Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 15 September 17 >

September 16[edit]

Category:Online trading[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Substantial overlap. Electronic trading systems makes the meaning a bit clearer. Online trading sounds a much wider concept. Rathfelder (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2019 (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:Male politicians[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 and merge as specified in the nomination (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding consensus when similar categories have been tried in the past, there's no value in gender-categorizing male politicians. The vast majority of politicians throughout history have been male by default, and there's no need to categorize people for a characteristic shared by the vast majority of them -- the reason women are different when it comes to politics, and the reason why the category for women in politics does not need to be balanced against a similar category for men, is that women in politics only started to emerge in the 20th century (as opposed to men, who've always been in politics right from the very invention of politics). Women still represent barely 25 per cent of all politicians even with all the progress that has been made in the past 100 years, and even today, there are still political roles which have never been held by a woman at all -- and because women in politics are still both newer and rarer than men in politics, women in politics are the subject of special gender-based study in reliable sources: we still see real academic analysis of whether gender plays a role in how political candidates are perceived and whether it confers a disadvantage in winning election to certain offices; we still see real academic analysis of whether women do the job differently than men or not; we still see active programs designed to facilitate and increase women's participation in politics; and on and so forth. There isn't similar gender-based analysis of men in politics, however: men just get analyzed as politicians period, and only women get analyzed for the intersection of politics with gender. Female-X categories do not always have to be matched with a male-X equivalent; it depends on context, and politics is not a context where maleness is distinctive or defining. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We've had these arguments before.Rathfelder (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and WP:OCEGRS. Place Clichy (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "starting in the 20th-century" is both false and misleading. On one hand we have Martha Hughes Cannon elected a state senator in 1896. However the Utah Territorial Legislature's 1870s attempt to allow women to serve in elective office was blocked by the Federal government, and then the federal government rescinded women's right to vote in Utah. On the other hand well through the 20th-cnentury women in politics were extremely rare. during the time in the 1950s that Lyndon B. Johnson was the Democrat Majority Leader in the US census, his caucus had 0 females, and Margaret Chase Smith was the only female senator during that time. As recently as 1978 for part of the year the number of women in the US senate was 0. In 1991 the number of women serving as members of the US senate was 2. That is 2%. There have only been 56 women serve in the US senate, and this includes the first one who served a day as basically an honorific appointment. There are 18 states that have never elected a woman to the senate. There have been 1971 members of the United States senate to date, so 1915 have been men. No state has had more than 3 women senators, while no state has had less than 7 senators (Hawaii). New Jersey has had the most senators (66), and 0 of those have been women. Similar figures apply to the United States house of representatives, where 319 of 11,037 have been women. In both cases this adds up to just under 3% total. Pregnancy of such women though rare plays a role, and for example Mia Love was chastised by some for being a mother of minor children seeking political office in a way fathers of minor children never are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2019 (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:Falcon (rocket family)[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: merge (the other category already exists, with the same scope). (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per recent consensus at Talk:SpaceX launch vehicles#Requested move 9 September 2019, similar reason may apply for its category, but a discussion might be needed before renaming this category. (note the mainpage was moved from Falcon (rocket family) to SpaceX launch vehicles) Thanks! OkayKenji (talk page) 20:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok then support this proposal assuming the article title remains at its current name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2019 (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:Lists of mayors of cities in Canada[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category which effectively just duplicates Category:Lists of mayors of places in Canada for no compelling reason. While it is technically true that towns and villages also have mayors, we actually have very few lists of mayors of places that aren't cities -- between the fact that smalltown mayors are not automatically presumed notable under WP:NPOL and the fact that small towns much more frequently lack any easily consulted reliable sources to support a list with, very few places smaller than the midsized city level have lists of their mayors on Wikipedia at all. So if this were fully populated with all of the lists of mayors of Canadian cities that we have (which it is not, as it's still missing more of them than it includes), it would simply offer redundant categorization of nearly all of the lists that are already in the parent tree anyway. We don't actually need to categorize "cities" separately from "places" in this context, if very few places that aren't cities have lists at all -- and for the exact same reasons, no other country on earth has a dedicated subcategory to segregate the cities from other kinds of places either. Upmerging not needed, as every list here is already in the appropriate provincial subcategory of the parent. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2019 (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:Pre-Confederation mayors of Ottawa[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: merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category which uses an arbitrary date to separate some mayors of a city from other mayors of the same city. Ottawa is far from the only Canadian city that existed before Canadian Confederation in 1867 -- Toronto had 16 mayors before Confederation happened, Montreal had 31, Quebec City had 13, Halifax had 19, Kingston had 23, and on and so forth — but it is the only city that's using Canada's transition from British colony to independent country in 1867 as a categorical point of separation between some mayors and others. This isn't really necessary or helpful — Confederation didn't really change the status or context of mayors at all, so there's no need for the category system to segregate the pre-1867 mayors and the post-1867 mayors as two separate classes of topic. And no, the fact that Ottawa happens to be the capital of Canada still doesn't define the pre-1867 mayors differently than it does the post-1867 mayors — even pre-Confederation, Ottawa was already the capital, so Confederation still didn't have any meaningfully unique effect on the status of Ottawa's mayoralty. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2019 (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:EDI[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: speedily renamed. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That is the name of the article. EDI doesnt mean much to those outside the e-commerce field. Rathfelder (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and an obvious case of WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I completely forgot about that option. I withdraw this in favour of the speedy procedure.Rathfelder (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rathfelder: For future reference, there was no need to withdraw and re-nominate on the speedy page. Full CFD nominations can be speedily closed too. – Fayenatic London 18:09, 17 September 2019 (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:United States Senators and all its progeny[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: rename. MER-C 10:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's already been a consensus developed at Talk:List of current United States senators#Requested move 11 August 2019 that "Senator" should be lower-case in most instances. —GoldRingChip 17:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @GoldRingChip: support but all categories have to be listed here (see other nominations) and tagged, otherwise administrators will not be able to process them. :Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK… I'll get on it… —GoldRingChip 23:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added all I could find. Please add more if you find them, I can't do that all again. —GoldRingChip 23:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please can the nominator list the categories in the standard FROM/TO format. This is a long list and it will be a pain to process without the destinations. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the argument of the nominator. Adding capital letters indiscriminately and invading foreign countries are just two of the more obvious problems of America. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- However, I would have thought that the categories for be about senators "for" a state, rather than by origin, which may be quite different
    • That's a fine point, actually. Let's address it at some other discussion. —GoldRingChip 12:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These could all be speedied per WP:C2A (capitalization) as 2 days have passed and there is no opposition. Oculi (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MER-C: Why was this resisted? It's not controversial; there's already been a consensus elsewhere; this could've been done speedy; and it just takes bots to make it happen? —GoldRingChip 16:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could have processed the ones tagged and listed. Stragglers can be speedied. Oculi (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is uncontroversial maintenance per WP:C2A. Place Clichy (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am still trying to figure why such a straighforward change has been subjected to so long a debate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2019 (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:Films scored by Deva (music director)[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: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match the parent article Deva (composer). Kailash29792 (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2019 (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:Schools in Sikar Rajasthan[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: upmerge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With just 2 articles in this category and 2-3 pages in each parent, there is not enough content at this time to warrant a set category for schools in this city. There is no need to upmerge to Category:Schools in Rajasthan as both articles are already in another subcategory of that parent. If the category is kept, then rename to Category:Schools in Sikar per the city article. (Pinging the category's creator, User:ComputerVisionGuy) -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2019 (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:Villages in Gharsana tehsil[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: merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is not enough content in Category:Villages in Sri Ganganagar district (~15 articles) to warrant splitting the category by tehsil. There is no Category:Gharsana tehsil to which to upmerge, and at this time there does not appear to be enough content related to Gharsana tehsil to warrant an eponymous category. (Pining the category's creator, User:Shemaroo) -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2019 (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:Girwa tehsil[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While this is not a case of WP:SMALLCAT (as the category could be expanded), it is not useful at this time to begin subdividing Category:Udaipur district by tehsil, given we have only about ~50 articles about settlements in the district split between Category:Cities and towns in Udaipur district and Category:Villages in Udaipur district. All articles are already otherwise categorized, so upmerging is not required. (Category creator not notified: indefinitely blocked) -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and just generally this is very narrow categorization, preferably only to be pursued if India as a whole can be meaningfully subdivided like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2019 (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/2019_September_16&oldid=917513739"