Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22[edit]

Category:Female record producers[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) 07:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:Overcategorization; there is already Category:Record producers, which can be used for both male and female subjects. Having both is redundant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since so few of the first names in this tree seem to be female, this intersection must still be theoretically defining. In practice though, I'm concerned though that all three of the current people in the category (Beyoncé, Sia Furler, Alanis Morissette) are singers who are not well known for producing records. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While being a record producer can be defining for both males and females, I'm saying we only need the singular gender-neutral "Record producers" category for both. I do agree though that it is problematic how it is being used for women not particularly known for producing records. Snuggums (talk / edits)
  • Delete for Now Although I think this category might have the potential to be worthwhile, it's not today. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:EGRS, we do not automatically create gendered subcategories for every single occupational category that exists in the realm of human career endeavour — we create them only where gender has a substantive relationship to the topic: "women writers" categories are valid, for example, because "literature by women" is a subject of academic study as a thing in its own right; "sportswomen" categories are valid because with exceedingly rare exceptions men and women in sports don't directly compete against each other, but instead each participate almost exclusively in their own separate single-gender competitions. But there are many other categories where gender is not germane to the grouping, and we accordingly don't create gendered subcategories for those occupations. I'm not aware of any substantive or encyclopedic relationship between gender and record production — there is, for example, no academic literature or research that I'm aware of on the question of whether women produce records in a different way than men do, nor are "records produced by women" treated by real-world sources as a distinct thing from "records produced by men" (the gender of the performer plays a role in how the music is contextualized and marketed, sure, but not the gender of the producer.) So there's just not a lot of value added here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do women perform significantly differently from men in this profession? It think not. For Writers and Performers gender may be significant, but not producers. If you agree, Merge back to Category:Record producers. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Record producers no reliable sources that record producers perform differently by sex (or pretty much anything else)... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Record producers is an oddly divided category, but has multiple ways it is devided. Just a quick search showed up this article that deals with female record producers [1]. The fact that the producers of most music, but especially hip hop, are overwhelmingly male, comes up a lot in discussions about it being mysoginistic. Clearly we could write articles on this topic that are more than just lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since record producers are divided by nationality and genre, we should not merge to the general category. I have found Estelle Axton who is known for being a record producer, not a music performer, and probably will find others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a lot of new people, some of whom like Wilma Cozart Fine are only notable as record producers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EGRS; no particular distinction made in the record production literature between women and men. Replace every instance of Category:Female record producers with Category:Record producers. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't merge per Johnpacklambert. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-populated category on an interesting minority of producers. Dimadick (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:INTERESTING is not in itself a valid reason for retaining something. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:03, 4 February 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.

1st to 3rd-century BC establishments[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: Double upmerge all, delete container categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
rest of merge
delete container categories that become empty after the above merge
Nominator's rationale: merge years to decades by continent, and merge years by country to centuries by country, per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly all final rungs consist of only one article. Note: this nomination only deals with the period prior to the establishment of the Roman Empire (i.e. before 27 BC). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:* Withdraw proposal, you're absolutely right, it doesn't make sense this way. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- but a double merge is needed for Category:31 BC establishments also to Category:31 BC. These annual categories are something of a menace, as the ancient ones are always small; and the establishment ones are worse. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support double merge per Peterkingiron Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, then I'll add the double merge in the nomination instead of withdrawing the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator's rationale. 8bitW (talk) 17:35, 1 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_22&oldid=1074816520"