Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 11 May 13 >

May 12[edit]

Category:Dustin Lance Black[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. No need for an eponymous category to contain the main article and a single subcat. Tassedethe (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2013 (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.

Diamonds originated in[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fix the grammar. Could also be Category:Diamonds that originated in.... Tassedethe (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2013 (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:Detached binaries[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, without prejudice to re-creation if anyone wants to populate it appropriately. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category contains a single redirect Detached binary. This is already categorized in the parent category Category:Binary stars. Tassedethe (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment or we could populate it by categorizing detached binaries into this category... -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Delete, since the subcategories within Category:Binary stars handle everything already. BSVulturis (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or we could move those categories into this category (as a counterpart of Category:Common envelope binary stars, leaving out those binaries types that are neither specifically detached nor common envelope; though all star articles would fall into one or the other) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2013 (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:Fox Television Stations Group[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The official company name is not "Fox Television Stations Group" as noted in Talk:Fox Television Stations#Requested move. I am requesting this move for consistency measures. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 16:53, 12 May 2013 (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.

Bilateral relations of Taiwan[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. Any problematic articles can be dealt with individually.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an opposed speedy. Rename all to match the main articles Belize–Taiwan relations, Japan–Taiwan relations, South Africa–Taiwan relations and South Korea–Taiwan relations, and the parent category Category:Bilateral relations of Taiwan.

All the articles were renamed from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan" after this Requested Move with the following closing comment:

Some editors still opposed the move of individual articles where the main topic might be relations between certain countries and pre-1949 China, the one where ROC was still in power on the mainland. On the other hand, User:BDD has argued that our article on Germany–United States relations is expected to cover the whole succession of governments of Germany in one article. Those who want special coverage of pre-1949 relations seem like they would require a split of every current article which contains any mention of the pre-1949 period. That would go against the consistency argument which seems to be widely held by those commenting here. There was also a very weighty (and hotly contested) move discussion in February 2012 where Republic of China was moved to Taiwan. The logic of that move might suggest that the 'relations' articles would be expected to move as well, which is the topic of the current discussion.

Note that the parent Category:Bilateral relations of Taiwan was renamed by this CFD. A speedy move was proposed that was opposed by an IP who claimed some of the articles predate 1949 but declined to say which. It's time we stopped the heel dragging in this area and brought both consistency and the modern common name in this area. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy discussion
I have to oppose the first since it is under a full discussion since March 27, Albeit incorrectly listed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And never tagged? No wonder it's not been noticed. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy these cannot simply be renamed, several of the articles in these heirarchies have nothing to do with Taiwan, as they occur during the period of Japanese rule of Taiwan, or during the period of ROC rule of the mainland. These need to be split -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify which articles. Most only contain the relations main articles and bits from the modern era. We get similar objections on just about every naming discussion relating to Taiwan - a bit of IDHT? Timrollpickering (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as stated in the speedy, not all the contents of these categories fall in the post-1949 period, so what happens to those articles should be determined in this CFD. Should we have a separate hierarchy for the period of rule for the ROC on the mainland? (including the period when Japan ruled Taiwan; articles during this period obviously don't fit into the proposed category names) Even a rename would have to examine each article to determine membership, therefore not a speedy rename, since it requires a resorting of contents. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please (for the second time) identify the articles you think are problematic. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. First Sino-Japanese War (1894–5) was not only pre-1945, it was pre-Republic of China, as it was fought by the Qing Dynasty; it seems to me that it does belong under Japan–Taiwan relations rather than ROC, as the Qing ceded Taiwan to Japan. The only problem that I can find is in Category:Ambassadors of Canada to the Republic of China where George Sutton Patterson became Chargé d'Affaires at the Canadian embassy China in October 1946, but that can be resolved either by splitting that category later, or simply moving him up into the parent Category:Ambassadors of Canada to China. – Fayenatic London 19:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Japan-Taiwan articles really often have nothing to do with the Repuublic of China, they relate specifically to the island and it being occupied by Japan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle to match main articles. The Japan category has a subcat that also needs to be renamed. The contents of the Canadian category need work. I checked another of the articles there, but it was not clear if he was an ambassador to the mainland or to Taiwan. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2013 (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:Places of Indian Rebellion of 1857[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being "associated" with a rebellion is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a place (see WP:OC#VENUES). A previous similar CFD was this. DexDor (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussion. We seem to have missed one category in the previous purge. Dimadick (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should nip this now. What next Category:Places of the American Civil War?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps after listifying -- This is too like a performance by performer category. An "engagements of the Indian Rebellion of 1857" category (cognate with battles of ...) might be appropriate. The category is being misused to list places involved. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2013 (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:English women essayists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Last rung of the ladder, could end up ghettoizing. I wouldn't be surprised if none of these wonderful writers are in the parent. Since the parent cannot be split any further, there's no advantage to sub-catting the women like this. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. We do not yet have enough women essayist articles so categorized to justify splitting by nationality. Woolf and Woolstencraft are in the parent category, the others are not. Several of them are currently in the English women writers parent which is sort of odd. Maybe because many writers write in multiple forms, so if a women wrote some forms with sub-cats and some without what do we do?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2013 (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:Modernist women 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Once again, ghettoization in full force. the parent category isn't even populated with the men, but this one is chock full of women - and not a single one is in the parent. This is last-rung-of-the ladder, we don't need further division by gender here - any woman writer will have plenty of cats that capture her gender, this one doesn't need to be such a cat. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
whoah- easy there - I'm trying to improve the wiki as everyone else here- please AGF. My reading of WP:EGRS is that such cats should not be created if they are last rung- if the cat is not big enough to be otherwise diffused, we should not create subcats for ethnicity or gender.

"Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory. For instance: if Category:American poets is not realistically dividable on other grounds, then do not create a subcategory for "African-American poets", as this will only serve to isolate these poets from the main category. Instead, simply apply "African-American writers" (presuming Category:Writers is the parent of Category:Poets) and "American poets" as two distinct categories."

It doesn't say you get a special pass/exception if the intersection is notable -- it uses the word never -- and I never claimed these intersections were not notable. So perhaps we need to clarify the guidance? Until then, It's pretty clear to me that the bottom rung rule overrides the 'notable intersection' rule.
I guess I'm confused, because if notable intersections can be created no-matter-where, then the last-rung-of-the-ladder rule has no meaning whatsoever - since all such cats must prove their notability. Thus I see last-rung as a further restriction in creation of such cats to avoid exactly the situation of this cat today - full of women, none of whom are in the parent.
So perhaps you could clarify your understanding of the last-rung rule, and when it should or shouldn't be applied.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
further comment For example, I easily found this book: Gendered Modernisms: American women poets and their readers, and I'm quite certain there are seminars and professorships on same - so that would imply we should create a quadruple intersection: women + poet + modernist + american Category:American women modernist poets and slot it under Category:American modernist poets, but the last rung rule would come to our rescue and say nyet. So, what do we do? I think we say, loud and clear to academics and everyone else - USE CATEGORY INTERSECTION - when you really want something so specific - and then trim the tree of much of this stuff which has a natural tendancy to ghettoize no matter the intents of its creators - if there aren't other cats for women to go into, they end up *just* in the child cat. It is possible to find college courses and anthologies on practically every domain of writing, down to the century/location/etc, and you can find the same level of detailed studies just looking at women's writing. But to go from that to the supposition that one must therefore create a gendered category for every theme, style, form, etc in the Category:Writers tree goes a step too far IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, I know you're trying to improve the wiki. I think I should be able to state that overbroad opposition to intersectional categories is misguided without assuming bad faith. I don't think you're doing anything racist/sexist or trying to screw things up -- I just think that, in good faith, you're being overbroad. Please accept my assurances that I really don't think anything bad about you or your motives.
That said, please consider that there are multiple overlapping concepts with respect to categorization:
  • One is "ghettoization". We resist ghettoization by duplicate categorizing. Not all subcategories need to or ought to be "diffused" from parent categories into child subcategories. I think that the "last rung on the ladder" rule is perhaps a useful shorthand to figuring things out, but if one uses that as one's primary guidepost, then one does run into all sorts of problems with discerning other notable topics.
  • One is figuring out when intersections are notable / defining at all. I haven't responded on many of these subcategories because (1) I'm not certain whether there is or is not sufficient scholarship to justify the category as a discrete topic; and (2) the categories are probably not good fits for the categorization system for a couple of other reasons: a) sometimes identities ("African American science fiction writer") are overlapping and that's not a good fit for the categorization system; and b) because sometimes useful topics ("Women essayists") are also overlapping with lots of other categories ("Women novelists", "Women poets") and that's not a good fit for the categorization system. ... But there are times there is a notable / defining category (intersection-style) that is also a "last rung on the ladder" situation, if the things were diffused. Which is why we don't diffuse some kinds of categories.
  • Category intersection is a great idea. But it's not there yet. In the meantime, there is a clearly defined body of Modernist women writers who, frankly, are defined as such, and ought to be findable that way.
  • Try thinking of some of these diffusions not as gender/ethnic diffusions, but as national/genre diffusions of gender/ethnic divisions. --Lquilter (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. A few brief thoughts:
  1. "I think that the "last rung on the ladder" rule is perhaps a useful shorthand to figuring things out, but if one uses that as one's primary guidepost, then one does run into all sorts of problems with discerning other notable topics." - if that's the case, then we need to revise the guidance, urgently. It is pretty clear - e.g. it uses the word never. Just for clarity, I define "last-rung-on-the-ladder" not in terms of diffusion or lack thereof, but on whether non-gendered, non-ethnic sibling cats exist. If they don't, it's last rung-on-the-ladder. We can take this part of the convo over to WP:EGRS. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Category intersection is a great idea. But it's not there yet." - actually, not true - you can do it today using cat scan. Academic researchers go through all sorts of hoops and use all sorts of tools to get data - asking them to learn to use catscan (which is trivially easy actually) is not a step too far - as opposed to the alternative, which is "create and populate an intersection category for every topic for which an anthology or seminar or professorship exists"
  3. "Try thinking of some of these diffusions not as gender/ethnic diffusions, but as national/genre diffusions of gender/ethnic divisions." I've tried, but that to me is the whole point of the last-rung rule. If you can diffuse by something else - say, nationality - then you *can* have ethnic/gendered cats. So I think the gendered cats should, when possible, go up the tree (I note that ethnic cats likely can't make it past the nationality, as ethnicity is often defined within a given nation). The higher up you put your ethnic/gendered leaf node, the better chance there is of not ghettoizing - for example, we have Category:African-American writers - there's little chance of that ghettoizing, because there are umpteen choices below Category:American writers. But Category:African-American science fiction writers, there aren't any other choices to categorize people, so the natural tendency - in spite of rules - would be to ghettoize. I think that's why the last-rung rule exists, as a way of limiting the scope and potential damage. For the same reason, Category:African-American scientists should clearly exist, there's scholarship on the topic, and, just as important, Category:American scientists is readily diffusable to a number of places. However, Category:American foresters is *not* diffusable, and as such I would oppose creation of Category:American women foresters and Category:African-American foresters and Category:African-American women foresters - even *if* there was scholarship on that very issue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree we need to revise the guidance, urgently; that whole page is confusing & that's not the worst part. ... On your second point, while the technology exists, it's not readily available & obvious to users & it looks pretty crappy. When I say that a topic is an "academic topic" I don't mean that it's only of interest to academics, and therefore because they're academics it's okay to make it hard for them to get the content. I mean that it's a notable topic, as evidenced by academic research, and therefore anyone should be able to access the topic. And on your 3rd point, I agree; it's not a wholly satisfactory answer. ... I guess I'm just going to continue making the case that some so-called "last rung" categories need to exist notwithstanding the poorly written guidance on "last rung" categories. --Lquilter (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets get to the guidance then. Meanwhile I'll hold off on further last-rung nominations - although the tree is ripe with them - pending further revisions to the guidance.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge The way the guidance is written the last wrung rule trumps everything else, including proof that the intersection is the most notable thing period. The one exception is for places where really we are dealing with total seperation by gender, thus we split apart men's and women's baksetball players at the college level. However that is not the case in writting. So, until we split Category:Modernist writers by nationality, we should not split it by gender. The wording seems to say to me that the last wrung rule overrides notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If last-rung trumps everything else then it really can't stand as a rule. I agree that this isn't the place to decide it, but if it's in controversy, then it really shouldn't be in use right now as an argument. --Lquilter (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fully stand by my previous statement, but I really think that the last wrung rule does not quite work. For example Category:Albanian models consists of 17 articles, 16 female and 1 male. The gender division is totally central to the whole profession. At the same time Category:American religious writers would seem to be properly diffused by religion. I can't think of any times sexuality or ethnicity is a proper last rung characteristic though. It seems some people want to limit gender categories to things like models, although I doubt that an attempt to destroy Category:American women judges would make any real progress, considering the fact that we have some state court judges cats with no women in them at all. That is despite the fact that wikipedia's presentism means we have an article on Jennifer Faunce, but do not have an article on an equally notable judge 100 years ago, who would almost without exception be a male, so my guess is women judges are over-represented in our categories, at least below the federal level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right - there can be exceptions to last-rung rule - but this isn't the place - let's bring this to WP:EGRS.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I still don't think *this* one should be an exception. It will always be a small cat, so I see no reason to divide by gender - even if we don't ghettoize - it still violates last-rung rule and complicates the tree needlessly (and creates yet another category women writers will need to be placed in)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree. It was a literary movement, and women were a discrete, identifiable presence within the movement, as is amply demonstrated by the scholarship. --Lquilter (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with that part - but wouldn't you agree that women have been a discrete, identifiable presence in *every* literary movement, in *every* genre, in *every* century, and basically in *every* field? The field of women's literature studies is HUGE - and that's just writing - but do we need discrete cats for women in every case? For example, I de-ghettoized the mathematics tree yesterday, and I'm quite sure there are articles about Chinese women mathematicians who made great contributions to the field of number theory. But it doesn't mean we should create Category:Chinese women number theorists as a result - better to just do Category:Women mathematicians and Category:Chinese mathematicians and Category:Number theorists - even if users don't have category intersection, we can't create all of these intersects just because they're studied - the mathematics tree hasn't yet divided the "types" of mathematicians by nationality really, and I don't think it's necessary. That's what I think the last-rung rule prevents - over-categorization by gender/ethnicity/etc--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2013 (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:Romantic women 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: rename to Category:Writers of the Romantic era. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need divides of high-level thematic writing styles + gender. Plus, this category doesn't even have a male (or even non-gendered) equivalent. I'd say just rename and rescope to match Category:Romantic poets and Category:Romantic artists, which are non-gendered. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom The gendered category obscures the fact that these writers were part of a much larger movement. Dimadick (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The gendered subcategory should absolutely not obscure these writers' role in a larger movement, because it should be applied as a supplementary category rather than have the women writers diffused into it. I express no view on whether or not this category should exist -- I'm not knowledgeable about Romantic writing to say whether women writers in that era are a distinct academic topic or had a distinct identity at the time. But please don't argue against the category based on ghettoization, because articles will not be ghettoized when they are redundantly categorized. See WP:EGRS. --Lquilter (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if this is too close in name to Category:American romantic fiction writers. I definately think we need to degenderize the category, but I am still not sure the name makes the parameters clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this entire category tree is badly named. Is this for shirt/bodice-ripping potboiler writers ("romance"), writers from the Romance period of history, writers from the Romanticism period, writers of "Romance", writers in the Romance languages, writers who felt romantic, etc. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Romance (period)" , "Romanticism (period)" , "romantic (emotion)" , "romance (genre)" should be used in all the various categories. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While you may have a point, this isn't the place - I'd suggest making a broader nomination to rename the whole tree if that's your suggestion. This nomination is very small and targeted...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except, do we really know what the defining criteria on these people is. It is not obvious from the category itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The intent is romantic period - and it it not that hard to find sources for this for the writers concerned - even if we are not experts, there are those who are - we have Category:Romantic poets and Category:Romantic artists, so again, if we want to do a rename, let's do via a different nomination of the whole tree and all concerned categories. For now I'm just trying to de-genderize something that doesn't need gender.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's clear that the problem with this category (and its parent tree) is the "Romantic" era aspect. The gendered subdivision properly applied will be a redundant category. That will provide access for those interested in Romantic women writers now, and then when category intersection becomes fully implemented, we can eliminate the intersectional category if appropriate. --Lquilter (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I do not think the intent as the Romantic period is clear from the name. Anyway, at present we have this women's category with no parent, only women are put in the category, what is with that. At a minimum we should rename to Category:Women writers of the Romatic era, but i think we should just merge to Category:Writers of the Romatic era.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • change merge target to Category:Writers of the Romantic era - this is a better name. I've changed the nom accordingly. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal as it now exists. I really think that sub-dividing out women within eras of writting is going too far.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2013 (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/2013_May_12&oldid=1074811511"