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: I fail to see how this is in any way a defining feature of a school; we don't have anything similar to this to the best of my knowledge. The current inclusion criteria is also nonsensical. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 22:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 12:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. I've just nominated the parent as well. This is obviously not defining for the schools.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't even have Category:Schools that play football. We do not categorize schools by what sports they play. This is in large part because this is a temporary characteristic, especially for high schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 9 March 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:International co-production films by 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.
Nominator's rationale: The proposed rename better reflects what's actually in the category. I'd rather lose "by country," personally, since it seems a paradoxical title. It's not really a contradictory title, I know -- but it still seems odd to my ears. Full marks to the category/list creator for wanting to take this on: to really develop these lists -- with films that may have multiple country co-producers -- is going to entail a lot of work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. And, that's a big project to take on... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I first started to explore Wikidata, I saw that one goal was to develop a way to generate such lists automatically. But that's so far off. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 4 March 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:Fictional characters by ethnicity or nationality[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:do not rename; in any case, none of the categories were tagged with Template:Cfr. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose we have a great many "continental" categories like these ones, and we don't need "by ethnicity or nationality", as these are containers and such is implied. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ethnicity and nationality are two entirely different ways of categorizing people. Mixing them together (as an "or" would do) would result in a confusing mess. Additionally, the ethnicity and nationality of many fictional characters is not always identified but this is a minor point. LizRead!Talk! 00:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The nom is trying to impose his view on fiction. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 9 March 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.
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:do not rename; in any case, neither of the categories were tagged with Template:Cfr. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have never agreed to make all categories consistent on either female or woman. WIth scientists, since the vast majority are adults, the term "women", which is adult specific, seems better. The same also would seem to apply with warriors and soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP has no consistent system as to whehter the categories should be "female" or "women". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 9 March 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.
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: I'm not sure if we need this split. I checked the literature and I wasn't able to find much on LGBT Hairdressers or "Gay hairdressers" as a group, it seems to be really more of a cliché / stereotype than anything else. Do gay people cut hair differently than others, or were gay people historically excluded from the hairdressing profession, or is gay people in hairdressing a subject of special study? I'm not convinced. Having had many haircuts in my life, I haven't really seen much of a difference... Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd ask folks at the appropriate LGBT WikiProject what they think. LizRead!Talk! 00:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The people in this category are (I think) notable hairdressers who happen to be LGBT (rather than notable LGBTians who happen to be hairdressers). Therefore, it would be more appropriate to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion about their thoughts on the categorization of hairdressers. However, in my experience notifying projects about CFDs produces either no response (in most cases) or attracts editors who aren't familiar with categorization. DexDor (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've just removed twoarticles from this category (one of which didn't even mention hairdressing). I suggest the rest are checked before upmerging. DexDor (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge After the husband of Australia's last Prime Minister (I think her name was Julia Guillard) was accused of being a homosexual because he was a hair dresser, I just see this sub-category as too open for misuse by some people to be worth having.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hairdressers category. Unnecessary subcategory, and I say so as a LGB Wikipedian. Mabalu (talk) 16:13, 7 March 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.
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: These are basically the same thing, so merge and keep this as a redirect. We already have a more developed by-nationality tree in Hairdressers, so better to merge this up. I realize there are fine distinctions in terminology across countries, but I don't think our category system needs to maintain such a fine level of detail. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We try to keep category names simple and a name like that doesn't look quite right on the article of a hairdresser who is not a barber. DexDor (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is not the same thing.Historical barbers could easily be one of the practitioners of the historical trades for barbers, namely, surgery and dentistry. Barbers were the local persons who performed surgery under the supervision of physicians, when not cutting hair. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are called barbers in fiction, and in non-fiction, so the term "barber surgeon" is not universal, and they are primarily barbers, regardless of their surgical pursuits. As we don't have a subcategory called "barber surgeon" makes it perfectly valid to categorize them as barbers. If you merge barbers into hairdressers, then barber surgeon would be a subcategory of hairdresser. In any case, you'd still be categorizing these surgeons as hairdressers. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would put Category:Barber surgeons as a subcategory of doctors, and then have a "see also" link to hairdressers (NOT as a subcategory), and have Category:Barbers redirect to Category:Hairdressers, as the common use of the term is for hairdressing. It's only a few rare cases that we have barber-surgeons that I could find. We need to use natural disambiguation in cases where sources use the same term for different concepts - in this case "medieval barbers" vs "barbers at the shop on the corner".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The primary occupation of these medieval barbers, barber surgeons, etc is cutting hair, not operating, so they are indeed "barbers", cutting hair to earn their livelihood. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to hairdressers The intent of the category as it exists now is to group hairdressers. If a group of barber surgeons or medieval barbers are identified, then they may reclaim the category "barber" or have a new name. I support the merge only because the current usage of the category is to support hairdressers, and not the other distinct profession which is sometimes called barber. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am one of those people who gets his hair cut by barbers. I have on rare occasions had it done by haridressers, and will say that they are clearly not the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I can think of many barbers who would be HIGHLY offended and insulted to be lumped in with hairdressers. Hairdressing/coiffuring is not the same thing as barbering. A hairdresser typically caters to female (although not necessarily) clients or those with a female identity and creates new styles (such as Vidal Sassoon's many bobs and crops), whilst a barber typically caters to male (again, not necessarily always male) clients, offering shaves, cuts and crops following established styles and patterns. As a rule the barber does not try to set new fashions or create new styles, but is simply there to offer a shave and a haircut. Mabalu (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up comment A quick look at the names under "Barbers" shows people who mainly seem to be mainly notable for other reasons (mostly politicians) than being barbers, apart from Milton Pitts, and he is very obviously NOT a hairdresser, plus is documented as being sniffy about the stylist (read hairdresser) Cristophe. I think the two articles Barber and Hairdresser clearly show how they are separate entities. Mabalu (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current categorization does have barbers "lumped in" with hairdressers as being in a subcategory implies membership of the parent category. DexDor (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the two categories were separated in the first place because they occupy completely different places in cultural history, from the Roman tonsor to the modern-day barbershops and beauty parlors; I seem to recall that the objection was that hairdressers were being conflated with mere barbers, and that this was part of our obvious male bias/mindset. Barbers were mostly men, working on mostly men, and at one time also performed certain types of surgery which at the time were thought below the dignity of a physician. Hairdressers traditionally mostly worked on women, and were culturally more allied to the beautician trade than anything else. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Since the invention of the safety razor, most barbers have been cutting hair. Previously, their role was to shave men, not to style hair. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 9 March 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:American politicians with disabilities[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.
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match head category - the purpose of this category is not politicians with any sort of disabilities, it is those with physical disabilities. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC){{subst:Cdf[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.
The result of the discussion was:merge. – FayenaticLondon 23:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. So here, for instance, how do we determine whether to use "female" or "women"? The nominated category is the older of the two, so unless there is a good reason to switch to "women", shouldn't we keep the original one and do a reverse merge? That said, I'm open to hearing why "women" is preferable here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The head is Category:Women in politics, and I generally tend to prefer "women" for areas where you are unlikely to have girls - thus I prefer Category:Female musicians for example. But I don't feel strongly either way here, it's not that important ultimately. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no form that dominates over the other in common usage, that rationale makes sense to me. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom since "women" is the preferred term for adult females. Virtually all government ministers are adults, in fact I am probably understating the extent to which that is the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (better than reverse merge), but a lot of sub-cats also need renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The two categories are duplicates, and "women" is a better term because the attribute captured here is social gender rather than biology. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 14 March 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.
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 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.
The result of the discussion was:it's not at all clear what is being proposed here. As noted, nothing was tagged, and articles as well as categories are mentioned so it's difficult to know what the intent was. If there's a desire to pursue this nomination further, follow the instructions for nominations at WP:CFD and clearly explain what category is being proposed for merger and what the target category is (i.e., where the contents of the nominated category would be merged to).Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging : Single community represented at two places mostly uncited and same material Mahensingha (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close or relist None of the categories are tagged. The nom has clearly not followed the instructions for nominating. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 9 March 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.
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, noting that the contents of "novelists by nationality" already use "male". – FayenaticLondon 14:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. If we're going to have this categorization (and I doubt whether we need to), can we at least use "male writers" rather than "men writers"? I know it's probably meant to parallel "women writers", but I don't know anyone who would seriously use the phrase "men writers". Note that the by-nationality subcategories of these categories use "FOOian male writers". Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not common usage, but proper definition: "men" indicates gender role, a performance of masculinity, whereas "male" indicates biological sex. They are two radically different sets of ideas, especially when you star talking about people who have other gendered or sexual identities, which often are excluded from these groups. This is also why the "women writers" category should be named as such, its meant to capture females who identify as women, not all females, Sadads (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia can maintain the gender performance category, but the social assumptions associated with the performance help define their place within society, sex does not do that (though many people think they are largely the same, however, for the groups in which they aren't, equating them as the same is a form of discrimination). Sadads (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. I'm not convinced. FWIW, I don't buy Sadad's argument either, I don't think this is about performance vs sex, we have thousands of "female" categories, and we've never been able to agree to be consistent - so my general gut is this: If the reliable sources with much more frequency use "female", then go with that, or, if the contents are likely to contain children. Otherwise, go with "women" - and then just match "men/male" to whatever you decide for the women.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be letting the tail wag the dog. It's entirely plausible that common usage uses "Women FOOs" for females and "Male FOOs" for the corresponding male FOOs. I don't think it's WP's role to enforce a false consistency in this regard, we generally just reflect common usage. It's merely anecdotal, but I know of a couple blogs that are just whooping it up over WP's use of "Men writers". I agree that it makes WP look kind of amateurish, but that's just opinion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[1] I count a fair number of hits in books using "Men writers" - now admittedly there are more for "male" writers, but I do think even if we aren't consistent with women/female in the tree as a whole, we should be consistent when we use women/men, female/male, otherwise I could say it also makes us look daft. Tell the blogs to go consult some reliable sources which don't eschew "men writers". I really don't want to get into a debate on the "women writers"/"women novelists" front, as that was decided by a massive amount of people, so I think we should just go with the flow (FWIW, I think "Men writers" and "Men novelists" was also decided by consensus back during category-gate).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The impulse to create these categories builds out of a number of academic conversations that fall under gender studies in literature: Men's (not Male) studies and Women's studies. Newer scholarship around gendered writing is emphasizing the men/women because of the nature of the difference between gender and sex within larger gender and queer studies work. (This is one of my research fields, and the study of masculinity in an equatable way in comparison to feminity is only now taking hold literature departments). The cliche of "White male writer" was a common phrase in early feminist and post-colonial criticism, so the term may appear more common, but consensus in gender studies seems to be pointing in the other direction because of the implicit discrimination I mention above. Just my 2 cents, Sadads (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Obiwan: I don't think there was ever any sort of consensus to use "men writers" and "men novelists". It was just created as named without a discussion about it. Hence, the parent categories use "men" and the subcategories use "male", which, of course, "also makes us look daft". And yes—far more use "male writiers" in a google books search: 79,000 hits vs. 13,000! That's a great illustration of why we should choose to use "male" in this case. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case its not necessarily about what is popular though. The description of "male" writers is in the decline according to google ngrams (though admittedly "men" writers is not increasing before 2008). However, there is the matter of consistency by Obiwan, and beyond that, there is the question of correct definition: we are defining a field which product of someones cultural identity (writing is a cultural practice), it is a misconception to label their work via their biological sex, when it has little to do with their physical state (as opposed to male athletes, by example). Sadads (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but usage is still so overwhelmingly one-sided that I don't think this is the type of situation where WP would usually diverge from the common terminology. There's another matter of consistency—and that is that the subcategories all use "FOOian male writers". It seems to me that that would be more important to standardize than standardizing "women" with "men" across gender/sex-split categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm not sure. Either way is lopsided - either we're internally consistent but less consistent with the outside world, or we're internally inconsistent but more consistent with the outside world. We have in the past made decisions on article titles and category titles more for our own internal purposes than to match perfectly the outside world, so there is scope here to make a decision that seems right for WP even if it doesn't follow COMMONNAME to the letter (and that's only one part of titling).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that there's going to be internal category inconsistency whichever option is selected. Keeping "men" will lead to inconsistency in as significant a way as adopting "male" will. Therefore, it seems reasonable to default to the COMMONNAME standard of determining which to use. There's no sense having inconsistency internally and externally. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: and @Obiwankenobi: Do you mind if I solicit some more opinions from WP:Novels, WP:Poetry and WP:Literature? Three voices may be narrowing the perspective and impact of defining the cats (though I don't want to spark another categorygate). Eventually, I think I am going to write a Blog post on the concerns about gender-sex more generally in our discussion of writers. Maybe thats an article to publish somewhere... Sadads (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be OK with me, as long as the notification is brief and neutral in tone so that we don't run into WP:CANVASSING issues. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadads: you are always welcome at any time to invite any relevant project to such discussions, as long as you do so in a neutral way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are two ways to say the same thing, and I see no compelling reason t change it. I think "men writers" sounds just as good as "women writers", and thinks the actually equivalency is the best form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the nomination is not what one individual thinks sounds good; the point is what is in most common usage. At this stage, "Men writers" is clearly non-standard English—kind of like "I ... thinks". Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change them both - Include the female equivalents as well. I would prefer it was just "writers", but since someone saw fit to categorise them separately, it's worth pointing out that "male" and "female" are adjectives in most of the English-speaking world (excepting the vulgar construct in American English where they are employed as nouns in their own right), and are the appropriate vocabulary to modify "writers". "Men" and "women" are nouns, not adjectives, and "men writers" and "women writers" just sounds awkward as a compound noun. Further in that transgender/cisgender sense, "female writers" could include those anatomically male writers who consider themselves essentially female and thus allow them to be categorised appropriately per their identity absent those persistent biological (noun-limited) constraints (et vice versa).--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion above, your definitions prioritize biological sex over culturally defined gender, which is not the accepted parlance in scholarship or public criticism around writers, especially women writers, Sadads (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there examples of notable authors that we have articles about who are of the male sex and self-identify as a "women writer"? Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the law of response, I take it that there are not? If not, then the whole issue of prioritizing culturally defined gender over biological sex or vice versa is rather irrelevant in practice. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where you intending this comment toward me or @ColonelHenry:? Here is my thought: Its not about transgender/cisgender people (on a whole this is a small fraction of any group, though they certainly deserve fair representation); rather this is a matter of representing the social constructedness of these categories of classification where men and women write differently (indeed they do! how could they not when their socio-cultural context is rather different.), rather than implying that males and females write differently (they don't necessarily need to do so out of biological necessity). Sadads (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was intended to be directed toward you, but it was open to anyone to chime in with a real-life example. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
don't take this the wrong way but that sounds like a bunch of constructivist gobbedlygook, and i can't see how such a distinction could possibly matter. In spite of what gender studies professors might have us believe, we can not neatly separate sex from gender, and our biological aspects, including hormones, sex drive, puberty, growth, emotional development, physical attraction, are not simply societal inventions but also have groundings in biology, so actually I think it's quite fair to say men write differently than women because they've had different experiences, a fair number of which were themselves mediated by biology. Ask a woman having a baby how much of the flood of hormones in her body is driven by societal norms. More importantly, the English language circa 2014 doesn't say men = gender and male = sex, it's not that simple and there's a lot of bleed over, sometimes we say 'male' when we really mean 'gendered performance of masculinity in western culture' and sometimes we say man to mean 'someone with a penis'. I wish our language was more clear but it ain't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If people want to change the female equivalents, those need to be nominated as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. "Men writers" is, regardless of any other arguments, truly horrific grammatically to the point of being laughable. If somebody who is of the male sex who self-identifies as a female writer has an article, they should be categorised as a female writer, Q.E.D. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:18, 10 April 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:Executive Secretariat of Economic Community of West African States[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Category is grouping articles about people who have been the Executive Secretary of the ECWAS; it does not contain articles about the Executive Secretariat of the ECWAS. I also suggest adding a "the". Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:38, 4 March 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.
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: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 4 entries. ...William 00:11, 4 March 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.
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: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 4 entries. ...William 00:00, 4 March 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.
