. "actions" seems to be a more NPOV choice than "attacks". We should strive to avoid loaded and biased words where possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 29 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:Hispanic and Latino American female journalists[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 consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale We are only supposed to create these intersection of ethnicity, gender and occupation cats when there is study of the relevant intersection. I have not seen any study of this, and this is largely prompted by an unjustified application of what was really a decision on Category:African American females to the really ignored cat for Hispanic and American female women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This category was just created today. Isn't there a suggestion Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? I'm also unsure why this category is unjustified. If you can provide a good argument, good facts and sources for them, and sound reasoning, then it will make sense to me why this category is unjustified. Otherwise, I think we are going to come out with the same reasoning for keeps as with the African American women and African American women in politics categories. Let me mention also that I find it a little ridiculous for these women's categories that we, the people who care about them, have to work twice as hard for these categories to be taken seriously by some of the editors. I cannot assume anything about anyone except good faith, but it's very upsetting in a very particular way. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will also comment on the "unjustified application" comment. That's just a rude thing to say, even if you don't agree with the category. There are a lot of microaggressions that go on in the conversations relating to women, and it's something that really puts me off of Wikipedia. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Please do not bite the newcomers has nothing to do with a justified and neutral nomination here. This category is unjustified by it's excessively narrow intersection. And category:African American women in politics hasn't closed yet, and the same reasons to not keep are the same reasons here.Curb Chain (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no microagression in our agenda. Us men couldn't be more different; you may just be seeing something that's not there.Curb Chain (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When a person points out that they are are offended, you do not tell them, "No, you're not offended. No, this is not offensive." Yes, as a woman I am offended by you and the user who nominated this. You both have consistently agreed on the same topics of women's categories to be deleted. Once you said, I paraphrase, "I don't treat women differently." So... Because you don't treat women differently sexism does not happen? Really. You don't know what the meaning of the word is. I think both of you need to prove why these types of categories should be deleted through sources, not the other way around, because I am pretty sick of this sexist foolishness. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Hispanic and Latino American women was closed as kept because the discussion was bundled with Category:African American women.Curb Chain (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hispanics and Latino American women are not the same as African American women, not is journalism politics. I would also say that the way CfD and categories work we should never apply "do not bite the newcommers" do them, which I think is being misapplied anyway. Categories are not the result of typing and research that invest a significant time the way articles are, so nominating them for deletion does not have the participation suppressent nomiating articles does. Categories are meant to be useful allignments of categoriues, and they should be related to policies and grounded in them. I still fail to see how this category meets the criteria of WP:Cat/gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they are the same as African American women. They are both women. They both deserve to be treated equally as women and people. And have noticed through this entire month how many women's categories you nominate, and I'm sick of this stuff. If you don't think that categories are the result of research, then you need to check back on that category. I did quite a bit of research to put more women in that category. I think many of your delete nominations are the result of a bias against women, and I'm getting sick of hearing this stuff out of the both of you. If you want to continue this sort of biased thought, take it somewhere else. There is a reason why there aren't many women on Wikipedia.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a meaningful intersection of three defining characteristics and the category is useful (or potentially so) for keeping the populations of various parent categories under control. Being female is universally considered a defining characteristic (notwithstanding certain other recent debates where some comments have suggested that some users think otherwise), "Hispanic/Latino" is treated as a defining characteristic in contemporary U.S. culture (including government programs), and "journalism" is a clearly distinguishable profession and a defining characteristic. There is nothing derogatory about identifying a person as any of these types. The intersection is meaningful -- for one thing, because there is significant cultural interest in people of a traditionally under-represented category (Hispanic/Latino women) achieving visible professional success. --Orlady (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be an association for Hispanic women in journalism--which I looked for myself while doing research for this page, Hispanic and Latino American women in journalism, but there is a colorful history, even more vivid than I captured in the article linked. There are sources throughout about the contributions of these journalists, and there are texts written about women of color in media occupations (journalism is counted as a media occupation).[Seeking Equity for Women in Journalism and Mass Communication Education]. [Latinas In the United States: a Historical Encyclopedia] details many Latina journalists. I think any way a woman contributes is significant. In my research I found 33% of journalists were women, Hispanic and Latino journalists were only 3.3% total, and out of that 46.2% were women. So that means that the women you see on television, or read in the paper, or read on the internet, have made incredible strides to get where they are. Why should this be considered trivial? Soledad O'Brien's work is trivial? Jovita Idar's work is trivial? --Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is this a strawman argument? You said this is a trivial category, and I answered why it wasn't. And you never gave exactly why it's trivial other than the fact that you just think it is. I have a mass of evidence to prove this is not trivial, and there is a history behind women in journalism in the Hispanic and Latino community. If the work is not trivial, neither is the category, because it's a valid subject women want to research. I mean, that is the purpose of WP, not to randomly decide what is valid to you as category whether it is trivial or not. If there is a need for it and women are interested, then it's valid. And I know there are women who want to research this topic.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHispanic and Latino American women in journalism addresses some unique issues regarding that intersection, especially considering the history of machismo and its effect upon women professionals in the culture and the response of women to it. I think that Category:Hispanic and Latino American female journalists is justified for that reason. Peaceray (talk) 16:04, 2 August 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.
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) 08:40, 30 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.
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. An article or list may be useful, but the current state of this category is too empty to be a starting point, Timrollpickering (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does this even have inclusion criteria? What is the point of this category? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; if it was ever well-populated, I guess editors have been removing the category because of the above questions, and because of WP:ASR and the category being non-defining for the subject. - Fayenatic(talk) 17:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ill-defined. Could be the subject of a WP project page (say, oldest 100 articles), but means little as a category. Lugnuts (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categories apply to the thing the article is about, we do not as a general rule make categories that apply to the article itself. Thus when we categorize say Bill Clinton we do so based on things about him as a person, not things about the article we have created on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usually Minus, say maintenance categories... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT by creator I just wanted to protect them from deletion... If you have better way, i would really love to hear it, but i do agree that it is pointless like category... --WhiteWriter speaks 19:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think making an article, as proposed by Lugnuts, would be a good idea, as way to gather the articles from this category. FkpCascais (talk) 21:25, 29 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.
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: Overcat--only two articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 27 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.
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) 08:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Under WP naming conventions, this category name should refer to albums released in the year 801, just as Category:1999 albums refers to albums released in 1999. Ridiculous, of course, so I suggest matching the name of the band to the article 801 (band) to avoid this problem. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Unless of course the contents are albums that were released in 801.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 29 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.
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:Upmerge all. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale. These are not the standard way. In Islam as in say Category:Converts to Christianity we subdivide by religion of origin, or we could sub-divide between Sunni, Shi'ah, Ahmadiyyah and other sub-categories of Islam, as we do between Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons and the like in Christianity (why we do not subdivide Islam in this way I am not sure, there may be good reasons to treat Islam as a unified body people convert to, although with Ahmadiyya officially defined as not part of Islam by Pakistan, it would be a hard to understand argument). In general the rule is that conversion subcatsdirectly relate to religion. In an analogous example emigration subcats related to nationality of origin, thus we have Category:Pakistani emigrants to the United States not Category:Muslim emigrants to the United States or Category:Israeli emigrants to the United States not Category:Jewish emigrants to the United States (although neither of these cases are 100% overlaps either way). We already have relevant parents cats for all of these subcats such as Category:African American converts to Islam being a subcat of Category;African American Muslims. I think partly why this cat exists is because of the existence of Nation of Islam. This is another Muslim group that seems to beg us to formulate seperate subcats within the heading of Islam. This is especially true because many people who were once part of Nation of Islam later converted to other branches of Islam, primarily to Sunni Islam. The one category here that does not have a Muslim parent that is not limited to converts is Category:Muslim converts convicted of terrorism. That category is so incongruous I half wonder if I should have nominated it seperately. Its problems are 1-"Muslim converts" is less clear, all the other conversion categories use converts to X to make it sure what is going on and make it clear what way conversion is occuring. 2-As far as I can tell there are no other sub-dividings of converts to a given religion that pair them with being convicted of a crime. If we had Category:Christian converts convicted of embezzelment or Category:Jewish converts convicted of insider trading I think people would complain about NPOV violations. I think this Muslim converts cat also contains NPOV violations. The POV here seems to be there is a connection between being a Muslim convert and participating in terrorism. Lastly the category Category:People convicted on terrorism charges has no other subcats at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refine The only category that I think should be deleted at this point is the Category on Muslim converts convicted of terrorism. While that is a notable phenomenon, I don't think it merits its own cat at the time given the POV issues johnpack lays out. With the other categories, I think they are still useful and valid though may need to be refined in one way or another to reflect the various sects within Islam, particularly between more mainstream sects of Islam and The Nation of Islam, which many Muslims consider completely outside the framework of Islam. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we do not subcat converts by nationality, we subcat them by religion of origin. Why should we change that?John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would probably be positively useful to set up more additional categories for converts to/from Nation of Islam, Ahmadiyya, etc, like the branches of Christianity among the sub-sub-cats of Category:Religious converts. As for whether those named bodies should be categorised within Islam, I would say Yes, following precedents such as the not-wholly-popular inclusion of Mormons within Christians. Go ahead and start now, or make copies of the nominated category contents if they are a useful starting point for anything. Nevertheless the nominated categories should go, as they are not defined along those lines. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why shouldn't we change it based on nationality? It's valid and a notable phenomenon that certain ethnic groups are converting to certain religion? Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Multiple points in response to Plot Spoiler. 1- "ethnic groups" do at times convert religions, but these categories contain individuals. 2-nationality is not ethnic groups. 3-If oyu think there is a mass conversion of even a majority of African Americans or British people to Islam, well you are just confused. These articles in these categories are on individuals and the conversion is by and large the decision of an individual, not of a large group. We can have articles on mass conversions, we that is not what we are dealing with here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if we continue to have to label people by religion; then their religion of birth vs. religion they choose seems worthy of categorization - but religious categorizes are basically baloney. Few people follow the stated precepts of the religion the claim to the letter; is one who doesn't turn the other cheek no longer a Christian; is one who eats pork no longer a Jew or Muslim; is one who drinks coffee no longer a Mormon? Of course some religions are sticky - once baptized a Roman Catholic, the one way out - Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica - is now foreclosed, so Roman Catholic you remain. Not to mention that various sects believe that a person's religion can change or be changed after the person's death. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 1 August 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.
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:Rename. I'd hope the reasons would be obvious, but let's just say ambiguity and leave it at that. If anyone can come up with a better new name, please do so! Grutness...wha? 01:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this a characteristic of a song that is worth noting, that it scored no points in a given competition?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Is nul a scandanavian word?Curb Chain (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an erroneous but very common transliteration of the French term nul point that has entered the English language (there's even a book that uses the very phrase). The Eurovision presentation is bilingual in both English and French and the French phrase has caught on as a clear shorthand for the phenomenon. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but use "that" not "which". BencherliteTalk 10:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Popping back to say that I agree with Fayenatic below about the rationale for this category. If consensus is to delete, we could do with a list of these songs, and I can't see one on WP at the moment, so "listfy" is my fall-back position. BencherliteTalk 06:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John, until such time as I'm convinced that a song scoring no points in this or any contest is so defining as to merit a category. And that'll take some convincing, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with "that" and shorten to Category:Eurovision songs that scored no points. Fair question, John, but yes this is notable: "nul points" is a notorious outcome, and relatively rare, to be picked by a country as its best song and still to get no points from any other country in the continent & beyond. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. I think we can more easily accomplish the goal with a list. We might also want to rename it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it may be interesting, are any of these songs made notable by this? We tend to not categorize by things that are outside of the given set. Here that feature is songs that scored points. Listify if the information is worth keeping but I give the category nul points to retain. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify. I'm not sure that this is appropriate category material per many of the comments above. It seems like a list would be the best way to present this material. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:08, 4 August 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.
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: Only two articles, no main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary category--CutOffTies (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the mirage project is notable it needs an article, not a category. These two other articles could easily be linked to from the article. There is no point to the category at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 27 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.
