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 on procedural grounds, without prejudice to a broader discussion. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The combination of American state and gender is not a distinguishing one. Being a Kentucky woman scientist, for example, is not sufficiently distinct from a woman's being a scientist in another American state. Suggest upmerge to the relevant parents at Category:American women by occupation. SFB 20:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for starting a discussion on this, @SillyFolkBoy:. I could really use some extra brain power. The idea was to start conversations amongst Kentucky women scientists as part of Kentucky Science and Entering Foundations's efforts to aid Art & Feminism's edit-a-thon in Lexington, April 2018. What other techniques could we use to meet the goal of connecting scientists with the public while focusing on Kentucky and having a way to see their pages all together? Sbbarker19 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbbarker19: The category system is more for navigation, and a not very publicly visible one at that. A much better approach would be to start writing information more broadly in article space, like Women in Kentucky. I'm sure you can dig out various threads from the articles at Category:Women in Kentucky. If you're looking to create more content on Kentucky women, then there are a few missing articles for a start at Kentucky Women Remembered. I'm not expert, but I think focusing on Kentucky women scientists may be a little too narrow for your event – maybe you can try and get people to expand articles on Kentucky women and American women scientists in general? I would leave a message at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and see if they can give you any pointers on approach for an edit-a-thon. Good luck! SFB 20:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.
Procedurally The nomination would simply delete the container category while keeping all the categories which contain actual biographies. This would be pointless; it wouldn't recategorise any articles, and would just make it harder to find the categories. If the nominator wants to remove the subcats, then they need to be listed along with appropriate merge targets.
Comment BHG has a point on the procedural objection she raises; however, I think there ought to be a centralized discussion on whether categorization of certain (or all, or no) occupations by gender merits separation - once this is established and its limits (if any), then we can push down the geographic separators as we would do for any other systematic categorization tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since we have parent categories "People from Kentucky by occupation" and "American women by occupation", it makes sense to create a child category that can hold the subcategories representing the junction of the two. Barring a discussion that concludes in opposition to splitting Kentuckians by sex, or Americans by occupation by sex, there's no reason to get rid of this category. And if it makes sense to have a US national category for something, it's quite reasonable to split it up by state. Think of a split by geography as a free-floating subdivision. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2018 (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: Defunct minor league team category with just two entries and unlikely to get more. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has enough topics to keep. This category brings order to the topic and should be kept. If you want Wikipedia to become less organized and harder to use, then delete it. spatms Talk:spatms 17:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have just emptied the subcategory, because Jack Baldschun appears to have played for the Washington Senators rather than for the Thibodaux Senators.Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'@Marcocapelle:, Baldschun did play for Thibodeaux per Baseballreference[3]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 12 May 2018 (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: Being an ancient Greek sportsperson from abroad is not only not definitive of the subject, but is ahistorical in that it applies notions of the modern nation state and citizenship to ancient times SFB 16:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There may be the makings of a valid category here Category:Ancient Greek athletes exiled from their native city. Even in the ancient world people would be citizens of their native city (if not slaves). However, I doubt that such exile is a defining characteristic, meriting a special category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is essentially a list of people who Pindar has written about. This is best dealt with in article text rather than a navigational category, where the actual importance and relevance of this can be discussed further. SFB 16:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an athlete's appearance in Pindar's works is similar to many types of WP:OVERCAT that we have regularly deleted (akin to WP:TOPTEN) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2018 (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:Cartilaginous fish described in the 20th century[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - one of Caftaric's ideas. Also empty. Oculi (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – pointless splitting of a category. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2018 (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:Cartilaginous fish described in the 21st century[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - one of Caftaric's ideas. Also empty. Oculi (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – pointless splitting of a category. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2018 (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:Cartilaginous fish described in the 19th century[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - one of Caftaric's ideas. Also empty. Oculi (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – pointless splitting of a category. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2018 (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:listify and delete. ℯxplicit 01:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – as the category's creator and per this.LinguistunEinsuno (Linguist111) 14:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listify perfectly valid topic for a list article where we can note the relevant series/season, but given rotating nature of the role and the fact this category covers all language versions of the show, it is not serving the purpose of gathering similar people by a defining characteristic. SFB 20:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per Sillyfolkboy. LinguistunEinsuno (Linguist111) 23:11, 7 May 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 08:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we resolve this issue by recasting categories in the academic tree as "Academic works about X", then placing these as children within the broader "Works about X" tree. I think the original aim was to separate educational from entertainment content, but I'm not sure that is possible: beyond the purely academic (journals, newsletters, databases etc), other media often serve both an educational and entertainment purpose (e.g. Category:Documentary films about architecture). Note that fictional works are already separated via the Category:Fiction by topic tree. SFB 14:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree that we need to do something here because the current situation is just confusing. I'm still in doubt whether rename (as nominated) or merge would be most suitable. Merging e.g. Category:Architecture works to Category:Works about architecture may be appropriate as well, as it will not always be clear whether a work is academic or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that some sort of merger of these categories would be helpful. Rathfelder (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle and Rathfelder: I can see that as another possibility, would the essence of your idea be to upmerge Category:Works by academic discipline into Category:Works by topic as non-distinctive? I also think there are questions about the "works" naming convention that need to be addressed – personally I favour the broader "Works about X" form, given the content scope. SFB 19:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are topics and academic disciplines the same thing? Because if they are this proposal is quite far reaching. Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same thing, but too often indistinguishable. For example Category:Works of sociology is an academic works category, but it contains Category:Works about public opinion which is a works by topic category, so it is likely to contain articles about non-academic works as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After all, support rename for now. While I have been suggesting above that a merge might be more appropriate, we should probably have a look at it in more detail for each category separately. For example Category:Works about architecture is entirely about films about architecture so that might not make a good merge target, and some others do not have a "works about" merge target at all. So merging can better be left for later discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2018 (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:Medical museums in Saint Petersburg[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: Only 2 articles. Not likely to be any more Rathfelder (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not helpful to navigation to go to city level with such little content. @Rathfelder: There are several other similar categories in Category:Medical museums that you might want to add to this nomination. I would say that only the London category is serving much navigational use at sub-national level. SFB 13:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am pleased to see that Rathfelder has realised that this should be a merge rather than delete. Might I however urge consideration for the other parent: Category:Museums in Saint Petersburg will be dismayed to lose 2 of its members should this nom succeed. Oculi (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Full upmerge is needed. Not enough content to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2018 (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:Merge. Timrollpickering 08:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, unclear how this category distincts itself from its parent category. (The nominated category should not to be confused with its subcategory Category:Social enterprises, with only one letter difference.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support No clear distinction between these two topics. SFB 13:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No objection BUT it would seem more sensible to merge this with Social enterprises (for organisations) keeping the distinction with Social entrepreneurs. But I agree something should be done. S a g a C i t y (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any articles that fit better in Category:Social entrepreneurs there is obviously no objection against moving these articles to this alternative category on an individual basis. Generally however most articles in the nominated category are neither about individual organisations nor about individual people. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2018 (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.
Keep to avoid ambiguity, per National Film Awards (disambiguation). I await the usual trotting out of the non-sequitur 'if it's good enough for an article, it's good enough for a category' (based on which policy or consensus?). Oculi (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too ambiguous for category space. Also looks like the the mainspace page name move may have only occurred on the third try due to lack of input, reading the previous discussions. SFB 13:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted. I don't think I have ever seen a page move under such negligible support as this in 2016. National Film Awards UK began in 2015 so the primary use argument might well now fail. Oculi (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sillyfolkboy; regardless of the propriety of having the article at its current location, this is indeed a good example of when article and category should have different names, lest non-Indian national film awards end up here. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Despite the article not needing a disambiguator, this is a case where the category MUST have one to prevent UK, Bangladesh, and other awards being added here by mistake. On the other hand, does WP:OC#AWARD apply here? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how it would, at least to the pages that I saw. How would pages like 6th National Film Awards not belong in a category for the National Film Awards? Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2018 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 19. ℯxplicit 01:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
