Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 18 September 20 >

September 19[edit]

Lists of hospitals in Sindh[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Lists of hospitals in Sindh into Category:Lists of hospitals in Pakistan
Nominator's rationale: a small and unnecessary category Hugo999 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 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:Archaeological artifacts by century[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 to merge. Editors should feel free to open a further discussion on whether to align the names of the categories to "artifacts" or "artefacts". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. In effect, this new category would be categorising old works according to whether they have survived and been found & dated. "Works by category" is more extensive and is sufficient. The merger also saves any arguments about US/UK spelling which emerged at the speedy page, see below. – Fayenatic London 19:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
Not only that, but this category, from 2009, seems to be the only old member of the slightly dubious Category:Archaeological artifacts by century - which may well be redundant to "works" categories. User:Dj777cool has in the past few days set up that head category and some other century categories, using the American spelling, so ignoring what "convention" already existed. Straight breach of WP:ENGVAR - all should be renamed to the British spelling. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I floated this idea, but "works" are essentially "Works of art" (both physical and intangible), whereas artefacts/artifacts is just a fancy word for "man-made object" (and includes almost any non-food item you buy in a shop). We had on the main page a few days ago the Duvensee paddle, which is an artefact but not a work. There may be a case for Category:4th-century BC archaeological artefacts and other ancient periods, though another issue is that dating of such things is typically vague & subject to variation & revision. Not quite sure about this. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Artifacts is rather nonspecific, and works is entirely nonspecific. Faced with that choice, I'd rather go all the way and have the category just be about the date.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly what you mean by "nonspecific" but looking at the top of the category structure clearly shows that "works" in our scheme is defined in the same way as it is in Anglo/US & most other copyright law, which is certainly broad, but not at all "nonspecific". The "works" category leads up to Category:Creative works which has as a parent Category:Intellectual works. The Duvensee paddle is not a "creative work", though if they had patents back in the Stone Age it might have qualified for one of those. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to Oppose per the above; fundamentally the two types of objects are different, with works (if physical) a sub-set of artefacts. I might still favour deleting, but not merging. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- "Works" tends to refer to literary or artistic works. The Bremen cog is a ship, certainly an artefact, but I am not sure it is a "work", according to the normal usage of the word. We also have an idol: that may be an artistic work, but if it was an idol, its primary purpose awas as an object of veneration; we may regard it as art, but that was not the prime objective. This discussion seems to have started over the spelling artifact/artefact, which is an ENGVAR issue. As an Englishman, I prefer artefact. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 24 September 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.

Dukedom categories from Britain and Ireland[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. As promised, I'm closing this without regard to the previous emptying in various directions, and forging a consensus out of the arguments rather than vote-counting. The most compelling argument here is that the surrounding categories use "Peerage of"; it's hard to make these the exception to that rule. But nearly as significant is the overlap argument. BHG's unchallenged description of a "Scotland" category ending up in four ambiguous categories should be enough to give a closer pause. So I'm closing this as a delete, which means I'm endorsing the "Peerages" approach. However, even though I said I was closing it without regard to the out-of-process category emptying on both sides, it would be a mistake for anyone to do it again. That is not a tactic I'll endorse, and will restore any categories where it occurs.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. The articles are now in more precisely-named sub-categories which avoid the huge ambiguities in the titles above. (Ambiguities explained below). The nominated categories have no clear inclusion criteria, and their titles have so many possible meanings that defining a particular set of inclusion criteria would be original research.
All five of these categories were nominated for deletion at CfD August 6, in 5 separate (but near-identical) discussions which were recently closed together as "no consensus". I think that one of the reasons for the lack of a clear consensus in favour of the more specific "Dukedoms in the Peerage of Foo" categories, was that the discussions reflected some confusion over the complex history of these peerage rolls as well as concerns that a simple renaming without checking each article could lead to inaccuracy.
I have now (re)created and populated a set of sub-categories which place all these titles in categories for the different peerage rolls in which they were created:
  1. Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom – see Peerage of the United Kingdom
  2. Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Great Britain – see Peerage of Great Britain
  3. Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Scotland – see Peerage of Scotland
  4. Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of England – see Peerage of England
  5. Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Ireland – see Peerage of Ireland
The effect of this has been to empty all of the nominated categories, because it turned out that all of the articles in Category:Dukedoms of England did indeed belong in Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of England, and so on. This has left the 5 nominated categories as pointless containers. They can be deleted without need for merger.
For the benefit of editors not familiar with the complex history: the current territory of the United Kingdom includes the all territory of four defunct Kingdoms: the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of Great Britain. It also includes part of the territory of the former Kingdom of Ireland.
Each of these kingdoms created their own set of peers, and although they are now all part of the United Kingdom, those different peerages have different histories and statuses. For example, those in the Peerage of England were all entitled to a seat in the House of Lords, whereas for 250 years only a subset of the peers in the Peerage of Scotland were admitted, and the same with the Irish peers until they were phased out after most of Ireland became independent in the 1920s.
These peerages also have overlapping territories. Great Britain includes England+Wales, and Scotland. The United Kingdom includes England+Wales, and Scotland and Ireland. So the Peerage of Great Britain includes peerages related to territory in Scotland and in England, but a peer in the Peerage of Great Britain is not a member of the Peerage of Scotland.
The problem with the categories nominated is that their titles could mean one or more of several different things.
For example, "Dukedoms of Scotland" may refer to:
  1. Dukes in the Peerage of Scotland before the Act of Union 1707. (Note that even after the union, some titles were still created in the Peerage of Scotland, although I don't think there were any Dukes).
  2. Dukes in the Peerage of Great Britain or in the Peerage of the United Kingdom whose territorial designation is in Scotland
  3. Dukedoms created in the Peerage of Ireland or the Peerage of England for Scottish people
  4. Dukedoms created in the Peerage of Great Britain or in the Peerage of the United Kingdom for Scottish people, but with territory outside Scotland
This ambiguity creates unworkable categories, unless constrained by WP:OC#ARBITRARY inclusion criteria applied through original research. However, categorising peerages according to the kingdom in which those titles were created avoids any confusion or original research, and follows the classification system used in all the reference works on peerages, such as Burke's and Debrett's. It also reflects the terminology used in the creation of peerages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of procedural question, resolved
  • Request from closer. No objection to the nomination, but please explain how this isn't emptying a set of categories out of process.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving articles to a more specific sub-category has never been regarded as emptying-out-of-process. When I began the recategorisation, I assumed that some pages would not belong in the sub-categories, per the fears expressed at the previous CfD. However, that turned out to be mistaken.
    Whether those sub-categories are a good idea can often be grounds for a discussion afterwards, but that applies to any new category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Note the discussion at CfD 2011 June 16. Some editors objected to possible inaccuracies if the categories were renamed to something of a narrower scope, but those who objected also gave explicit approval to the creation of the sub-categories, as I have done here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I think the presumption has to be on the previous state of the categories. That is, another no-consensus result would result in the categories being emptied back into their previous states. But I don't want to prejudge it. Let's see where this ends up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike, see my comment below about the convention of these categories. A renaming from "Dukedoms of Foo" could have been done as a a C2C speedy. Please also note your own closing comments at the previous CfD: "As far as I can tell, there's no merit to the claim that the Peerage categories were emptied out of process; rather, it appears that those categories were created unilaterally".
    If editors want to rename or merge the categories which fit the current convention, they should seek a consensus to do so. We have already had one episode of the convention-fitting categories being depopulated on invalid procedural grounds. If there are to be any further changes, let's decide this by a consensus to change the convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First, please understand that I have no opinion on one set of names or another. I'd like to see where this goes. But I should be clear about what my comment in the close meant. As far as I can tell, this sequence occurred: The "Dukedoms of" categories were created in 2011. Those categories were emptied in recent weeks and replaced unilaterally by Tryde with "Dukedoms in the Peerage of" categories. Timrollpickering put that all back because he believed it was done out of process. The original categories were put up for discussion, and no consensus occurred, so I closed it as no consensus. So the first emptying was done out of process (they should be been done by a "rename" nomination), and the second was done as an attempt to fix the first one. Unless I have that wrong, the original categories have primacy. If you can convince people that the Peerages categories should be retained, then that's great. If not, I think it all has to go back to the original state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike, I hope that I have not appeared to be questioning your neutrality. I accept that your concerns are procedural. However, this is turning into an increasingly frustrating catch-22.
    The first emptying was done by Tryde checking the articles and moving them to a more precisely-named category with a narrower scope, which should have been a subcat of the original (tho it appears not to have been).
    Those moves were reverted as out-of-process, but when the rename discussion came up, some of the editors who opposed a rename did so on the basis that a straightforward rename would lead to miscategorisation some articles. So the only way to do this was a selective recategorisation, as I did.
    But now, I'm being told that the selective renaming is not acceptable either. So it seems that we are caught in some sort of procedural knot, where there is no way to ensure that categories in this area are named consistently. Have you looked at the other similar categories? There are dozens of them, all using "Peerage of the Foo" (see collapsed list below). That's the clear convention for peerage cats in Britain and Ireland, and in other areas you argue strongly for upholding naming conventions unless there is a consensus to change the convention. Yet in this case, you seem to be unintentionally erecting a procedural lock against adopting that convention, when nobody has sought to change the rest of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Peerages of the United Kingdom
  • You seem to be right about that procedural lock. OK, let's go with this approach. After this discussion plays out, assuming nobody closes it before me, I will make a new call one way or the other, regardless of vote frequency. I will attempt to find the right answer in the arguments, but past actions won't be a part of it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Mike. Hope you will be OK with me collapsing this procedural discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    No worries. Thanks for talking it through.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For England, adding the phrase "in the peerage of" misleadingly implies that the status of these dukedoms is somehow exceptional. A dukedom of England is a dignity that was granted by someone who held the title king or queen of England. Territorial designation is irrelevant. An equivalent situation exists for Scottish dukedoms, not to mention category:Dukedoms of France, category:Dukedoms of Spain, etc. As for Great Britain and the United Kingdom, they have separate peerage lists depending whether a title was granted before or after 1801. Perhaps the motivation for the adding the phrase is to clarity this point, although I suspect that it will pass over the heads of most readers either way. Kauffner (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kauffner, it's hard to assess the relevance of your Burke's Peerage search, because I can't see the full text of any of the entries, and can't see the notation system in use. Burkes uses a lot of abbreviations, and they may be using one of the abbreviated forms such as "[U]" to denote a title in the peerage of the United Kingdom.
    The link you provide to Burke's 77 page essay on Scottish titles is from "Burke's Landed Gentry", rather than from Burke's Peerage, and the introduction says "Unlike the hereditary peerage, the Scottish Barons derived their status directly from their estates". Please find a source which discusses the hereditary peerage, because that one doesn't.
    I would be interested to see a source for your assertion that "dukedom of England is a dignity that was granted by someone who held the title king or queen of England", but it remains a phrase that will be ambiguous to the non-expert reader and editor. This will cause confusion amongst readers and miscategorisation by editors.
    Note that the convention of similar categories in Britain and Ireland is to use "in the peerage of Foo". See Category:Peerage of England and its subcats, Category:Peerage of Scotland and its subcats, Category:Peerage of Ireland and its subcats, Category:Peerage of Great Britain and its subcats, Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom and its subcats. If editors want to remove the phrase "in the peerage of", that should be done by a group CFD nomination, but in the meantime these "Dukedoms of Foo" categories are exceptions to a long-established convention and could be speedily renamed per C2C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on oversimplification. In a comment above, Kauffner asserts that "A dukedom of England is a dignity that was granted by someone who held the title king or queen of England", and appears to be asserting that a similarly neat situation applies to peerages issued by the Kings of Ireland, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
That logic would have us categorise the Duke of Abercorn as a Duke of the United Kingdom, because the title was created in 1868, by Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. However, this is untrue, and has always been untrue: the title Duke of Abercorn was created in the Peerage of Ireland.
Abercorn appears to be the only such Dukedom, but that example is only the tip of the iceberg. There are other instances of the monarchs of GB or the UK issuing peerages in the peerage rolls of predecessor nations, including the following titles created in the Peerage of Ireland after the abolition in 1801 of the Kingdom of Ireland:
  • Baronies -- 22 titles in the Peerage of Ireland created by the King or Queen of The United Kingdom
  • Viscountcies -- the last 18 titles were created by the King or Queen of The United Kingdom
  • Earldoms -- the last 18 titles were created by the King or Queen of The United Kingdom
  • Marquessates -- the last 7 titles were created by the King or Queen of The United Kingdom
That's why until at least the mid-20th century, peerages created by the UK monarch always explicitly stated which peerage roll they belong in, e.g. Marquess of Westminster (1831), Earl of Kimberley (1866), Earl of Cromer (1901), John Maynard Keynes(1942), Viscount Simon (1940), Earl of Kilmuir (1961). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tip of the iceberg indeed. By User:Kauffner's logic, it could also be argued that the Duke of Leinster (in the Peerage of Ireland) is a Duke of Great Britain because the title was created by a monarch who was King of Great Britain, that the Dukes of Hamilton, Buccleuch, Argyll, Montrose etc (in the Peerage of Scotland) are Dukes of England because they were created by monarchs who were King/Queen of England, that the Dukes of Grafton, Bedford, Devonshire, Marlborough etc (in the Peerage of England) are Dukes of Scotland because they were created by monarchs who were King/Queen of Scots, or that all the aforementioned plus the Dukes of Manchester and Northumberland (in the Peerage of Great Britain) are Dukes of Ireland because the titles were created by a monarch who was King/Queen of Ireland. Opera hat (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribute contents; and empty; then delete -- The same process needs to be followed with lesser titles. The concept of titles being in the peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, GB or UK is well understood and established. The issue is not the location of the place from which the title is derived, but the basis on which it was created. Quite frankly OPera hat is talking through his hat. Leinster is an Irish peerage, becasue it was created by George III as King of Ireland and entered on the Irish Patetn Rolls, though he was also king of GB. You will not find it in the English patent rolls. The Duke was able to sit in the British House of Lords (until that right was restricted), becasue he had been created Baron Kildare in 1866. Grafton is an English title becasue it was created by Charles II in his right as king of England and will be in the Patent Rolls of the English Court of Chancery. Buccleuch is certainly a Scottish title, but the Duke also holds the Englsih tiotle of Earl of Doncaster. The Duke of Argyll holds that title twice, once as a Scottish Duke of 1701 and again as a UK Duke of 1892; he also has two GB baronies of 1766. Montrose sat in the Lords by virtue of an English earldom of 1722. Of course when the Scottish representative peers stopped being elected and all Scottish peers were admitted to the Lords, this issue became purley academic. The person who disrupted the previous system according to the country of creation was guilty of vandalism. If he had a proposal to make such a radical change he should have ead it discussed first to get a consensu first. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peter, I read Opera hat's comment as being in agreement with you. Zie was explaining the logic of Kauffner's comments, rather than advocating the application of Kauffner's principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... I was talking through User:Kauffner's hat, rather than my own. Incidentally, the Dukes of Leinster sat as Viscounts Leinster (GB 1747). The eldest son of the 3rd Duke sat as Baron Kildare (UK 1870) until succeeding his father to the higher titles in 1874. Opera hat (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. BHG - I appreciate your desire to remove ambiguity with this category - however the natural inclination is to use the territorial boundaries and not the peerages. Those where it is not clear can belong in both categories without significantly disturbing the majority of the entries which are not ambiguous. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Benkenobi, I'm glad that we at least agree that without the "peerage of" component of the name, the "Dukedom of Foo" category titles are ambiguous ... and also that you go further and accept (unlike Kauffner) that losing the "peerage of" component completely changes the scope of the categories from a peerage roll basis to a territorial basis.
    The result of that would be a radical restructuring of the categories, losing the historical distinction. I can't think of any other situation where we have abandoned a historically accurate and widely-used classification system in favour of original research, or even where we have created an OR system in parallel.
    However, opposing this deletion will not achieve what you appear to want, because the articles will remain categorised by peerage roll rather than by territory. If you do want a system of categorisation by location-of-territory, then you should create a new category structure which is unambiguously named to achieve that, e.g. Category:Dukedoms of territory in Scotland. That would at least clarify what the category is for, and it is a basic principle of naming policy to avoid ambiguous titles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The "Dukedoms in the Peerage of X" categories should remain as the most accurate and unambiguous title for the articles they contain. I had been delaying actually casting a vote to delete the "Dukedoms of X" categories because any future categories of "Dukedoms named for places in X" could be placed along with "Dukedoms in the Peerage of X" in the larger category. But until such a categorisation exists, "Dukedoms of X" is redundant. Delete now: they can always be recreated in the future should the need arise. Opera hat (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Peerages named for places in X" could be an interesting category tree, and it would be unambiguous. If editors want to go for this sort of geographical category, Opera hat's proposed name is the way to do it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This would remove all ambiguity. As BHG has pointed out an Irish peerage may well refer to a place in England or Scotland and an English peerage may well refer to a place in Wales - peerages are legal entities not territorial ones. The average reader - without any particular knowledge on the peerage - will probably have difficulty understanding this. This would also be in line with other similar categories, such as Category:Earls in the Peerage of Scotland and Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland. Tryde (talk) 10:03, 29 September 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:Byzantine–Avar Wars[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "X-Y wars" are usually named alphabetically, but more importantly, the "Avar–Byzantine Wars" seems to be the only form used in scholarship, e.g. Florin Curta, István Erdélyi. I have yet to find the present form outside Wikipedia and its clones. Constantine ✍ 16:39, 19 September 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:Romani female pornographic film actors[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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This series of categories was created for Angel Dark. One obvious problem is that the article doesn't even mention her Romani background. But even if it did, we don't categorize adult models and actors according to ethnicity and it's obvious at least in this case that there's no connection between her adult film career and her Romani heritage. Pichpich (talk) 15:30, 19 September 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:Real Time Gross Settlement[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not a proper noun. Miracle Pen (talk) 15:20, 19 September 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:Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (United Kingdom)[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Nomination withdrawn per discussion below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The head article is at the bare title Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Many government departments use very similar names to those of other countries, so I usually favour adding the disambiguator for this sort of category even when there is not an exact match. However, in this case I haven't found anything that comes close, so it may not be needed.
I listed this as a speedy renaming, where it was opposed. I am sure that the experienced editor who objected had a good reason for doing so, so there needs to be a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
Notification left at WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes I do. The UK ministry name has changed so many times that almost no UK people outside Whitehall or the Civil Service could tell you it accurately, and few recognise it, or tell you what "DEFRA", the usual acronym, means. See Department of the Environment etc for the others. All the several "Ministries of the Environment" are disambiguated. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm coming round to your way of thinking. There's probably a case for saying that the govt-dept categories should include the name of the country, to avoid miscategorisation through forgetting what the latest name is.
    Earlier today I created Category:Department of Justice and Equality, and I think that it probably should have the country added as a dab. It has been through several names in recent years, and I suspect that even political obsessives from the country concerned would just refer to it as "Justice", while nobody else would know what country it related to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with that, except in cases like Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht which are distinctive enough. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree, so I have withdrawn this nomination. And I will try to remember to nominate Category:Department of Justice and Equality for renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 22 September 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:Bridges destroyed by scour[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. Any that are appropriate to move to Category:Bridge disasters caused by scour damage should go there.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category was just created following the split of Category:Washouts into Category:Bridge disasters caused by scour damage and this one at CFD August 2. The category for disasters is fine, but the three non-disaster washed-out bridges (Bartonsville, Bedell and Enfield–Suffield Covered Bridges) were all destroyed by flood; as I understand it, this could mean the superstructure was forced off the piers without necessarily indicating that there was bridge scour. Therefore if these pages are to be categorised, the category should be renamed to Category:Bridges destroyed by flood. However, there is currently no category scheme for causes of bridge destruction, except for those that were the sites of disasters, so I am suggesting deletion. – Fayenatic London 13:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I see that Category:Bridge disasters by cause has plenty of well-populated subcats. I'm inclined to support the nominator's proposal to delete, because it might be a better idea than starting a whole new scheme for causes of bridge destruction. However, do we really need to distinguish between disasters and other forms of bridge collapse? The distinction seems somewhat arbitrary or subjective, and it's arguable that any bridge collapse meets the definition in the lead of the article disaster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least at this time. Scour generally will not take down a bridge on it's own. Scour weakens the supports and then strong flowing water will cause the bridge to fail. So the scour makes the bridge venerable and the high water levels take advantage of that weakness and brings the bridge down. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 26 September 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.

Irish government categories[edit]

Category:Irish Ministers for Foreign Affairs[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to to fit the convention of Category:Foreign ministers. This also removes ambiguity, because the mass emigration from Ireland in the 19th and 20th centuries saw many Irish people holding political office overseas, and some may have been Foreign ministers.
Note that the head article is at Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, because the scope of the office was broadened in 2011 to include trade. However, 18 of the 28 holders of the office have had the title "Minister for Foreign Affairs", and the common defining characteristic is that their ministerial responsibilities included foreign relations. It would be misleading to include the first 27 Ministers in a category which included the word "trade". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:23, 19 September 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:Irish Ministers for Finance[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match head article Minister for Finance (Ireland), and to fit the convention of Category:Finance ministers. This also removes ambiguity, because the mass emigration from Ireland in the 19th and 20th centuries saw many Irish people holding political office overseas, and some may have been Finance ministers.
Note that this renaming matches speedy renaming criteria C2C and C2D. I chose to list it here rather than at WP:CFD/S to simplify the process in case there are objections. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:04, 19 September 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:Office of the Taoiseach[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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category is redundant to the Category:Department of the Taoiseach. I can see that there could be a theoretical case for separating out a category of items relating specifically to the office (as in the position of authority, rather than the building), distinguishing them from the wider Department which he (yes, all the Taoisigh have been men) controls; it could accommodate articles on the oath taken, powers held etc. But AFAICS any such material is in the head article Taoiseach ... and in the meantime the category appears to be used as a synonym for the Department of the Taoiseach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:49, 19 September 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:Taoisigh of Ireland[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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The "of Ireland" is superfluous, because no other country has an office called Taoiseach.
The term is an ancient Irish one, but the contemporary usage as head of the Irish government (equivalent to Prime Minister in other countries) is so overwhelmingly the common usage that we do not need to disambiguate from uses in the era before colonisation.
(Note that the category was originally called Category:Taoisigh of the Republic of Ireland, until renamed at CFD in 2005). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:29, 19 September 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:Padilla 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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one page in it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:47, 19 September 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:1st National Assembly of Pakistan[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 CfD 2012 October 2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as well as the ones for 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th 10th and 11th National Assemblies of Pakistan. Empty or categories containing only one article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:24, 19 September 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:Chinese erotica writers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is and what is not erotica is too difficult to delineate — and therefore, only one article was placed into this category so far, and it seems to be a category that will forever remain underpopulated due to the difficulty in delineation. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:04, 19 September 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:Zastava[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match what may be the main article based on the category contents. Zastava is a dab page. If there is a better choice please raise it. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:53, 19 September 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:Kuwaiti actresses[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_October_30#Category:Kuwaiti_actresses. I originally closed this as "Merge (already done)," but I know now that the reason it was already done was that it was emptied out of process. I've reopened it, and added the tag and contents back--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was created as a subcategory of the target. However, there is very little precedent for splitting acting-related categories by sex. Unless this case is a special one, I believe that the contents of this category should be up-merged. SuperMarioMan 02:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Acting is a rigidly gendered profession, in which men and women work in the same settings but have roles defined by their gender. Unless a casting director is trying to make a counterfactual point, women don't get to play Hamlet and men don't get to play Ophelia. This gendered split is acknowledged in the major awards in the profession, which have separate awards for men and women.
    The relevant guidance at WP:CATGRS stresses the principle that "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic", and that is clearly the case here. We have gendered categories for singers Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers) for similar reasons, and in both cases there are specific exemptions in the UK's Sex Discrimination laws to permit differentiation by gender. (I presume that the same applies in other jurisdictions such as the USA, or women would be suing Hollywood for not being cast in the lucrative and more plentiful male roles).
    Note that the guidance also says that "separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed", but offers no reason for this breach of the general principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Note also that we have a well-populated Category:Actors by ethnicity‎. It is absurd that acting categories should distinguish actors by ethnicity, but not by gender. Ethnicity had much less impact on an actor's career path than their gender. For example, Antony Sher was raised in South-Africa, has Jewish-Lithuanian ancestry, yet has played plenty of major characters who share none of those characteristics. However, his article offers no suggestion of him ever having been cast as a woman ... so why omit his gender from the categorisation when we categorise him on factors that are much less relevant to his career and notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only functional difference between an actor and an actress is what kind of sexy bits happen to be located between the person's legs while they're doing the job. And just for a few examples of people acting in cross-gender roles, rent The Year of Living Dangerously and look for Linda Hunt, or go see one of the considerable number of productions of The Importance of Being Earnest in which Lady Bracknell is played by a man, or watch The Kids in the Hall (who've specifically said in interviews that the point of doing drag wasn't to go for "look, it's a man in a dress!" but to realistically and credibly play actual three-dimensional women characters.) Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per policy. The guidelines on categorizing by gender specifically state "As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guideline (not a policy) offers no reason for the specific deprecation of actresses, so this category should be assessed against the general principles set out in the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline (the fact that it's not a "policy" is irrelevant; guidelines are binding in the absence of compelling reasons to make exceptions) specifically points out that such categories need to pay heed to the issue of ghettoization. Singer categories can be gendered without running afoul of that problem, as a non-gendered "Singers" category can have male and female subcategories alongside singers-by-genre subcategories -- filing Adele in Category:British female singers and Robbie Williams in Category:British male singers doesn't prevent them from sitting next to each other in a non-gendered Category:British pop singers category as well (and since that category exists, neither of them would otherwise be sitting directly in Category:British singers anyway.) But there's no gender-neutral category that can parent separate categories for male and female actors; the "male" Category:Kuwaiti actors is the only possible parent of Category:Kuwaiti actresses, such that the only thing the gendered category does is to preclude the women from being categorized alongside the men in any gender-neutral grouping. If there were a gender-neutral term that could serve as a parent to "male" actors and actresses categories, then perhaps things would be different -- but if the "male" category is itself the only logical parent of the "female" one, then the ghettoization issue renders it untenable. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 15 October 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:Transgender and transsexual soldiers[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category should be renamed in line with other similar categories and to broaden the scope to all military personnel and not just soldiers. Buck Winston (talk) 01:09, 19 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_19&oldid=1138397378"