Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 26

< April 25	April 27 >

April 26[edit]

Lesbians[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 & upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: per Bearcat's nom below and standards in rest of tree per LGBT wikiproject. KarlB (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (and per the more extensive rationale I provided in the "Gay people" batch below), and upmerge to appropriate parent categories where needed. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and upmerge per nom. LGBT is perfectly sufficient. The further subdivision is pointless and also confusing to mere mortals. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more in line with how articles subjects are most commonly described and sufficiantly populated.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lesbian Jews isnt covered by the nationality and L cross referencing statement below and like gay politicians which is deemed OK in the statments the Lesbian Jews category is nationally undifferentiated.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge tp equivalent LGBT categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lesbian writers from the UK, indifferent on others. "Lesbian writers" is an encyclopedic category and nationality is an accepted way of splitting out a large category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lesbian writers isn't large enough to need the splitout; even with the UK ones reupped it would still contain fewer than 350 people in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Matt Shepard (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and upmerge to appropriate parent categories where needed. Oculi (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2012 (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.

Gay people[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 & upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(two more added --KarlB (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed by original batch nominator for reasons explained below. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The LGBT WikiProject does not want, and Wikipedia does not need, cross-intersected subcategories which separate people out by both their nationality and which individual letter subtree of the LGBT community they happen to belong to. "LGBT people from individual country" categories are fine, and nationally undifferentiated "gay writers" or "gay politicians" categories are fine — but we do not need or want dedicated subcategories at the level of "gay people from individual country" or "lesbians from individual country", as this is not a notable or useful or helpful level of categorization. Membership in the broadly-constituted LGBT community of a particular country is a notable and useful point of categorization, and membership in the internationally-constituted community of Ls, Gs, Bs or Ts is a notable and useful point of categorization — but the fact that somebody is specifically an English gay man, as distinguished from a Scottish or Canadian or Irish gay man or as distinguished from an English lesbian or an English bisexual, is not significant enough to warrant special subcategories. Delete and upmerge back to appropriate parent categories. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what I don't understand is why LGBT people are the only ones we categorise by citizenship instead of by nationality. Should it not be Category:American LGBT people? --Mais oui! (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge per nom. LGBT is perfectly sufficient. The further subdivision is pointless and also confusing to mere mortals. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge per nom. I'm not sure on why it's thought the subcategorization in this way is a good idea. I think when it's been discussed in the past most have agreed that it is not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. --KarlB (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gay memoirists is not covered by the nomination talking about countries and sexuality. Adding it seems at odds with the statement in nom:"nationally undifferentiated "gay writers" or "gay politicians" categories are fine".RafikiSykes (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that category was added to this nomination after the fact by a user other than me. I'm going to strike it from this nomination; while it's still of uncertain value and probably should at least still be discussed, you're correct that the reasons to keep or delete it aren't going to be the same as those for or against the categories that differentiate by nationality. It's a different issue and needs to be handled on its own. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the equivalent LGBT categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and upmerge back to appropriate parent categories, per nom. Oculi (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2012 (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:Dot-com[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 to Category:Online companies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dot-com to Category:Dot-com companies

Nominator's rationale: It seems like this is what it is: a collection of Pets.coms... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least merge to Category:Online companies. It's completely silly to categorize businesses according to whether we use the suffix "dot com" to refer to them and that seems pretty close to what we're currently doing. Why do we categorize Baidu as a dot-com and not Google or Yahoo? Faceparty but not Facebook? Why do we categorize this whole category as Category:1990s fads and trends? (Many of these didn't even exist in the 90s) It's never been a formal and precise way to describe these companies so we shouldn't be using that in category titles. Pichpich (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Online companies. --KarlB (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Dot-com bubble per Dot-com bubble and purge. While the vast majority of articles are indeed about online companies, I believe there are sufficient articles to merit a category about the era, such as irrational exuberance and The Californian Ideology as well as companies closely associated with the era but which are/were not strictly online, such as The Industry Standard and Viant.- choster (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment how would you decide which companies deserve to be there? A list of famous .com failures, if sourced, would be reasonable, but having been 'closely associated' with the .com boom? not defining IMHO. --KarlB (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such a rename is currently impossible given the place the category occupies in the categorization tree. You could delete this one and start another one with the scope you suggest though I'm a little skeptical about its viability given its somewhat subjective nature. Pichpich (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the place the category occupies in the categorization tree, Category:1990s fads and trends and Category:1990s economic history seems right to me. As far as companies, well, I concede the point, but I will try to listify something.- choster (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the nom -- This nom is misconceived, but the category tree does need restructring. "Online Companies" is currently a subcat, but should probably be the parent. We also need a category for the companies that failed when the dot-com bubble burst, but this ought to be a subcat. The parent and the child thus need to be reversed. This is probaly not something that the closeing admin as reasonably be asked to do. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment for failures, again, I'd suggest a list. How do you categorize, how do you draw a clean line? If it limped along for 2 years after 2001 is that considered a .com failure? Do we have other categories for failed companies that failed in previous boom/bust cycles? A list is reasonable here, if sourced, but a category - nyet. --KarlB (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the subcat should be the parent, then you should at least support the merger for now. Pichpich (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right - I support a merger, but the resultant category should be Category:Online companies (and some should be merged to Category:Internet companies. --KarlB (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing that holds the current contents together, they have been built up without really deciding why they belong at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note As mentioned by Karl above, this overlaps with Online/Internet companies, and so properly speaking, they should all be categorized together. I'm not clear on the best name and that category would have to be patrolled (e.g. Wal*Mart has a website, but they're hardly an "online" or "dotcom" company), but that's probably the best course of action. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 7 May 2012 (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:Socrates family[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Socrates family to Category:Family of Socrates

Nominator's rationale: Current name makes it seem like the family name is Socrates (e.g. Jose Socrates would be in it.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Somehow (probably through speedy) all of the one-name-person-family categories got renamed to the "FOO family" format, which makes things a bit awkward, as noted. Category:Muhammad family is another somewhat problematic one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I have been concerned that the expanded speedy criteria would lead to renaming of nuanced cases without sufficient scrutiny, and if that has been the case here, then the speedy criteria need another look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If speedy was used here, it would have been through criterion C2C, which has been around for donkey's years. The "expanded criterion" is C2D, but this doesn't have anything to do with C2D. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All other families in Category:Greek families are "(X) family." This doesn't seem worthy of creating a new format.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Existing is misleading.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename unlike all the other families, the family name is not Socrates, that is the stand alone name of the most famous member. In the other X family names is the Greek families category we have cases of a real family name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment up until last fall this category was "Relatives of Socrates" which is not where we want to send this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2012 (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:Yuvan Shankar Raja[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) 08:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only two pages and two subcats. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Please point me to guidance that discourages eponymous category names. Jojalozzo 12:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's useful info here at Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_the_person's_name. (And your question is understandable, in that shortcut WP:EPONCAT is almost totally useless, directing people to Wikipedia:Categorization, which makes no mention of eponymous categories. I've now updated the target for this shortcut). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That helps.

Note: an eponymous category name is not just one named for a person. It applies to any category named after an article (e.g. Sociology, Category:Sociology), of which there must be thousands, so the new short cut, while much better than how it was, is still problematic. I suggest starting a discussion at WT:CAT to figure this out. Joja lozzo 18:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Well, I'd be happy to revert all my edits in this area - or would be fine if others wish to - if I've made matters more confusing with this new redirect target. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By my reading of WP:EPONCAT, there's nothing wrong with an eponymous category name except "if it's used to reduce the number of categories displayed in the article." That's not the case here and I think it's an invalid criteria for deletion. Unless the main article is not notable, the category seems to be useful. Joja lozzo 18:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there is an implicit caution in that opening phrase, "In certain very notable cases, people are being categorized by the name of the person itself..." (italics added). By definition, everyone with a Wikipedia article is notable but this line seeks to raise the bar even higher, albeit vaguely. Much more important, though, is the mass of precedent here at CfD against eponymous people categories deemed unnecessary - but for a solid understanding of what that is, I'm not the person to ask. Others, including Good Ol Factory, may wish to provide more guidance. I generally avoid these discussions because I'm often not sure, myself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a newcomer here, I will concede to those with more experienced but a) I'd like to see a summary and explanation of any local consensus and b) I'm a bit wary since it's not clear that this precedent has been presented to or accepted by the wider community. Let's take this to the talk page (WT:CAT#Eponymous people categories discouraged?). Joja lozzo 22:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response To put it another way, Joja--should (or could) there be a category for every single biographical article on Wikipedia? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here we're discussing one particular category, not all the ones that don't exist. We can use the talk page for that. :-) Joja lozzo 03:31, 3 May 2012 (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:Heinrich Schütz[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) 08:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only two pages and two subcats. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – one of the subcats is Category:Pupils of Heinrich Schütz: 'Category:Pupils of' are not regarded favourably at cfd (not defining). Oculi (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepRafikiSykes (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Why? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For starters, the "pupils of" category should not exist. There was an (incorrect, IMO) CFD result that said these should be kept. Apart from that we don't have much—just a compositions subcategory and a redirect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two sucats and two articles and you want to delete it? Nonsense! Important figure, enough room for grow. --Nolanus (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Virtually any category could grow--that's an invalid argument for keeping this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By my reading of WP:EPONCAT, there's nothing wrong with an eponymous category name except "if it's used to reduce the number of categories displayed in the article." That's not the case here and I think it's an invalid criteria for deletion. Unless the main article is not notable, the category seems to be useful. Joja lozzo 18:16, 2 May 2012 (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:Hector Berlioz[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. — ξ ^xplicit 23:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only four pages and one subcat. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep four pages is not insignificant and Berlioz is a major figure. In the absence of a Berlioz navigation box, I'd rather keep the category for now. Pichpich (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has 5 things in it and (plausibly) room for growth. LeSnail (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Populated enough with relevent articles and significant figure.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "Works by Hector Berlioz" is a legitmate category; apart from that we have two things named after him; the main article on him, and an article on his mistress. NOT ENOUGH. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this time 7 pages are enough. Indeed I think, even if there would be less pages that it is very unpracitacal and not good to have category of Works of XY and not to have category of him. In Berlioz there very probable that taht number of pages including in this category wil increase and I have no intention to make the category two times, if you no destroy my work. To go to all the linked pages etc. is not a work taking two minutes! I appeal for more respct to owork of the others.--Nolanus (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are so many things named after Berlioz which in the future could have articles: The Berlioz neighborhood in Bobigny, fr:Square Hector-Berlioz, the Berlioz conservatory in the 10th, the fr:SeaFrance Berlioz ferry, the fr:Opéra Berlioz in Montpellier... Skarioffszky (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Virtually any potential category could have enough members given enough time. If there comes such an occasion as this encyclopedia actually has those articles, then this can be easily recreated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By my reading of WP:EPONCAT, there's nothing wrong with an eponymous category name except "if it's used to reduce the number of categories displayed in the article." That's not the case here and I think it's an invalid criteria for deletion. Unless the main article is not notable, the category seems to be useful. Joja lozzo 18:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not really large enough. The rule seems to suggest that eponymous categories have the highest known threshold for forming. We need 1-a significant content body and 2-the articles to be truly and clearly linked to the person in question. These articles are not enough for an eponymous category. I am not sure if all of them are really linked to the subject either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there were a rule but we seem to be working with undocumented practice that has yet to be condensed into guidance. I can see the issues that editors here have been dealing with (that one subcategory and, now, seven articles is not the making of a dynasty) but would prefer concrete guidance as the basis for decision making. I've withdrawn my previous position. Joja lozzo 03:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough agreement on the minimum amount of content necessary to formulate a rule. Different users use different standards, but occasionally users can agree that whatever the minimum amount is, a particular category doesn't meet it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though I tend to favour eponymous categories. In this case there is very little to navigate between; most of the pages in the category are trivial. I have listified four pages from the category as a paragraph on commemorations in the Legacy section of the biography, which IMHO is more use. – Fayenatic London (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2012 (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:Franz Lehár[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) 08:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only two pages and one subcat. Eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Nothing but articles on him and his brother, with a (legitimate) subcat for his works. A navbox will do the job better. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many futures articles concerning this thema. Few articles containing in cat is not a rational reason for deletion. --Nolanus (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not presently warranted by content. If it's warranted in the future, it can be created then. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By my reading of WP:EPONCAT, there's nothing wrong with an eponymous category name except "if it's used to reduce the number of categories displayed in the article." That's not the case here and I think it's an invalid criteria for deletion. Unless the main article is not notable, the category seems to be useful. Joja lozzo 18:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because two brothers were notable does not mean we need to create a category named after one of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plus, Anton appears to be notable mainly for reasons unrelated to his sibling's profession. This isn't a Lehár family cat it's an eponymous one for Franz, which, based on the contents, does not appear to be warranted, at least for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2012 (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-owned businesses[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) 08:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not super convinced on this one but want to test the waters. There are literally thousands of companies in wikipedia, classified in dozens of different ways. Clearly this cat is not popular, with only 9 pages. I'm not sure this one is necessary - if we want to call out female business owners, or female entrepreneurs, etc there is a cat for that Category:Women in business, but women-owned? What does that mean? If a woman is 51% shareholder in a major business is that women-owned? What if a woman is a founder, along with a man? What if there are 3 owners - 2 women and 1 man? What if the woman doesn't own it (because she had to borrow money) but is the leader? etc etc. I know businesses are sometimes described in this way, but its far from defining. KarlB (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Did some googling, found this org that rates them, and considers 'women-owned' to be "51 percent owned, operated, and controlled by a woman or group of women."[1]. It also seems to be a term mostly used to describe american businesses, rather than being global in scope and definition. --KarlB (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining. There are many categories for companies by type of ownership, but not for characteristics of the owners themselves, and I would not relish any precedents for Category:Companies owned by people of Chinese descent or Category:Christian-owned companies, or anything of the sort. I don't think the WBENC definition could be applied as it covers operation and control in addition to ownership— good luck finding RS on that— and personally, I would think aside from some basic legal questions such as private vs. public ownership and tax structure, a company's management is more defining than its ownership.- choster (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems just as relivant as having the women in business/ women businepeople categories. RafikiSykes (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per choster. Pretty non-defining, in my opinion. I agree that management will almost always be more defining than "ownership". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily per Karl's definition. It is quite possible that the majority of Fortune 500 companies currently have over 50% of their ownership held by women. Also, what do we do if a man, his wife and his daughter start a business with each having one third interests, and then later one they cut their two sons into the business with a cut as well. The business doesw not become notable until it is male-majority owned, but it was at one point technically woman-owned. What about a business that a man starts, his daughter inherits, and then after her death her son takes over. The gender makeup of a business' owners is not fixed. Then you have the even more complexed factor that due to United States Small Business Administration loans that were designed to facilitate the growth of more women-owned businesses, you had as one of the facets of Whitewatergate people listing women on the ownership of a business to get SBA loans, even though the listed women had little role in actually running the business. Does the 51% mean over half of the owners, over half of the operators and over half of the controllers have to be women. Does this mean that if the CEO is a women, over half of the stock is held by women and 7 of the 12 members of the board of directors are women we have a women owned business? If this is so, why does it have to be 51%, why can't 50.5% of the stock work when the this means women control 1,000 more shares than men? Do the 7 females on the board have to be "a group of women" in some sense of colluding to put women in control, or can we just use their gender to say that it is woman-owned? John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment part of me wants to keep this category now, just so someone has to answer JPL's questions :) just kidding...--KarlB (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2012 (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's competitions[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) 08:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: the sole member of this category fits better in women's sports (chess is recognized as a sport by the IOC: Chess_Olympiad#Recognised_sport). This cat is redundant and should be put on ice. KarlB (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there are more sub-categories, I found for ice hockey. We can put f.e. art (not only sport) women's competitions in this category ... Mircea cs (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thanks. I note that ice hockey is already under the Category:Women's sports category. I think the question is, if you look at Category:Women's sports, it is full of various competitions, awards, prizes, etc - do you believe there is a value in having a separate category tree just to separate out the 'competitions' from 'everything else' in women's sports? For example, this category already exists: Category:Sports competitions by sport, and it includes many women's sports already - which is why I think this category is a duplicate and doesn't need to exist in the tree. --KarlB (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no need for this. I was on seeing its name expecting Miss America competition and lots of other all-female beauty pagents to be included. I am sure there are other things that could be put here, but does it make any sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2012 (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:Abbesses[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: withdrawn by nominator without any !votes for deletion or merge. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Abbesses to Category:Secular Abbesses

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to contain only abbesses of secular monasteries. Rather than it being a container category for christian abbesses, which doesn't make sense, this should just be renamed and be a leaf node with nothing underneath. Also some of the categories it is in should probably be removed... KarlB (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this seems fairly standard. Abbesses of any sort collected together, the Christian ones being corralled into a subcat and the secular ones left at the top. It shouldn't be in any Christian parents. Oculi (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment except *all* of its parents are Christian, so not sure where this will end up. I think given that its likely the parents and children will be christian, rename/make a sibling rather than parent is a better solution. Also, this is not an indiscriminate collection of abbesses - they are all abbesses of secular abbeys (which I just learned about) - hence the proposed rename helps make it more specific. I'm not sure if a general 'abbess' container category is thus needed. --KarlB (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found and added Category:Buddhist abbesses and changed the parents to more plausible ones. Most religious categories are rather a mess and this is no exception. I see no objection to creating the subcat Category:Secular abbesses. Oculi (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw ok based on that will make subcat and withdraw this rename. --KarlB (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2012 (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:World War II Nazi concentration camps in former Yugoslavia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II Nazi concentration camps in former Yugoslavia to Category:Nazi concentration camps in Yugoslavia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "World War II" is unneeded per the convention of Category:Nazi concentration camps. We can just use "Yugoslavia" rather than "former Yugoslavia" as the latter is usually only used to reference the territory that was once Yugoslavia after the the 1990s break-up when its consituent republics were declaring independence. We would refer to an concentration camp that existed in 1994 as being in the "former Yugoslavia", but I think we would typically refer to a concentration camp that existed in 1944 as being simply in "Yugoslavia". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename and stick it here: Category:The_Holocaust_in_Yugoslavia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.brown (talk • contribs)
rename - I was unaware of the convention when I created the category.--Darius (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the convention. Icarus^talk 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename. C2C per convention of Category:Nazi concentration camps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 27 April 2012 (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:Jewish documentary films[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 11 with parent category for further discussion. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jewish documentary films to Category:Documentary films about Jews and Judaism

Nominator's rationale: Following the consensus decision at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_18#Category:African_American_documentaries, I believe we'd be wise to rename this one accordingly -- using Category:Books about Jews and Judaism as a perfectly viable model, and per parent category Category:Jews and Judaism. (esp. in that the film need not be a biographical doc about a Jewish person). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename but not per nom; rename to Category:Documentary films about Judaism to match the rest of the cat in which it sits. Documentary films about 'Jews' doesn't really fit in the main category tree, which is films about religion. A film about some entertainer who happened to be jewish thus wouldn't seem to fit well in this category. I'm not sure if we should classify every film that happens to have a jew as the star as a 'documentary film about jews' - instead focus this category on films about judaism. perhaps we could have a different cat for documentary films about jews? tricky... we have Category:Documentary_films_about_African_Americans, so there is precedent. --KarlB (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Category:Documentary films about Judaism would fit easily with the others in Category:Documentary films about religion, and then we could if necessary create sub- or related cats like Category:Documentary films about Jewish history, I suppose. There's been some disputes over this over the years, but it's generally accepted now there is a need for categories about the Jewish people that are not limited to Judaism itself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just think if I'm looking for something to learn about the religion, I'd rather not troll through documentaries about singers who were Jewish. to me it makes sense to separate these out, and have some criteria for what makes it a 'documentary about jews' (e.g. would a documentary about woody allen fit? if so where? --KarlB (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that would be a bona fide subcat, especially with the African American one as precedent. Again, ethnic people categories can be tricky. So let's see what the consensus says: it's a good idea to broaden the discussion as you are suggesting, I think, so everyone is clear on what the fuller implications might be, were this to be repurposed as a more narrow "... about Judaism" cat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think one category could cover films about Jewish culture and the other could cover Judaism, since they are overlapping but different nonetheless. I suppose some films will be placed in both categories. Or, if it becomes too fine a line, then we keep as one category, called Category:Documentary films about Judaism and Jewish culture --KarlB (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the current name makes it unclear whether the creator or the subject is Jewish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after the rename a film about Einstein should not be included, unless the film makes some mention of the fact that he was Jewish, and probably more than a passing reference. It should not be enough that the film is about a Jew, it should have to make it so that those who see the film know that the film is about a Jew.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2012 (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.