Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 13 July 15 >

July 14[edit]

Category:Hospitals affiliated to Bangalore Medical College[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: dual upmerge to Category:Hospitals in Bangalore and Category:Teaching hospitals in India. Note that Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute also contains a list. – Fayenatic London 12:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. We generally avoid categorizing teaching hospitals by the institution that they are currently affiliated with. The other option is a delete and dual upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to parents "Hospitals in Bangalore" and "Teaching hospitals in India". Both these categories are relatively small (max 20) as it is so I don't see how "Teaching hospitals in Bangalore" is really warranted. SFB 20:57, 20 July 2014 (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:Hospital railways in the 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: keep and state criteria. – Fayenatic London 13:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not convinced that being a line built for the construction of a hospital or to serve a hospital is really defining except in a few exceptional cases for categorization. Since there is no introduction, it is unclear how this is intended to have objective inclusion criteria. All of the content is already in ample other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - railway lines (unlike railway stations) are almost never for a specific hospital. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Did the editors above actually look at the category's contents? These railways are all defined by the fact of being built specifically to service hospitals, and being used solely for that purpose. That is the single most WP:DEFINING characteristic of each of these railways. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mention inclusion criteria explicitly. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems pretty clear that the railway articles included in this category were indeed dedicated hospital railways. --DAJF (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2014 (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:Literature by (X) women[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. If any editor wants to take this further, it would be helpful to first look at the articles that are held directly in these categories, ensure that they have a category for Novels/Literature (etc) by Jane Doe, and then place that author category into the categories that were discussed here, instead of the articles. – Fayenatic London 23:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
  • These categories violate the final rung rule of WP:EGRS, since the parent category of Category:Literature by women cannot otherwise be diffused. As a result, over time these sub-categories of literature-by-women-by-ethnicity will tend to diffuse out such novelist categories and separate them from the parent category - in clicking through, I've found a fair number of the "Works by X" are not replicated in the parent - meaning that over time the parent may end up containing just the writings of white women if people just apply regular diffusion rules.
I guess it's an open question whether WP:EGRS and non-diffusing rules should apply to books as well as people...
  • It's already tricky enough to have this rather unique tree of Category:Literature by women, which is, as far as I can tell, ONLY populated by books for which we have specific sub-categories, and does not include "every-novel-ever-written-by-a-woman", whereas these ethnicity-specific subcategories actually seem to be doing just that, and seem to want to contain _all_ books written by women-of-ethnicity-x, regardless of whether a "works" subcategory exists - so if the EGRS rules should be followed here, then all books should be bubbled up to the parent of Category:Literature by women, which would mean likely many thousands of books in that category alone, which I don't think was the intent of that category -- but that parent category aside, I think these triple intersection of gender+ethnicity+literature complicates things significantly and risks making the parent tree too "white". Note that the Category:American writers tree, which classifies people, and not books, does not have the same issues, due to the structure.
To explain further, the fact that we have Category:Literature by Asian-American women that contains random books by such women, suggests that we should also have a parent category of Category:Literature by American women that would include all books by Asian American women as well as others - otherwise those books are 'ghettoized' by their ethnicity. But we don't have such a category, so these ethnicity splits are confusing and inconsistent. If we don't have a category that contains all undifferentiated books (eg those not in works-by cats) for women, then we shouldn't have such groupings for women of 4 American ethnicities - it's a great example of systemic bias - and I would argue that the alternative of building such a massive category containing many thousands of books just b/c written by a woman would be really silly, esp given we have a huge and rich neutral tree we can put these books into. The inconsistencies created by these ethnic-gender triple intersections create more trouble than they're worth in terms of properly categorizing books. As soon as you bubble one of these books up to Literature by women, you now have to put all literature by women there, otherwise you are privileging just these 4 ethnicities- but if you don't bubble it up, then you're suggesting these aren't really books by women! To be deghettoized properly, a book in any of these ethnic+gender splits must be in no less than 4 categories: ethnic+gender, ethnic-gender neutral, gender, neutral. Is it really worth ensuring all books have all 4 categories just so we can more easily browse to the works of Amy Tan?
  • The suggestion here is to selectively merge the writers subcategories up to the "X literature-by-writer" trees and the "literature by women" tree, and then to move the individual novels/books/etc to the generic/ungendered equivalents in each tree, e.g. Category:Asian-American literature, etc. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. If I understand correctly, the primary purpose is to discuss the application of the EGRS rules. However, shouldn't we also discuss if categories like Category:Literature by women should exist in the first place? I mean, what makes a book written by a woman different from when the same book would be written by a man? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd suggest NOT starting that discussion right here. We can see how this one turns out, and then once it's closed, you could say "Let's start a discussion on the parent tree". I also find the parent problematic, but I figured this set of fixes might be possible and might make the parent more workable (if we just confine it to be a container category which has subcategories for writers who are women, by deleting these ethnicity+gender intersections above) - but if some of the children aren't truly containers, the parent needs to stop being a container, and that causes a big mess.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the existence of women's literature courses and scholarship over the last 60+ years demonstrates that there is plenty of reason to believe that women's lit is different from men's; e.g., they focus on different subjects (since in many cultures their range of activities has been restricted), they use different metaphors (often based on activities allotted to women, such as quilting or cooking), they write to counteract the sexism found in the culture and in literature written by men, etc. The problem for us with the categories is that the Lit by Women cat runs the risk of removing all women's works from the general Lit category, which then becomes an entirely-male list, with a subcat that gives the appearance that women's lit is lesser or minor to men's. We have the problem in universities: We have courses on Women's literature, and these are good, but we don't have courses on Men's literature, since about 80% of most literature courses is already devoted to male authors. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All literature by women categories. I am unconvinced the gender of the author is controlling enough to effect the literature. How would we then treat the works of George Elliot and other women who published under male names?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We'd still treat them as works by women -- the pseudonym doesn't make the authors less womanly. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no problem with these categories in theory, but since these books are already (I hope) listed under both the Lit by Women cat and the Ethnic Lit cat, I would be okay if people feel that those bases are already covered and that these cats could be deleted. Note, however, that the merger for individual titles would often NOT be to "books by ethnic writer X", since many authors do not yet have their own category, but to "Ethnic American (novels, plays, etc.)" -- see Category:American literature by ethnic background for the full range of categories available for diffusion. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I disagree that these categories automatically break the non-diffusion rule for the Lit by Women cat, since a quick look at that cat shows it is already heavily diffused into Works by Author. As the non-diffusion tag on that page clearly states, "It includes literature that can also be found in the parent category, or in diffusing subcategories of the parent." The problem is whether the individual titles are being removed from the parent cat, which is a different issue and one about which I agree that all titles should be left in the parent cat. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Support merger + deletion. I took another look at the parent "Lit by Women" cat and realized there are NO national subcats in there. So it really doesn't make sense for us to single out 4 American ethnic groups for their own cats. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merger and deletion - Unnecessary for categorisation --80.193.191.143 (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - is the work somehow "different" based on the gender of the writer? What reliable sources say it is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fifty years of literary scholarship says it is. But that's not the point here. The problem is that there are no other national or ethnic subcats under "Lit by Women" except for these four US-based subcats. In other words, the "Lit by Women" cat doesn't seem to be set up to separate British from French from Japanese, etc., and so these four just don't make sense. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modified proposal: Keep the subcat but remove it from the "Lit by Women" parent cat, and place the "Lit by Women" cat on the other category pages as suggested above. The subcat itself doesn't do any harm and can be useful for people researching minority women authors. The problem is simply that it's out of place in the "Lit by Women" category, which has no other subcats other than "Works by Author X". So, I say remove that one parent cat, merge the items into it, but otherwise leave the subcat alone. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been suggested that Asian-American women's literature isn't a useful category. Here's a reading list: it's an accepted area of study.
  • Leslie Bow, Betrayal and Other Acts of Subversion: Feminism, Sexual Politics, Asian American Women's Literature, Princeton University Press, 2011
  • Leslie Bow, 'Asian American women's literature and the promise of committed art', in The Cambridge History of American Women's Literature, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp.557-575
  • King-Kok Cheung, Articulate Silences: Hisaye Yamamoto, Maxine Hong Kingston, Joy Kogawa, Cornell University Press, 2003
  • Monica Chiu, Filthy Fictions: Asian American Literature by Women, AltaMira Press, 2004
  • Patricia P. Chu, Assimilating Asians: Gendered Strategies of Authorship in Asian America, Duke University Press, 2000.
  • Patti Duncan, Tell This Silence: Asian American Women Writers and the Politics of Speech, University of Iowa Press, 2003
  • Esther Mikyung Ghymn, Images of Asian American Women by Asian American Women Writers, Lang, 1995
  • William Golding & Harold Bloom, eds., Asian-American Women Writers, Facts On File, 1997
  • Wendy Ho, In Her Mother's House: The Politics of Asian American Mother-Daughter Writing, AltaMira Press, 2000
  • Young Sook Jeong, Daughtering Asian American Women's Literature in Maxine Hong Kingston, Nellie Wong, and Ronyoung Kim, PhD thesis, 2006
  • Philipa Kafka, (Un)Doing The Missionary Position, ABC-CLIO, 1997
  • Laura Hyun Yi Kang, Compositional Subjects: Enfiguring Asian/American Women, Duke University Press, 2002
  • Pamela Thoma, Asian American Women's Popular Literature, Temple University Press, 2013
  • Sylvia Watanabe and Carol Bruchac, eds., Home to Stay: Asian American Women's Fiction, 1990
Similar lists could be constructed for the three other categories nominated.Dsp13 (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnic lit is my specialty, so I'm in favor of keeping the categories for precisely the reason you mention. But I think that they don't need to be included in the parent "Lit by Women" cat, mostly because that parent cat isn't set up for any other "Lit by X Women" categories. (And really, the Lit by Women cat needs to be renamed, since right now it includes almost only subcats by author and no individual texts.) So I'm proposing again that we keep these four nominated categories, but remove them from the "Lit by Women" parent cat -- at least until such time as that cat takes on more national lit subcats. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the hierarchy of cats: put it on the "to do" list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_writers: there are a number of us who do this kind of mass categorization activities via AWB/Hotcat in the group, and would be able to set up some more categories, Sadads (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/query Could not these categories be trivially diffused into "Category:Literature by Jane Doe" - resolving the original EGRS issue? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep, no need to merge - identifying women writers is not only an important move for creating visibility of their work, but has been repeatedly in scholarship demonstrated as important to the interpretative framework in which we explore society: gender, like race, class, ethnic identity, etc, play a big part in our construction of social values. This is not an act of ghettoization, the hierarchy of categories should clearly subsumes this category within the larger groupings. Especially in the case of minority women, one of the first acts of entering them into formal fields of literary study, has been to create clear and distinct categories for investigating their experiences, and their relationship to being both gendered and racialized selves. Dsp14 does a good job demonstrating the importance of this with the citations,Sadads (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2014 (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:Railways authorised but not constructed[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. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category, not likely to grow because of the very nature of the subject (railways like these have largely lost their relevance). The content fits easily in the Proposed public transport tree and, by the way, the current content actually is already in that tree as well. So for the latter reason a delete instead of a merger is proposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, probably. Hugo999 (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I suspect that there is massive potential contnet, but almost all NN. NN subjects do not have articles, so that there should be little actuial content. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2014 (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:Proposed rail infrastructure in <<country>>[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. I suggest that the "Proposed public transport" categories could be upmerged to all their parents instead. Where a national sub-cat of Category:Proposed public transport by country only contains a railway sub-cat that is also in Category:Proposed rail infrastructure by country‎, then that is the unnecessary part of the structure which might as well be upmerged. – Fayenatic London 13:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are just a few examples to illustrate that the entire layer Category:Proposed rail infrastructure in country is redundant. Take a look at the parent categories Category:Proposed public transport in country: they too often only contain this one childcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that the "Proposed infrastructure" tree should exactly mirror the "Infrastructure" tree, especially given the fact that the "Proposed infrastructure" is so thinly populated. If it comes to "Proposed infrastructure", there's only a few final rungs reasonably filled across multiple countries, namely:
  1. "Proposed railway lines"
  2. "Proposed railway stations"
  3. "Proposed roads"
  4. "Proposed power stations"
That's way too little to build such a complex tree for. (By the way, I would only keep the "Proposed public transport" as an in-between layer for the fact that in a few countries there are single articles about public bus transport as well.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is an alternative proposal (13 July; see eg Category:Proposed public transport in Hungary) to upmerge/delete some of the country subcategories of the “Proposed public transport” categories. And while the majority of current rail infrastructure proposals are for public/passenger traffic (generally metro/commuter or high speed), some are for freight lines eg Iron Boomerang or Marsden Point Branch. Hugo999 (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know about the alternative proposal, but that proposal is about specific very underpopulated countries. This proposal is for an underpopulated categorization layer that applies to all countries. So the two proposals are unrelated. By the way, proposed freight lines can still be categorized in proposed railway lines. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't consider an under-populated tree created mostly by one editor to be an established categorization system. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Proposed rail infrastructure in Foo" is a definable and accurate way of categorizing. By using further sub-categories said articles can also be placed into the station and railway line hierarchy. "Proposed public transport in Foo" I am less certain of is a suitable layer of categorization, as rail transport is not necessarily public transport. The latter term is normally reserved for passenger transport, and rail lines may often be used for cargo hauling. The same concern arises for the issue of the nominated merger, whereby infrastructure aimed at cargo transport would end up in a category which implies passenger transport. Arsenikk (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposed freight railway lines (which are very rare anyway) can still be in the Proposed railway lines category, that shouldn't be an issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2014 (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:Harassment devices[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) 01:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unclear criteria, for an undefined subject: harrassment seems to include minor annoyance all the way up to riot control. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete, additional rationale: the lead article doesn't exist (yet) and in the article Harassment there is no reference to devices. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support confusing. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining for the categorants. I would have thought that the internet, telephone, automobile, and cell phone would easily be found as devices used to harass people, but subjectively they are omitted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2014 (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/2014_July_14&oldid=1136102556"