Category:Recipients of the World Association of Newspapers' Golden Pen of Freedom Award[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.
Delete -- yet another awards category, where we only need a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 12 November 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.
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.
Delete -- yet another awards category, where we only need a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all are notable for something else and before receiving the award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:31, 13 November 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Small category with no chance of expansion. The individual characters from the series are not independently notable (the one character article is on its way to deletion or merger) and the category isn't needed to hold the character list. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 14:23, 10 November 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge -- It is never likely to be significantly populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 12 November 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a diffusing subcategory of both Lesbian feminists and radical feminists. The result is that people looking for lesbian feminists will not find them if they happen to be radical (thus, violating WP:EGRS); it also creates a "last-rung" category for a sexuality-specific variant of radical feminism (i.e. Lesbians), also violating WP:EGRS which asks us to not create such last-rung categories. It is also a great case where category intersection could replace the category entirely, since the category is by definition feminists who are both radical and lesbian; I've created a sample at Category:Lesbian feminists so you can see what it might look like. This one should simply be merged back to the parent categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had created the category because radical lesbian feminism is a specific feminist ideology that combines elements of radical feminism as well as lesbian feminism. The pages for Mary Daly, Melanie Rodriga, and others list them as self-identified radical lesbian feminists. However, the category has been misused at times...Nomy Lamm for example is not a radical feminist, yet somebody added her. I had thought about creating a category for Category:Radical lesbian feminism as well...should I not do that? There's also the issue of the radical lesbians. Radical lesbianism is a specific lesbian ideology, but it is not necessarily feminist. Michèle Causse, for example, was a non-feminist radical lesbian. Gayle Rubin is not a radical feminist, but she is a lesbian feminist and a radical lesbian. Would a category for Category:Radical lesbians be a bad idea? Ugh, it would be nice if there were some way to categorize these women by their ideology...but it may not work out. Maybe an article could be started on Radical lesbian feminism? Solar-Wind (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about Radical lesbians - but in any case, while this may indeed be a specific ideology we don't need to categorize every single ideology. In this case, a category intersection can take care of the issue rather cleanly without violating WP:EGRS rules around no bottom-rung categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Obiwankenobi. Solar-Wind's own description of the category clearly shows that it is an intersection (even if it can be argued that this intersection forms a unique ideology): "This category is for feminists who are both radical feminists and lesbian feminists." Kaldari (talk) 07:08, 19 November 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Forbes publishes a number of lists, but I don't think these are defining and I don't think we should start a category tree of them. These Forbes lists are sort of like awards, but they are a bit less discriminate (e.g. hundreds of people listed every year) - They are generally of the ilk "America's <superlative adjective> <nouns>" - while it may be appropriate to mention this in the bio of certain people if it contributed to their notability, I don't think we need these as categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - People are not defined by being included on a published list like this. If the list itself is notable then its members can be included in an article. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The top 10 of each year already are...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frankly, I disagree with Obi-Wan Kenobi's views of categorization. The article on the subject of Forbes most powerful women truncates the list to the top 10 women, so the category is the most effective way of organizing the information. RyanVesey 17:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think we need to reproduce here various lists produced by various organizations - especially if they have a hundred members (like this case), or hundreds (as is the case with Forbes billionaires list). Creating categories for them is a violation of Wikipedia:OCAT#Award_recipients. There has been a push to trim the awards categories, so this is just in line with many of those other nominations - we've trimmed a lot of awards categories where there is only one winner, as opposed to 100/year like this one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Probably not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic and certainly not a good way to categorize people. DexDor (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I mkight have said "listify", but if this is multiple lists and multiple years, that would be difficult to produce the lists. Furthermore, the lists themselves are probably copyright. It is not strictly an award, but the same considerations apply. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial, typical TOP50 type cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a defining characteristic.--Loomspicker (talk) 20:32, 14 November 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:Women by province or territory in Canada[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, with selective merge where needed. No merge is needed for most categories, as the contents are well categorised already. Although some editors were in favour of keeping the categories, they did not counter the strong policy grounds cited by those arguing for merger/ deletion, which I find persuasive. As for the actresses categories, these are already parented by Category:Canadian actresses by province or territory and the "women in" categories. – FayenaticLondon 01:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A number of these just popped up on the list of new categories created, which I think take gendering a step too far - it is simply not WP:DEFINING to have an intersection of gender + province or city; thus I don't think we should start building categories of women by state, province, city, etc; I think any gendering should be kept at a national level. The only exception might be actresses, where you have many thousands of entries, and it may make sense to divide by gender + job + state in order to further diffuse a category. These ones, however, are not needed, because there's no particular intersection with being a woman and being from Ottawa or Ontario that is significant. I note that we have Category:Women in the United States by state, which is however intended as a topic collection for articles specifically about women's issues in those states, and there is a similar scheme at Category:Women_in_Canada_by_province_or_territory, and it's fine to host the actress categories underneath, but this new scheme seems intended for a different purpose, and I don't think we should go down this path. (Combined the Karachi category here since it's basically the same deal). Note: Of the Canadian cats, it appears that a merge is not necessary, as the members seem to have had the category simply added to their profiles, but I wouldn't be opposed to a selective upmerge to the parents if needed. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
refined to Merge + purge - I refined my nomination above to include a merge to the already-extant categories; however, I'm suggesting that individual women's articles should still be purged - I really don't think we want to get into the habit of categorizing women + place they live at a lower level than national, this way lies madness (and rampant ghettoization)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the absence of the long-sought-but-never-delivered dynamic category intersection, the consensus so far has been that we categorise only by intersections of gender and something else, and even then only in limited circumstances per WP:CATGRS. The "Women from Foo" categories are all intended to be container categories, tho few of the nominated set are being used in that way. Those which do have subcats (such as Women from British Columbia, Women from Ontario) should be kept and tagged as {{container}}, but purged of individual biographies. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make a proposal to merge in one direction or the other, that might be a way forward. But the deletion proposed in this nomination will leave some categories of women in those areas outside of the local "women in/from" categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for drawing my attention to the revised nom. I see no objection to splitting New York and London categories by gender, but a split into the constituent boroughs is a better first split. No objection in principle to the "in" system, but "people from" is a well established pattern, covering both current residents and those who have moved elsewhere, which an "in" system will not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's good to have a list of women from certain places who have a Wikipedia article. It's the kind of category that could be interesting and useful if it's populated properly. SlimVirgin(talk) 01:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: by !voting Keep, you are essentially sanctioning the creation of such categories for all provinces, all US states, all states in India, etc, and hence the populating of them, and also for all major cities; additionally, there's no special relationship of "women" + "state" or "city", so nothing would prevent creation of Category:Men from Boston and Category:Men from Tamil Nadu and hence population of same. I think this is a *really* bad idea if taken to its natural conclusion, and it also violates WP:EGRS. to populate these categories fully, for the many cities and states/provinces we already have, would likely entail the categorization of tens of thousands of biographies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All of these seem to be useful, valid categories. I recommend populating them and creating more that are similar. Neelix (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note this is basically a "I like it" argument. These categories violate WP:EGRS, because province + gender has no specific defining quality to it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not an "I like it" argument. Gender norms vary from province to province, as do other gender-related issues. Neelix (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if gender norms and other gender-related issues vary from province to province, gender itself (which is what these categories reflect) surely does not vary. The topic of "gender issues" in Canada by province is addressed, in part, through categories such as Category:Women in Canada by province or territory and other members of Category:Women in Canada. -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gender norms and gender-related issues are highly relevant to individual biographies; I see no inconsistency in retaining these categories. Neelix (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case for some biographies—most articles about Canadian women that I've read make little or no mention of any salient gender norms and gender-related issues—but it does not change the fact that these categories have no relation to "gender norms and gender-related issues" affecting women. A category scheme for that topic already exists in the form of Category:Women in Canada. -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gender issues affect everyone. These are valid categories. Neelix (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So would you support creating Category:Men from Ohio and Category:Transgender people from Iowa accordingly? I think these intersections are a bad idea - dividing at national level is more than sufficient as it captures nationality/origin, but doing below that level with a pure gender divide is a bad idea. If we expand this at scale, we would probably have to create, in order to be neutral, definitely male and perhaps transgender categories for sub-national divisions of all 200 countries, and reclassify hundreds of thousands of articles. This is a bad scheme.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until Wikipedia adopts a system of categorization that allows for user-selected crosscategorization, I think this is the best option we have; yes, I would support creating the categories you mention. Neelix (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neelix, I'm sorry but what you are suggesting is absurd. Just so people can find out that person X of gender Y comes from province Z, we need to create a whole new category tree that does a gender split? Do you realize that with a simple category intersection, which we could place at the top of each category if needed, we can generate the list of women + province in 2 seconds? Do you know how much work this would take to do this with categories like you propose? To what end? It is trivial to look at the categories and see "People from Ontario" and "Women computer scientists" or whatever. You haven't given any evidence that there is something so special and unique about particular sub-national divisions that it is really worth the effort of recategorizing hundreds of thousands of biographies by gender. Note that, since almost everyone is either a man or a woman, and you have proposed creating both male and female categories, this would mean adding a category almost every single bio in wikipedia. The glib "I like it" excuse is a terrible reason to start such an expansive scheme, and I seriously doubt those !voting yes are volunteering to take this gargantuan task on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The entire project of Wikipedia is a gargantuan task that will never be complete; it is no use to delete valid content or categorization simply because it is part of such a task. You continue to ascribe the "I like it" argument to me, when I have never made that argument. My argument is that gender norms and gender-related issues are highly relevant to individual biographies, and that these categories are as encyclopedic as any others. Neelix (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to repeat the statement that "gender norms and gender-related issues are highly relevant to individual biographies", but you have not stated how that has any connection with the categories being discussed. I don't think that anyone disputes the notion that gender norms and gender-related issues are relevant to many biographies, but there is no connection between that idea and these categories. You have also failed to address even once the existence of Category:Women in Canada, which is subdivided by province. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until Wikipedia adopts a system of categorization that allows for user-selected crosscategorization... – please see Wikipedia:CatScan. Thank you, -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Catscan has not replaced standard categorization on Wikipedia, and is not used by casual readers. The categories we are discussing are not different than other categories in existence on Wikipedia; there is no reason to delete them any more than there is reason to delete the rest of our categories that combine two concepts. According to our guidelines on categorization by gender, we should create gender-specific biography categories when "gender has a specific relation to the topic." The existence of Category:Women in Canada by province or territory demonstrates that gender has a specific relation to each of the provinces and territories of Canada. As such, the categories under discussion should be kept. Neelix (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a highly selective interpretation of that guideline, which also states that "dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right," and only if "a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list)" about the combination can be written. The topic of gender norms and issues affecting women in Ontario, for example, meets that threshold, and that is why Category:Women in Ontario should and does exist. However, the topic of women's residence or birth in Ontario is not a "distinct and unique cultural topic", and no head article could be written about it, and so Category:Women from Ontario should not exist. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to be interpreting this guideline differently; the guideline suggests to me that gender issues in Ontario, not "the topic of women's residence or birth in Ontario", is the subject that needs to be a "distinct and unique cultural topic". Consider the examples that are provided in the guideline: LGBT writers and African-American musicians. There is no non-list "LGBT writers" or "African-American musicians" article, but the categories are justified by our ability to create the Gay literature and African-American music articles. Similarly, it would be valid to create an article about women or gender issues in Ontario. Neelix (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the difference lies in our view of these categories than our interpretation of the guideline. We agree that the topic of women's issues in Ontario is a distinct and unique cultural topic, and that Category:Women in Ontario—a category about women's issues in Ontario—should exist. Where we disagree is whether Category:Women from Ontario has anything at all to do with the topic of women's issues in Ontario. The examples of Category:LGBT writers and Category:African-American musicians, which intersect identity and occupation (an active characteristic), are not directly comparable to Category:Women from Ontario, which intersects identity and location (a passive characteristic). Category:LGBT writers is a valid category because LGBT literature is a recognized topic and reliable sources discuss LGBT writers "as a class" distinguished by the fact that they are LGBT people who write. Similarly, Category:African-American musicians is a valid category because African-American music is a recognized topic and reliable sources discuss African-American musicians "as a class" distinguished by the fact that they are African-American people who create music. The same principle does not extend to Category:Women from Ontario, which merely identifies place of residence or birth and not any active characteristic, and reliable sources do not discuss Ontarian women as a class distinguished by the fact that they are women who are from Ontario. -- Black Falcon(talk) 07:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any salient difference between the example categories and the ones under discussion; the guidelines do not make the active/passive distinction to which you appeal. Neelix (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "salient difference" is the fact that, unlike LGBT writers and African-American musicians, reliable sources do not discuss Ontarian women as a class distinguished by the fact that they are women who are from Ontario. The active/passive distinction merely explains why this is the case, and my explanation is just that: an explanation, not an appeal to anything. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any source that discusses gender issues in Ontario is going to discuss women from Ontario as a class in the sense that a source that discusses African-American music discusses African-American musicians as a class. I do not see the distinction you are trying to draw. Neelix (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nominator. Steam5 (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. Women are people. And not only that—they comprise about one-half of all people, just about everywhere. Since being a woman has no "specific relation" to any given location, we gain absolutely nothing by splitting every instance of Category:People from... into Category:Men from... and Category:Women from.... I mean no offense to anyone, but this is the most misguided idea for a categorization scheme that I have seen in my 8 years on Wikipedia. Of all the characteristics that we could intersect, gender and location are probably the ones that are the least significantly connected. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Falcon: "most misguided idea for a categorization scheme that I have seen in my 8 years on Wikipedia"???!!! As the creator of this womens "category scheme" I am trying hard not to take your comment personally.
Yes women comprise 50% of the population, but have you checked to see if this is reflected in the coverage of women at Wikipedia? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is the existence of systemic bias on Wikipedia (and outside of it) relevant to the matter of intersecting gender and location? Categorization does not, will not, and is not intended to correct unequal or inadequate coverage of a topic. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OttawaHT, I think you misunderstand the purpose of categorization; as Black Falcon notes, it is not in any way intended to help highlight or correct systemic bias. If this were the case, then you could use the same argument to keep any arbitrary "women + x" category, but consensus to date has been to limit these categories to only certain cases. In this case, there is nothing specific about being a women + being from a certain province or city that is more "defining" or special than being a man from the same province. If your issue is there are not enough articles about women, I'd encourage you to create and expand new articles, vs creating new categories or duplicate categories, several of which are ending up here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an effective aid to navigation that allows for better integration into existing structures categorizing by gender. Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 30 December 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Feminism is not an occupation, and not all of the people in this category were killed because they were feminists (and indeed, there are likely many other people killed who happen to be feminists). As such, murdered + feminist would not, in most cases, be defining. Either delete this category, or rename is as Murdered women's rights activists or something similar, so as to define something as a job - we shouldn't start categorizing murder victims by their political beliefs. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable intersection between murder victims and feminists. No evidence that feminism is a contributing factor to murder. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is going too far in splitting murder victims by ideology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- trivial intersection, though neither element is trivial. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assumed this was a group of feminists murdered because they were feminists but only 2 of the 10 in the category fit that. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:40, 18 November 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I have some doubt as to whether the color process used for a film is defining but in this case, films definitely aren't defined by having been processed in-house by MGM using a color process called something else entirely. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:46, 10 November 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.
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.
You don't need permission to split the category. Go ahead and create and populate the two targets, then this one can be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that it should be "U.S." and not "US". Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:58, 10 November 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.
Fixed that. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)