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 manual merge to Google or spaceflight where needed and appropriate. Most of these are in an appropriate satellite/balloon category already. – FayenaticLondon 11:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:NARROWCAT and possibly WP:NONDEF, this is currently the only "investments by investor" category that we have (while investors are hardly defining for a project) and on top it intersects with a specific industry, so it seems like a very narrow scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Google and spaceflight only (not investments). Peterkingiron (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2016 (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:keep and move to talk pages. – FayenaticLondon 11:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clearly shouldn't be a mainspace category. If anything, we can create a talk page template that populates a project category, but I doubt that's useful either. ~ Rob13Talk 20:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to projectspace category but keep. All it really takes to turn a "mainspace" category into a "projectspace" category is to file it in projectspace parent categories and mark it as hidden — and while it's also true that projectspace categories should, whenever possible, be placed on the talk page instead of the article, that's also an easy conversion. You're correct on principle that this should be in projectspace rather than mainspace, absolutely, but we can easily make it a projectspace category without actually having to delete it first. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree move to project space. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Talk Page if Kept If this serves a pseudo-WikiProject function, it should move to the talk pages. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2016 (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: Two-item WP:SMALLCAT with no realistic prospect of being expanded anytime soon. There are really very few articles that could be objectively filed here on the basis that reliable sourcesneutrally characterize them as "pseudophobias" -- but there are conversely a lot of things that could be filed here on the basis of POV assertions that something named "-phobia" isn't really a real thing. It's really more of a recipe for POV editwarring than a neutrally or objectively WP:DEFINING characteristic of a topic. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- we have main article and "School refusal", which may have genuine reasons such as bullying. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the eponymous article and delete category - but don't upmerge School refusal in which Pseudophobia is only mentioned in passing. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2016 (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:Mayors of Langley, British Columbia (city)[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: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for the mayor(s) of a city which is not large enough (pop. 25K) to hand its mayors an WP:NPOL pass just for being mayors -- the only person here has an article for going on to hold a seat in the provincial legislature, not for being mayor of Langley per se. As always, every town or city does not automatically get one of these the moment one past or present mayor has an article to file in it -- a town or city doesn't get one of these until four or five mayors have articles to file in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is the usual solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request Before destroying all the work that went into this, will someone al least capture the information in 3 new lists:
The first two lists you suggest already exist, at List of mayors in Canada and List of mayors in British Columbia — I have, however, created your titles as redirects to the existing articles so that nobody thinks they're missing topics that need creation. The third can exist if someone can find a source to compile a list with, but going by the information we actually have right now it would be a pointless list of two (Fassbender and the current incumbent) if somebody created it in advance of finding a source which enabled us to list any of the others. And what noteworthy or preservable depth of "work" went into creating a category of one, exactly? Please also see WP:HARDWORK, where "somebody did the work and therefore we should preserve it because it exists" is listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. People can and do put "work" into things that genuinely shouldn't exist for genuine reasons, so "we must keep everything that anybody ever saw fit to contribute at all" — an argument which I must point out that you use far, far too frequently, including at least one instance I can recall where the "work" turned out to consist of "I like cows WTF" and at least two instances when you defended total outright hoaxes as stuff we had to keep because somebody had worked hard on it — is not in and of itself a reason to keep content that's violating other Wikipedia rules. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Thanks for taking the time to respond. To answer your question:
And what noteworthy or preservable depth of "work" went into creating a category of one, exactly?
I don’t know how to check if this category contained more entries that have been either removed or completely deleted from Wikipedia in the past? But I know you can check the revision history of this page, its talkpage and its parents’ pages to see who did what and when.
How long should it take for an editor to create a Category: Mayors of X? How long should it take to locate all the articles on Wikipedia that document all past and present mayors of X? How long to add all the pertinent parent categories? How long to add all the relevant WikiProjects to the talk page? How long to fight all the deletion nominations that follow?
All told, for me this took a bit of time away from the areas I would rather edit, but I hope this discussion will bear fruit for others? The main question in my mind is: do we want to encourage more editors to help building or do we want to drive them away. Thanks in advance to any editor willing to participate in this discussion, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
"Encouraging more editors to help building" does not require us to keep everything that anybody sees fit to contribute no matter how unproductive or unencyclopedic or unreferenced it might be. Readers are not, for instance, helped by having to navigate a massive series of one-item subcategories for mayors of small cities — so we don't have to keep those categories just because you[who?] think we should encourage editors to keep building a structure that has no need to be built. It's kind of like building a road that leads nowhere: sure, it technically creates some jobs for the builders in the moment, but they're wasting their time and energy if the road isn't actually going to get used because it doesn't go anywhere that anybody needs to go. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You who"? YOU you, who. FFS. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support With no objection to recreating if this ever gets to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, those were all created at a different time in Wikipedia's history — the standard for a mayors category used to be not a specific minimum number of mayors already have articles, as it is now, but merely that the category's future growth is presumable because the city is large enough to NPOL its mayors. CFD consensus has changed, in part because newer editors misinterpret the smaller categories as "one of these can exist as soon as one mayor has an article", and I have listed them accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Langley's population is over 104k (not 25k as stated in the lengthy nomination). Ottawahitech (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC) please ping me[reply]
Wrong. Langley, British Columbia (city) and Langley, British Columbia (district municipality) are two different things with two different mayors. The population of the district municipality is 104K, while the population of the city is 25K as I stated — and this category is disambiguated as "city", which means it's for the 25K entity and not the 104K entity. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A list of the current mayors is all we would want a "List of mayors in British Columbia" to be — like any other province, BC has had far too many places which have had far too many mayors for far too long for a single unified list of every person who was ever a mayor of anywhere in BC to be even remotely maintainable. Individual cities should, whenever possible and sourceable, have complete historical lists of all their own mayors — but a provincewide list should only contain the current incumbents, rather than relisting every historical mayor who ever served at all. For one thing, if the provincewide list included all of the historical mayors of Vancouver and Victoria and Kelowna and Langley and Prince George and Abbotsford and Surrey and Nanaimo and Kamloops and Coquitlam and everywhere else too, then why would we even need the city-specific lists anymore if they were just reduplicating the same information?
Also, you can nominate a redirect for deletion if you take issue with it — but you may not simply blank a redirect so that its page is sitting empty. List it for RFD if you wish, but for the moment it has to go back to the way it was because no page in articlespace is ever allowed to just sit empty for any reason. If there's a good reason for a redirect to go away, the correct process to get rid of it is to list it for WP:RFD, not just to blank it.
And finally, while I don't necessarily object to your move of the provincewide list to "List of current mayors in British Columbia" rather than just "List of mayors", all of the other provincial and territorial lists that also exist are still named in the "List of mayors" format rather than "List of current mayors". Are you planning to deal with those as well, or are you suggesting that British Columbia is somehow special in needing to be titled differently than Ontario or Quebec are? Bearcat (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since similar deletion discussions are currently happening on other wp:CfDs I just wanted to mention that another potential parent category can be Category: Langley, British Columbia (city) councillors (as in Category:Burnaby city councillors). Ottawahitech (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
No such category exists to parent it, and no such category is going to. Burnaby's city councillors don't pass WP:NPOL in their own right just for being city councillors; the category exists because a fair number of people who served in the provincial legislature or the House of Commons happened to have been Burnaby city councillors before or after their terms in NPOL-passing offices, but nobody gets an article because Burnaby city council in and of itself.
Langley is also a city where the municipal councillors don't get an automatic NPOL pass for city council itself — and it's a small city served by one provincial and one federal electoral district, rather than several of each as Burnaby is, so the opportunities are far more limited for people to serve on Langley city council and then jump to the NPOL #1 class of notability needed to actually get a Wikipedia article. So the number of articles about former Langley city councillors needed to justify a category for them simply isn't there — it would still be a WP:SMALLCAT just for Fassbender and nobody else. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2016 (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 find myself remarkably unclear on what the intended distinction is between this and the already-existing Category:Women in politics. There might be a case to be made that "Women in politics" should be moved to this title instead of its existing one, but if that's what the creator wants they should nominate it for renaming accordingly -- but I don't see why they would need to coexist as two separate categories. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Or reverse merge the existing category to this one, given emerging evidence that some people have been misinterpreting the existing category's intent? Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but I would reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – surely it should be merge rather than delete? What about the subcats Category:19th-century women politicians etc? I would support a merge and a rename of the subcats. ('Women in politics' is broader. Eg a political journalist or the Queen could be described as 'in politics'. Some of the national subcats include women who are not politicians, eg Category:Indian women in politics includes political writers.) Oculi (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A "women in politics" category isn't supposed to contain political journalists or writers, however, but is supposed to contain politicians — so that's the "rename the existing category to this instead" case right there, given the new evidence that the existing title appears to be getting misunderstood and misapplied. But CFD doesn't actually require the original nomination statement to have been "merge" before a merger consensus can be reached; it can still end on a reverse merge consensus regardless of whether my original nomination statement was "delete", "reverse merge" or whatever else. That said, I've still updated above to accommodate the merger option. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to the more obvious title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but if only the categories were actually being used that way. The actual content of Category:Women in politics and its country-specific subcategories is biographical articles about individual women politicians, so it's not parallel to Category:LGBT and the economy. That latter isn't just a parent category for LGBT businesspeople; it's also a parent category for LGBT bookstores, LGBT bars, LGBT media outlets, LGBT business organizations and broad-concept LGBT tourism, as well as the direct holder of a significant number of articles in its own right — which is not even remotely similar to the way Category:Women in politics is actually being used as the direct holder of the individual women. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there may be people in politics who don't consider themselves to be "politicians", a label which perhaps even the US president-elect would eschew. But I think most would consider anyone who runs for office, pushes an agenda, or vocally supports those who do run, to be a politician and if you are "in politics" without being a politician, I'd like to know what objective distinction that can be made. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Reverse Merge No preference on the name, but only 1 category is needed. Agree with Carlossuarez46's analysis, above. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I use Category:Women in politics quite a bit for incidental figures like First Ladies, but I like the precision of "politician". However I think there's a more fundamental option - Delete both categories. Look at the WP:CATGENDER guideline - in general we don't categorise by gender unless "gender has a specific relation to the topic" - such as sports where there is an underlying gender segregation. Otherwise we only pull out the minority gender where it is notably rare. I'm not sure how you define "rare", my feeling is somewhere around the 15-20% mark, so it's notable when eg 10% of astronauts are Category:Women astronauts. Now that may have been true of women politicians when Wikipedia started, but it's no longer the case in most Western countries. For instance the British Parliament was 9% women twenty years ago, but is now up to 29%, and it seems most English-speaking democracies are around that 30% mark these days - the Australian Senate is up to 40%. Even the G7 has 2 women leaders out of 7. Obviously the US (~20%) and India (12%) will loom large in discussions on Wikipedia, but on a wider view gender is no longer a WP:DEFINING characteristic of politicians, women are merely less common rather than notably rare, so we should abandon gender for the categorisation of politicians.Le Deluge (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't only single out gender where it's "rare". Women in politics are still the subject of socioacademic analysis of the phenomenon, such as whether they approach the job differently than men do or not, whether they tackle different issues in different ways, whether sexism still impacts the ability of a woman to win offices such as the President of the United States (where even if it's not our role to have an Official Wikipedia Opinion on this question, NPOV does require us to be aware that there exists the argument that the most manifestly unqualified man in American history just beat an eminently qualified woman because penis), and on and so forth. Gendered categories are not only permitted if and when women are "rare" in the field — women singers and actresses and writers aren't remotely rare either, but we permit gender in those category trees as there's a genuine context for gendered groupings. They're permitted wherever gender has a direct relationship to the topic, such as the existence of academic literature about women's work in that field. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Taking them in order, there's a good case per WP:CATGENDER for treating acting like sport - in general only 50% of the population will be eligible to take the role of Hamlet or Catherine Tramell, and the main film awards support that classification. Music has a weaker case but there are bits of it which are segregated - women in general can't sing bass roles, and men don't normally sing Carmen. The Brit Awards still segregate awards by gender, but the Grammies abolished such categories in 2012. The case for writing is weaker still and is probably best handled by categories for feminist writing and such like, but eg it was a woman that wrote the first sci-fi novel and Women in speculative fiction says the proportion of such authors has gone from 10-15% to 36% over the course of the late 20th century. So again it's an area that's losing the notability of its gender inbalance and may be worth revisiting. I can completely understand the need for a Category:Gender in politics for the sexism stuff you're talking about (without giving WP:UNDUE weight to one particular country in North America, but that doesn't mean we need a full hierarchy going down to Category:Women parish councillors in Nowheresville, Ruritania.Le Deluge (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; parish councillors in Nowheresville, Ruritania wouldn't be getting Wikipedia articles anyway, because it's an office that would fail WP:NPOL right off the top — so there would never actually be any articles to file in a subcategory for the women. Again, the point remains that "gender imbalance among the practitioners of this occupation" is not the only valid basis for a gendered subcategory — it's not even usually the primary basis for a gendered category at all, in fact. The basis for a gendered category is the existence of substantive analysis of what makes "women in this occupation" substantively different from "men in this occupation": women writers are a valid categorization point because critical and academic analysis of women's writing actually exists as a distinct topic in its own right. We don't have gendered writers categories just because writers have gender, or because it's a field where women are rare; we have gendered writers categories because there is actually an entire domain of academic study in the real world about writing by women and what makes it different from writing by men. We have gendered politicians categories not just because there aren't as many women in politics as men; we have gendered politicians categories because there is actually an entire domain of academic study in the real world about women in politics and what makes them different from men in politics, about the ongoing impact of sexism on women's participation in and ability to succeed in politics, and on and so forth. The basis for those categories is not whether the number of women in those fields is "rare" or "common"; it's whether the relationship of gender to those fields constitutes a subject that real academics study as an actual thing.
And conversely, there are a considerable number of domains where women are technically much rarer than men, yet there isn't much basis for gender categorization because women in that field aren't the subject of reliable source study about the impact that gender has on the occupation. The nominal gender balance within the occupation is actually a weak basis for gender categories: the standard is whether or not reliable sources analyze the relevance of gender to that occupation as an actual subject of study, not the raw headcount of whether men happen to outnumber women in that field or vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not about Ruritania per se, but we get close with eg Category:Women municipal councillors in Lithuania; the existence of women-only categories leads editors to categorise by gender all the way down the hierarchy to eg mayors and sub-national legislators, regardless of whether there is a gender difference or much analysis thereof. Which makes me think that editors aren't being too objective about this, there's a whole load of cultural subjectivity coming into it that makes people think it's WP:DEFINING when it's not. Compare an example without that baggage - there has been heaps of research on Sexual dimorphism in non-human primates but we don't categorise Category:Individual gorillas by gender because we are relatively "gender-blind" when it comes to other apes. Just because there is research on a subject, does not make it a defining characteristic for the whole (or even any) of the hierarchy. In fact WP:CATGENDER emphasises the difference between the sociology/biology of gender differences and categories of individual men and women "Neither (Category:Men or Category:Women) should directly contain individual women or individual men". It doesn't come down to whether there is research on a topic, the tests are "gender has a specific relation to the topic" (and even then a gender-specific category is optional) and that the category is WP:DEFINING, "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining" whilst avoiding WP:Overcategorization "not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category". It's also worth noting that much of the research covers the failure of non-notable candidates to get elected rather than their performance as elected politicians - certainly I can think of only a handful of British office-holders who approach their job with an overtly feminist agenda and they tend to be minor players. Certainly you couldn't say that Teresa May is an overt feminist in political terms - in fact you could argue that she, Thatcher and Merkel have all had to be more manly than the men in a lot of ways, despite the fluff about shoes and leather trousers.Le Deluge (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all - some of the sub-national women legislator categories are in three figures, and I still don't see them satisfying WP:CATGENDER.Le Deluge (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are. As long as Category:Women in politics or Category:Women politicians (whichever name we actually retain) satisfies EGRS, which it does, then one does not need to separately redemonstrate the separate standalone relationship of gender to each individual political body that women who have articles might have been members of — filing everybody directly Category:American women in politics, without differentiation, would make that category unmanageably large and context-deficient, so it needs to be subcategorized as specifically as numbers and context demand. Each individual position does not have to directly resatisfy EGRS as a separate topic from the overall parent tree: the parent concept satisfies EGRS, so any subcategory that's contextually relevant to the politics and has the numbers to populate it properly gets to exist as a passenger in the parent concept's car. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2016 (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:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk[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:delete per WP:NONDEF, "systemic risk" is not a defining characteristic of the articles in the category. Many articles even don't mention it at all. The category page conveys a message that the category is under construction, but this message has been there since the category started 4 years ago. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without a parent article, this is just an academic equivalent of neologism. Why behavior and social instead of, let's say, sociocultural, or behavioral and economic, and so on? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Piotrus' analysis. Some of the contents could be upmerged to Category:Systemic risk but not consistently enough to favor an upmerge. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2016 (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.
