The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Defunct airlines of Faroe Islands
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. We do have a cat tree for defunct airlines, do make a shared nom if you want to change that.
>Radiant<12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
There seems to be some confusion with this nomination. My view is that this category should be merged into
Category:Airlines of the Faroe Islands. A defunct airline was still an airline of the Faroe Islands. The total number of airlines is, in any event, far too small for more than one airline. --
Bduke00:35, 5 August 2007 (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:Airlines of Faroe Islands
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Delete per nom and have only one categories for airlines of the Faroe Islands. This the item for discussion above. --
Bduke00:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:New images to be reviewed
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.
Comment , Intended to serve for revie of policy other than the copyright one. Possible comprmise, change category the relevant template (also being considerd for deletion) places images in?
Sfan00 IMG20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I can see the possible usefulness, but given what some people find the already confusing array of image copyright categories and templates, this might need renaming for clarity: "Image problems other than copyright" perhaps? DGG (
talk)
22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I should give more detail. If new uploads are tagged in this scheme, placing them in this category before orphanbot sees them they will become out of process. Orphanbot will not see them as needing tags, and will not tag them with our already established system. In general we don't tag images as "needing review" anyone can review images, we would rather people review the already existing
Category:Images with no copyright tag than tag semi-random images at upload for someone else to review. If someone feels they can't review them, it is probably best to leave them alone. - cohesion01:13, 5 August 2007 (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:Student television stations in the United Kingdom
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: Contains three pages only, one of which is a talk page of an article. Overcategorisation.
CR717:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep A good example of accurate cross-categorisation. If this is removed, the article will need to be moved to the three parent categories, which do not need the clutter.
Æthelwold19:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I've created a U.S. category. Around half of the U.S. student stations were not previously in
Category:Television stations in the United States, or any of its subcategories, but they all are now. That shows just how valuable sharp cross categories are as a way of dealing with sloppy and incomplete categorisation. Also, I've put all the national categories in the education categories rather than the university and college category, as some of the stations are partly for high school students.
Æthelwold19:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
According to the category introduction, 'Articles about universities and colleges in the United Kingdom.' That does not seem to stretch to include activities at the schools.
Vegaswikian22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Articles about such stations are tricky, for in general they are considered justifiable only if particularly notable--it is useful having them collected in one place when discussions arise.DGG (
talk)
22:19, 4 August 2007 (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:Nasta
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.
Category:Wards of Barrow-in-Furness
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 Wards are not notable. They do not necessarily (or even all that often) coincide with the district identities that British people actually use.
Alex Middleton13:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - the category is now empty. Wards boundaries are commonly changed every few decades to reflect populations changes. I therefore do not think that wards (as such) are appropriate for encyclopaedia articles, but that should not prevent them having articles as neighbourhoods, townships, villages or on some other basis.
Peterkingiron21:26, 7 August 2007 (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.
Delete people by opinion, and with all the attendant difficulties: how do we know? is it current? is it unconstrained? is it someone like Saddam Hussein, who wasn't evidently in favor of unilaterally laying down his weapons but actually fighting a supporter of the war (even in self defense) as opposed to surrender? A right old mess.
Carlossuarez4605:20, 7 August 2007 (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:Indian women artists
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Keep: which is what one would expect, since I spent some time yesterday categorizing. :) However, I do have rationale. According to
Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, Race and sexuality cross-categories are typically used to split larger categories--Indian artists is certainly a larger category. The category meets the requirements under which General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted: the terminology is neutral; the subcategory for country is culturally contextual & inclusion is justifiable by references. (Pretty much duplicated from the actor discussion below, but it all still seems to qualify.) --
Moonriddengirl15:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Those 23 subcats were just structured yesterday. I'm not picking on this one. I found the one 2 discussions down a few hours ago on my watchlist and just found this one the same way. I'm nominated each as I encountered it. I also left the author a note about my concerns of the others, once I discovered the entire tree. --
After Midnight000115:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: Actually, they weren't all created yesterday. AIR, there were already nuns and female singers as subcats there. There may have been more, but that's all I specifically recall. --
Moonriddengirl15:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge Indian artists should not be split by gender. The articles should all be in the same place. Splitting out the women places a patronising emphasis on their gender rather than their achievements.
Æthelwold19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Johnbod is I think correct. The categorization is useful, and will encourage he proper writing & categorization of articles about the many notable ones.DGG (
talk)
22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge if there are many notable Indian women artists, the case for having a separate category falls apart, as it is obviously not remarkable for any particular artist to be a woman.
Perebourne10:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - Why the drive to eliminate gender distinctions? It shouldn't really be so hard to grasp the fact that some non-Indian Wiki readers may be interested in reading about female Indian artists. The gendering of Indian names is not entirely familiar to most non-Indians. Why should each reader be forced to look through all of the articles in a merged category in order to identify those that are women, when that job has already been done by the editors who have tagged the articles in this category?
Just because After Midnight and others don't happen to be interested in the subject doesn't negate the fact that it's both valid and useful. I just don't get the point of reducing the usability of the Wiki category system. It seems to me that noms like this are some sort of reflex, done without reflection or concern for the negative effects in terms of readers being able to access information.
Cgingold02:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Books related to Flatland
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 scope limits this category to only four items, all of which are linked to via a tidy list in the main article,
Flatland, so navigational value is reduced. Furthermore, by definition the main article cannot be included in this category, so it can't even be found in a straightforward manner. Either delete or broaden scope to something like simply "Flatland".
Unint14:25, 4 August 2007 (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:Indian women film actors
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. An important factor here is that our entire category tree of actors does not subdivide by gender, as evidenced (among others) in the precedent cited by ProveIt. It is certainly true, as Cgingold suggests, that "some non-Indian Wiki readers may be interested in reading about female Indian film actors", but to facilitate that we should write an article like
Women in Indian film - such an article is far more informative than having a "woman" tag on the bottom of these actor articles. And, to avert an old chestnut, changing a category into a list is not a loss of information. So let's make a list article of these actresses and merge the categories. (note: list
here).
>Radiant<12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep: which is what one would expect, since I spent some time yesterday categorizing. :) However, I do have rationale. According to
Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, Race and sexuality cross-categories are typically used to split larger categories--Indian actors is certainly a larger category. The category meets the requirements under which General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted: the terminology is neutral; the subcategory for country is culturally contextual & inclusion is justifiable by references. --
Moonriddengirl14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep The nomination is mistaken that this category 'breaks up' the actors category - it does not. All member articles I have seen are in both. The previous discussions - thanks Prove It - are interesting. In all 5 discussions the only editors !voting against such categories, usually on the grounds that they "break up" actor categories, are Prov It, Vegaswikian, Pavel Vozenilek, Mike Selinker (position not wholly clear), jc37 and Dugwiki. Persistently, other editors have asked the question why women actor categories are targeted when women scienists etc are not, and generally have not been answered, though one comment says the whole
Category:Women tree should go. Three of the discussions have only 3 editors commenting. There are precedents, but I would suggest not very strong ones.
Johnbod15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge Who is going to ensure that all the articles are double categorised permanently? No-one, because this is a wiki that relies on volunteer effort. And such checking would require an extraordinary amount of effort - visiting every article every day. No one is going to do that day after day, year after year. This could become a precedent that destroys Wikipedia's gender neutrality. There are strong precedents against it. The fact that such categories have not been created more often for the most heavily trafficked nationalities is itself a precedent. It is also category clutter. As for
Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, it is only a guideline, and it should be abolished, as this sort of categorisation should never be allowed.
Æthelwold19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge There are no special obstacles to women becoming prominent as actors, so there is no reason to treat them differently from men for categorisation purposes.
Perebourne10:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - Why the drive to eliminate gender distinctions? It shouldn't really be so hard to grasp the fact that some non-Indian Wiki readers may be interested in reading about female Indian film actors. The gendering of Indian names is not entirely familiar to most non-Indians. Why should each reader be forced to look through all of the articles in a merged category in order to identify those that are women, when that job has already been done by the editors who have tagged the articles in this category?
Just because After Midnight and others don't happen to be interested in the subject doesn't negate the fact that it's both valid and useful. I just don't get the point of reducing the usability of the Wiki category system. It seems to me that noms like this are some sort of reflex, done without reflection or concern for the negative effects in terms of readers being able to access information.
Cgingold02:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Question - not that it is particularly relevant, but why do you think that I am not interested in this subject. I came to nominate this because I had these articles on my watchlist. The fact that I interpret our categorization guidelines in a manner different from you in no way minimizes my interest in this topic or these articles. It is precisely my interest, and my desire to have them categorized properly per the guidelines which led me to take this action. --
After Midnight000103:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your response. Perhaps that particular inference was mistaken -- which makes it all the more puzzling that you apparently aren't concerned about the issue that I focused on in my first paragraph, namely the problems these merges would create for readers who aren't familiar with the gendering of Indian names. I'd appreciate it if you would address that issue directly. Is it possible that because you (presumably) are familiar with Indian names, that you've discounted the fact that many readers would not be, and would thus be in the dark as to who's male and who's female?
Cgingold14:23, 7 August 2007 (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:English of Nigerian descent
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.
Also, the difference between A-B and B-A people is not clear enough to most people, as can be seen by many miscategorised articles in categories using this form. I would favour renaming all such categories, except the American ones where the terms are actually in common use.
Johnbod14:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Rename English, like Scottish, Welsh and Irish, is an ethnicity. The category should be
British people of Nigerian descent, sicne British is a nationality that can be acquired by naturalisation. "Nigerian-English" is an ambiguous term, which could equally refer to an Englishman in Nigeria as to a Nigerian in England, at least that confusion can readily arise. I note that there are a considerable number of analogous categories. These should also be renamed.
Peterkingiron21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
All these categories are split between the home nations essentially at the insistence of a few Scottish editors. There are not many people in what "British" categories there are, and the Scots will insist on retaining theirs.
Johnbod21:52, 7 August 2007 (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:Jazz ensembles
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: It was rather confusing playing guess-the-category for this one. The current category name doesn't conform to music genre category names, and isn't even the title of the Wikipedia article (that would be
jazz band.
Crystallina07:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -
Jazz band is not the main article; it is a rather dubious stub that seems to cover a much more specific type of group.
Musical ensemble is much better. The current name seems clear enough to me, and better than "groups".
Johnbod15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose: the fact is that subcategories of
Category:Musical groups by genre have absolutely no consistent naming scheme. The two most common are "music groups" and "musical groups"—where the latter matches the parent subcategory, but can cause confusion with
musicals—but there are numerous exceptions. We also have categories using "ensembles", "bands", "troupes", and even just plain "groups". And changing some (e.g.
Category:Brass bands) would cause other forms of confusion. Also, "jazz ensembles" is used for dozens and dozens of subcategories, and I strongly oppose renaming this without including all those subcategories, but I would still need a stronger justification for renaming even the entire jazz tree. Games of "guess-the-category" can usually be avoided by simply going up the category tree to look for siblings, which would have solved nom's initial problem perfectly.
Category:Rock music groups (for example) is a member of
Category:Musical groups by genre, so if you know about the first, you should be able to find the second pretty easily.
Xtifrtälk02:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Ensemble" is a better way of capturing the much more transient and non-exclusive nature of jazz groupings. It provides the flexibility to include the likes of JCOA and Brotherhood of Breath as well as regular and irregular groupings.
AllyD18:00, 6 August 2007 (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.
Category:NUMB3RS
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.
It's a bit messy since the taxonomy has changed around and varies by authority. Some place everything in the family Dipodidae. Others restrict Dipodidae to the jerboas proper and elevate the
jumping mice to family status (Zapodidae). Regardless, they are all in the superfamily Dipodoidea. It turns out that if you recognize Zapodidae, you would also have to put the
birch mice into their own family, Sicistidae, and that's not done often. Anyway, delineating the group by either the family name (Dipodidae) or superfamily name (Dipodoidea) would both be fine. --
Aranae01:32, 4 August 2007 (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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Defunct airlines of Faroe Islands
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. We do have a cat tree for defunct airlines, do make a shared nom if you want to change that.
>Radiant<12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
There seems to be some confusion with this nomination. My view is that this category should be merged into
Category:Airlines of the Faroe Islands. A defunct airline was still an airline of the Faroe Islands. The total number of airlines is, in any event, far too small for more than one airline. --
Bduke00:35, 5 August 2007 (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:Airlines of Faroe Islands
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Delete per nom and have only one categories for airlines of the Faroe Islands. This the item for discussion above. --
Bduke00:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:New images to be reviewed
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.
Comment , Intended to serve for revie of policy other than the copyright one. Possible comprmise, change category the relevant template (also being considerd for deletion) places images in?
Sfan00 IMG20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I can see the possible usefulness, but given what some people find the already confusing array of image copyright categories and templates, this might need renaming for clarity: "Image problems other than copyright" perhaps? DGG (
talk)
22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I should give more detail. If new uploads are tagged in this scheme, placing them in this category before orphanbot sees them they will become out of process. Orphanbot will not see them as needing tags, and will not tag them with our already established system. In general we don't tag images as "needing review" anyone can review images, we would rather people review the already existing
Category:Images with no copyright tag than tag semi-random images at upload for someone else to review. If someone feels they can't review them, it is probably best to leave them alone. - cohesion01:13, 5 August 2007 (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:Student television stations in the United Kingdom
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: Contains three pages only, one of which is a talk page of an article. Overcategorisation.
CR717:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep A good example of accurate cross-categorisation. If this is removed, the article will need to be moved to the three parent categories, which do not need the clutter.
Æthelwold19:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I've created a U.S. category. Around half of the U.S. student stations were not previously in
Category:Television stations in the United States, or any of its subcategories, but they all are now. That shows just how valuable sharp cross categories are as a way of dealing with sloppy and incomplete categorisation. Also, I've put all the national categories in the education categories rather than the university and college category, as some of the stations are partly for high school students.
Æthelwold19:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
According to the category introduction, 'Articles about universities and colleges in the United Kingdom.' That does not seem to stretch to include activities at the schools.
Vegaswikian22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Articles about such stations are tricky, for in general they are considered justifiable only if particularly notable--it is useful having them collected in one place when discussions arise.DGG (
talk)
22:19, 4 August 2007 (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:Nasta
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.
Category:Wards of Barrow-in-Furness
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 Wards are not notable. They do not necessarily (or even all that often) coincide with the district identities that British people actually use.
Alex Middleton13:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - the category is now empty. Wards boundaries are commonly changed every few decades to reflect populations changes. I therefore do not think that wards (as such) are appropriate for encyclopaedia articles, but that should not prevent them having articles as neighbourhoods, townships, villages or on some other basis.
Peterkingiron21:26, 7 August 2007 (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.
Delete people by opinion, and with all the attendant difficulties: how do we know? is it current? is it unconstrained? is it someone like Saddam Hussein, who wasn't evidently in favor of unilaterally laying down his weapons but actually fighting a supporter of the war (even in self defense) as opposed to surrender? A right old mess.
Carlossuarez4605:20, 7 August 2007 (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:Indian women artists
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.
Keep: which is what one would expect, since I spent some time yesterday categorizing. :) However, I do have rationale. According to
Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, Race and sexuality cross-categories are typically used to split larger categories--Indian artists is certainly a larger category. The category meets the requirements under which General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted: the terminology is neutral; the subcategory for country is culturally contextual & inclusion is justifiable by references. (Pretty much duplicated from the actor discussion below, but it all still seems to qualify.) --
Moonriddengirl15:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Those 23 subcats were just structured yesterday. I'm not picking on this one. I found the one 2 discussions down a few hours ago on my watchlist and just found this one the same way. I'm nominated each as I encountered it. I also left the author a note about my concerns of the others, once I discovered the entire tree. --
After Midnight000115:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: Actually, they weren't all created yesterday. AIR, there were already nuns and female singers as subcats there. There may have been more, but that's all I specifically recall. --
Moonriddengirl15:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge Indian artists should not be split by gender. The articles should all be in the same place. Splitting out the women places a patronising emphasis on their gender rather than their achievements.
Æthelwold19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Johnbod is I think correct. The categorization is useful, and will encourage he proper writing & categorization of articles about the many notable ones.DGG (
talk)
22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge if there are many notable Indian women artists, the case for having a separate category falls apart, as it is obviously not remarkable for any particular artist to be a woman.
Perebourne10:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - Why the drive to eliminate gender distinctions? It shouldn't really be so hard to grasp the fact that some non-Indian Wiki readers may be interested in reading about female Indian artists. The gendering of Indian names is not entirely familiar to most non-Indians. Why should each reader be forced to look through all of the articles in a merged category in order to identify those that are women, when that job has already been done by the editors who have tagged the articles in this category?
Just because After Midnight and others don't happen to be interested in the subject doesn't negate the fact that it's both valid and useful. I just don't get the point of reducing the usability of the Wiki category system. It seems to me that noms like this are some sort of reflex, done without reflection or concern for the negative effects in terms of readers being able to access information.
Cgingold02:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Books related to Flatland
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 scope limits this category to only four items, all of which are linked to via a tidy list in the main article,
Flatland, so navigational value is reduced. Furthermore, by definition the main article cannot be included in this category, so it can't even be found in a straightforward manner. Either delete or broaden scope to something like simply "Flatland".
Unint14:25, 4 August 2007 (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:Indian women film actors
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. An important factor here is that our entire category tree of actors does not subdivide by gender, as evidenced (among others) in the precedent cited by ProveIt. It is certainly true, as Cgingold suggests, that "some non-Indian Wiki readers may be interested in reading about female Indian film actors", but to facilitate that we should write an article like
Women in Indian film - such an article is far more informative than having a "woman" tag on the bottom of these actor articles. And, to avert an old chestnut, changing a category into a list is not a loss of information. So let's make a list article of these actresses and merge the categories. (note: list
here).
>Radiant<12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep: which is what one would expect, since I spent some time yesterday categorizing. :) However, I do have rationale. According to
Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, Race and sexuality cross-categories are typically used to split larger categories--Indian actors is certainly a larger category. The category meets the requirements under which General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted: the terminology is neutral; the subcategory for country is culturally contextual & inclusion is justifiable by references. --
Moonriddengirl14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep The nomination is mistaken that this category 'breaks up' the actors category - it does not. All member articles I have seen are in both. The previous discussions - thanks Prove It - are interesting. In all 5 discussions the only editors !voting against such categories, usually on the grounds that they "break up" actor categories, are Prov It, Vegaswikian, Pavel Vozenilek, Mike Selinker (position not wholly clear), jc37 and Dugwiki. Persistently, other editors have asked the question why women actor categories are targeted when women scienists etc are not, and generally have not been answered, though one comment says the whole
Category:Women tree should go. Three of the discussions have only 3 editors commenting. There are precedents, but I would suggest not very strong ones.
Johnbod15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge Who is going to ensure that all the articles are double categorised permanently? No-one, because this is a wiki that relies on volunteer effort. And such checking would require an extraordinary amount of effort - visiting every article every day. No one is going to do that day after day, year after year. This could become a precedent that destroys Wikipedia's gender neutrality. There are strong precedents against it. The fact that such categories have not been created more often for the most heavily trafficked nationalities is itself a precedent. It is also category clutter. As for
Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, it is only a guideline, and it should be abolished, as this sort of categorisation should never be allowed.
Æthelwold19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Merge There are no special obstacles to women becoming prominent as actors, so there is no reason to treat them differently from men for categorisation purposes.
Perebourne10:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - Why the drive to eliminate gender distinctions? It shouldn't really be so hard to grasp the fact that some non-Indian Wiki readers may be interested in reading about female Indian film actors. The gendering of Indian names is not entirely familiar to most non-Indians. Why should each reader be forced to look through all of the articles in a merged category in order to identify those that are women, when that job has already been done by the editors who have tagged the articles in this category?
Just because After Midnight and others don't happen to be interested in the subject doesn't negate the fact that it's both valid and useful. I just don't get the point of reducing the usability of the Wiki category system. It seems to me that noms like this are some sort of reflex, done without reflection or concern for the negative effects in terms of readers being able to access information.
Cgingold02:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Question - not that it is particularly relevant, but why do you think that I am not interested in this subject. I came to nominate this because I had these articles on my watchlist. The fact that I interpret our categorization guidelines in a manner different from you in no way minimizes my interest in this topic or these articles. It is precisely my interest, and my desire to have them categorized properly per the guidelines which led me to take this action. --
After Midnight000103:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your response. Perhaps that particular inference was mistaken -- which makes it all the more puzzling that you apparently aren't concerned about the issue that I focused on in my first paragraph, namely the problems these merges would create for readers who aren't familiar with the gendering of Indian names. I'd appreciate it if you would address that issue directly. Is it possible that because you (presumably) are familiar with Indian names, that you've discounted the fact that many readers would not be, and would thus be in the dark as to who's male and who's female?
Cgingold14:23, 7 August 2007 (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:English of Nigerian descent
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.
Also, the difference between A-B and B-A people is not clear enough to most people, as can be seen by many miscategorised articles in categories using this form. I would favour renaming all such categories, except the American ones where the terms are actually in common use.
Johnbod14:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Rename English, like Scottish, Welsh and Irish, is an ethnicity. The category should be
British people of Nigerian descent, sicne British is a nationality that can be acquired by naturalisation. "Nigerian-English" is an ambiguous term, which could equally refer to an Englishman in Nigeria as to a Nigerian in England, at least that confusion can readily arise. I note that there are a considerable number of analogous categories. These should also be renamed.
Peterkingiron21:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)reply
All these categories are split between the home nations essentially at the insistence of a few Scottish editors. There are not many people in what "British" categories there are, and the Scots will insist on retaining theirs.
Johnbod21:52, 7 August 2007 (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:Jazz ensembles
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: It was rather confusing playing guess-the-category for this one. The current category name doesn't conform to music genre category names, and isn't even the title of the Wikipedia article (that would be
jazz band.
Crystallina07:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose -
Jazz band is not the main article; it is a rather dubious stub that seems to cover a much more specific type of group.
Musical ensemble is much better. The current name seems clear enough to me, and better than "groups".
Johnbod15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose: the fact is that subcategories of
Category:Musical groups by genre have absolutely no consistent naming scheme. The two most common are "music groups" and "musical groups"—where the latter matches the parent subcategory, but can cause confusion with
musicals—but there are numerous exceptions. We also have categories using "ensembles", "bands", "troupes", and even just plain "groups". And changing some (e.g.
Category:Brass bands) would cause other forms of confusion. Also, "jazz ensembles" is used for dozens and dozens of subcategories, and I strongly oppose renaming this without including all those subcategories, but I would still need a stronger justification for renaming even the entire jazz tree. Games of "guess-the-category" can usually be avoided by simply going up the category tree to look for siblings, which would have solved nom's initial problem perfectly.
Category:Rock music groups (for example) is a member of
Category:Musical groups by genre, so if you know about the first, you should be able to find the second pretty easily.
Xtifrtälk02:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Ensemble" is a better way of capturing the much more transient and non-exclusive nature of jazz groupings. It provides the flexibility to include the likes of JCOA and Brotherhood of Breath as well as regular and irregular groupings.
AllyD18:00, 6 August 2007 (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.
Category:NUMB3RS
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.
It's a bit messy since the taxonomy has changed around and varies by authority. Some place everything in the family Dipodidae. Others restrict Dipodidae to the jerboas proper and elevate the
jumping mice to family status (Zapodidae). Regardless, they are all in the superfamily Dipodoidea. It turns out that if you recognize Zapodidae, you would also have to put the
birch mice into their own family, Sicistidae, and that's not done often. Anyway, delineating the group by either the family name (Dipodidae) or superfamily name (Dipodoidea) would both be fine. --
Aranae01:32, 4 August 2007 (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.