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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

'Nominator's rationale. Will probably never be greatly populated (currently there's only two listings) and there isn't much need for the category, as there are only two subcats for Category:People of Cherokee descent. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 22:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi reply

Disagree I disagree as it is a subcategory of both Category:Canadian people of First Nations descent and Category:People of Cherokee descent. And could you please add a tag to the category please, showing it is under discussion Hugo999 ( talk) 04:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment. Technically Cherokees are not First Nations - they are not indigenous peoples of Canada. Secondly, Category:People of Cherokee descent is an adequate category. It's not overpopulated, and it's a category for people who claim Cherokee descent but are not, in fact, members of any Cherokee tribes (as opposed to Category:Cherokee people), so inclusion is not notable for any of the people mentioned in the category. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi reply

• Comment If that is the way it is supposed to be used I think it is misued. It is generally used as a category to put people in if they are said to be of say African, English, German and Cherokee descent. However since anyone who has an ancestor on the 1890 tribal roles of the Cherokee can be a member, I strongly suspect that many people who are in Category:People of Cheorkee descent really belong in Category:Cherokee people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Not true, apparently. According to Cherokee, membership for one of the three recognized Cherokee tribes abides by one drop policy, but not for the two other tribes - see Cherokee#Membership Controversies Mayumashu ( talk) 14:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment. Category:People of Cherokee descent and its subcat Category:American people of Cherokee descent are mostly filled with non-enrolled people who self-identify as being of Cherokee descent; however, there are also people in the category, who are of verifiable Cherokee descent but are enrolled in other Indian tribes: Joy Harjo, Joan Hill, Oral Roberts, etc. - Uyvsdi ( talk)Uyvsdi

• Upmerge - the nominator makes an excellent point, that Cherokee are not First Nations. Upmerge to Category:People of Cherokee descent and Category:Canadian people of Native American descent (as there are surely other notable Canadians of some kind of Native American ancestry). Mayumashu ( talk) 13:52, 17 July 2011 (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: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Catholics not in communion with Rome - delete.

'Nominator's rationale The objects in this category have already been successfully listified as follow: List of Catholic organizations not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Catholic Churches# List of Eastern Catholic Churches. There is, therefore no purpose to this page. Also, the contents of the category seems to be about groups of people or entire denominations, not individuals. The title would lead one to expect a list of individuals. But even it it were about individuals, that too would present problems: many individuals believe they are in communion with Rome (and have compelling arguments for that belief) whilst not being accepted as "in communion" by Rome. Overall, it's best deleted. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Why Anglicanism is in this category is hard to say. even worse, the Anglican Catholic Church is in this category, but this is a breakaway movement from Anglicanism that makes no sense to be said to be "not in communion with Rome". In general we do not categorize by lack of something. The schema that exists seems to be to have distict Catholic and Roman Catholic categories. Those who are not connected with Rome but called catholic are in the former. This category needlessly turns that set of cats on their head. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment among the few people who are in this category they often are also in the category Category:People excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. This seems to be a case of needless duplication in categorizing. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:15, 17 July 2011 (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 & articleise. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Mitchell family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Article masquerading as a category. Note that this category name is ambiguous since there are many notable Mitchell families. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. family after the patriarch.- choster ( talk) 19:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • And convert to an article? Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete/possibly listify Family categories should only be for families that have several prominent members. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete or article obviously not a category Curb Chain ( talk) 08:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete as category, move text and links to being an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete or change to article per Curb Chain -- Auntof6 ( talk) 07:46, 17 July 2011 (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: No consensus. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:African American women in politics to Category:African American politicians

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Maybe 40 years ago this distinction might have been notable. But by now it is common so this triple intersection is OCAT. Race of politicians is not mentioned in many cases. If someone needs to do research, they can include both terms in a search. Categories are not meant as a tool to define all search results a researcher might dream up. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is not something a researcher would just "dream up." This is legitimate to note for two reasons: the gender of the women and the ethnicity of the women. Were it a perfect world, categories like this really wouldn't be of importance. But due to the history of women and this ethnicity in the United States, this is very important. Politics in the US are generally still a male-dominated field. Any strides made by a double minority group is especially important to take notice for encyclopedic importance. And if you feel this is no longer an issue, you might need to pay a bit more attention to what's going on in current politics. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 21:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The US is one polity among many: Not saying that US politics are not important, but saying that all others are just as important, and a "race" issue is not unique to US. It's everywhere, and this is just overcategorization, in my opinion. Curb Chain ( talk) 08:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

This contributes to research--actual research that will be useful for women. I mean, the fact that someone up there called it "dreaming up" is insulting. It's not like I made a category called, "Unicorns in politics, Unicorns who have held office." Really? Wikipedia is full of unlimited space. Deleting categories just because you can just doesn't make sense to me. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 16:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

We are not deleting categories "just because we can". We are deleting categories that don't have anything to contribute. check this out - it explicitly states that we don't categorize based on "race". Curb Chain ( talk) 06:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Jesus Christ African American is not a race, it's an ethnicity that people identify with in the United States. If you say that, the whole African American category is facing deletion--which will make a lot of people very angry. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I will go off topic a little here: in my Anthropology first year course (101), it states / i was taught that was race: I will be frank with you: The US has a convoluted way of categorizing their citizens, and it is inefficient and ineffective. In another discussion, I have linked to race, culture, and ethnicity, and I am sure you will understand the reason we don't categorize by race, no matter what government does so. Curb Chain ( talk) 02:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete as obvious overcategorization. There are way too many pointless categories like this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete arbitrary categorizing; considering the term "African American" is defined by weather or not you look "African", this is a spurious category. Curb Chain ( talk) 08:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

This is not categorizing on the basis of whether or not you "look African." There no certain type of person who comes from Africa, from Charlize Theron to Nelson Mandela. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 16:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Then why are we categorizing people with nothing in common? Curb Chain ( talk) 06:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

What are you talking about??? Are you being serious??? If you just don't want the category to exist, just say that, but don't talk nonsense. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 15:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Using your example, what do Charlize Theron and Nelson Mandela have in common? Curb Chain ( talk) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Strangely enough, we can actually base ethnic categorization on how a subject is categorized in reliable sources. Much like we do for every other category. -- Danger ( talk) 12:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The African American politicians category works. We do not need a gender specific category here, we have far too many of these. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• keep This category is a sub-category of 3 categories. Deleting this means the 188 women who managed, in the face of white and male hostility, to become US policitians would have to be replicated in 3 categories now and forever more. This makes no practical sense. It also makes no sense in terms of the purpose of cateogies, which is to help readers to easily navigate to related articles that might interest them. Hmains ( talk) 17:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you, this is a beautiful explanation. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 18:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Pray tell, how did these people manage to face white and male hostility to become US politicians? It sounds like original speculation to me. Curb Chain ( talk) 02:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Yep, and not to mention racist and sexist, explicitly separating black women from white men, due to some perceived notion of hostility. What happened to staying neutral -- the very core of Wikipedia? I am white and have oppressed no one, and would like to be treated as such. Nymf _hideliho! 17:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep as a defining characteristic of the women included. Use of the African American and Women politician categories separately does not capture a fundamental characteristic of these individuals and is used by the media to define such politicians. Alansohn ( talk) 17:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Let's say we have a female "African American" Arnold Swarzenegger. Is his fundamental characteristic because he is "African American" and because he is currently a politician? Because if he is more notable as actor or bodybuilder, then those *separate* categories suffice. But if you are categorizing him because you perceive him to be part of a group, African American, and you perceive that this fundamental characteristic exists, then that's not scholarly or encyclopedic. Curb Chain ( talk) 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Merge♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment the issues is not whether being a politician is notable. The issue is whether there is enough uniqueness of female African American politicians to categorize them seperately. I think on that ground we get a resounding no. I would point out that this category should be limited to citizens of the US, and that there is probably a workable reason why Mia Love, a US born daughter of Hatian immigrants should not be put in here if we want it to really be an ethnic and not a racial category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per the above comments. Nymf _hideliho! 18:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Appears to be a notable subcategory, and race + gender are two issues that still play a highly visible role in American politics. -- LauraHale ( talk) 02:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

  Race should not be used when categorizing. Ethnicity may be used in special cases, though. Nymf _hideliho! 05:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

@LauraHale:Not really, and as per above, do you have reliable sources for this assertion? Curb Chain ( talk) 10:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

@Curb Chain: Sources that reference female politicians and mention race, gender or both that demonstrate this is still an issue: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] -- LauraHale ( talk) 11:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

@Curb Chain: I forgot about one of the more important African American female politicians from an American political sense: Barbara Jordan. (Mosley Braun is historically notable for her being a female African American who ran for president.) Anyway, sources that mention Barbara Jordan's race and gender in order to describe her: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] @ Curb Chain : What credible sources do you have says this is not a historically notable categorisation? What credible sources do you have that says race and gender no longer play an important part in American political dialogue? What sources do you have that say that this historically important category is no longer historically important and relevant? The amount of potential sources out there supporting this is huge. And if there is any issue that this category should be deleted because there is no article named African American women politicians, I'll happily create the article, find credible sources and stub it out to make that reason void. -- LauraHale ( talk) 12:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

That's just a bunch of pov pushing. Curb Chain ( talk) 08:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

In all those references, did anyone of the victims or perpetrators mention that they were treating African American women in politics differently, or was it just the author of the article assuming this? Curb Chain ( talk) 09:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• DeleteComment. It is long past the time when this might have been defining. It is common place today. When it is notable is when it is for a high office or the someone trying to be the first. So you see Clinton's sex mentioned when she ran for president. The same for religion with Romney and Kennedy. African American women have been running and being elected in white areas of the country for decades. The only time these issues might be notable is when they are the first. It would probably make more sense to have a category for politicians who get elected despite their accent. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

@ Vegaswikian: Do you have any sources for: It is long past the time when this might have been defining. It is common place today. ? What are you defining as common place? What African American women are in the United States senate? Which ones are running for president for either major party? How many African American women are governors? What notable, verifiable sources do you have to support that this category is no longer defining? Do you think Andrew would have attacked the African American woman he did if this issue still wasn't defining? -- LauraHale ( talk) 20:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The better question is, what sources do you have to say that this is defining? The fact is that by the 70s, sex and race have not been a big issue. If you think it is, then you need to make that case. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

@ Vegaswikian: The sources that define African American women as African American politicians have been provided. The sources define them that way. Dick Durbin and George Bush are not regularly described as "White men". That's because they are the dominant group and such labels don't need to be stated to talked about. As African American women are NOT the dominant group and are at a disadvantage, they have that. I've provided sources to back up my claims that these are. "African+American"+woman+"Barbara+Jordan" Google Barbara Jordan, and you'll see this labelling is valid and accepted and important. Back to you: What sources do you have or: It is long past the time when this might have been defining. It is common place today. ? You made a claim. This claim is of paramount importance for defending your position to delete. Provide the sources please. -- LauraHale ( talk) 11:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

But why are they at a disadvantage? Curb Chain ( talk) 13:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Why does it matter what African American women are in the United States senate? Why does it mattaer which ones are running for president for either major party? Why does it matter how many African American women are governors? Do you have a source that Andrew attacked the African American woman he did if this issue was defining? Curb Chain ( talk) 08:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

@ Curb Chain : Totals matter if the claim is being made that the category of "African American women in politics" doesn't matter because this is common please. That was a claim some one made in defence of the category being made. I'm trying to understand what common place means. Now, as this category is common place and this argument as hen been put forth to support the deletion of this category, let's see some evidence of common place. Answer the question. You're the one making unsupported arguments for why it should be deleted. How many African American women are there who are American senators and governors? -- LauraHale ( talk) 11:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, i think the poster of that comment is trying to explain that african american women in politics is a nonissue. I believe this. But the issue is weather or not we should be categorizing people this way? What reason do we have to categorize people under these characteristics? You claim that they are oppressed. That is very hard to prove. Should we create a category for every oppressed demographic trying to get into politics? Should we make a category:16 year old Canadian in politics because in Alberta, where were 2 girls who campaigned to lower the voting age. Curb Chain ( talk) 13:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Why does it matter to remove the gender? I see nothing wrong with the system as it is since it states the ethnicity and gender which you are unlikely to confuse with other people. However making both genders into one makes it rather confusing. Bidgee ( talk) 11:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Clearly, Vegaswikian, I witnessed a different USian election in 2008 than you did. Also, clearly your position is a minority one (hah!) compared the one reflected in reliable sources, most of which made a big to do of both gender and race. -- Danger ( talk) 12:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

So, you witnessed every election where an African American woman was running for office? I mentioned above that there are going to be issues with this under specific cases, but that does not mean that it affects everyone. Is the fact that an African American women got elected in an area that is 90% black or minority notable or defining? When does someone stop being classified as black by blood? 25%? 12.5%? 49%? Without a objective answer there, the category inclusion criteria is arbitrary and hence should be deleted. Even the American Indian tribes don't agree on what percentage of blood you need to be considered as a member. Funny thing there, as the tribes get richer, the amount of blood needed to be a member tends to increase and not decrease. In the end, this is probably best considered a BLP morass which is best avoided by removing these types of categorizations. A further point on the 2008 elections. Any opinions on why race was raised? Any bigotry involved? Again that ventures into BLP land. And finally, having a minority position in a discussion does not make it wrong. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Alansohn. -- Danger ( talk) 12:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment The use of african american is rendered moot by One-drop rule. Curb Chain ( talk) 13:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment and suggetion This same discussion is springing up in different places because the way categories are set up currently is not very useful. A suggestion has been proposed to convert categories into a series of database-searchable fields of metatags, with the "types" of fields determined by the software as dictated by consensus, but the field metatag "values" directly editor-determined like any other. Every biography, for instance, would have field types for sex, birthdate, and deathdate, and fields that can handle multiple values for religion, ethnity/race, places of residence, educational institutions, occupations, military ranks, awards, etc.; and then you could search from any article for others that shared however many fields you want to check off, or from within a field index. There would be a centralized process for creating or removing fields, so that way individual editors could not decide that "shoe size" or "breast size" should exist as fields, and field values could be tagged as equivalent so we wouldn't have arguments about whether British or American spelling should be used. Then and only then would we not have arguments over whether we should have categories for women but not men, intersection categories for religion and a particular occupation, or whatever. Someone else suggested that this can be done using Semantic MediaWiki. I think it's a worthwhile effort to look into doing this. USchick ( talk) 18:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Alansohn. Once the category reaches 500 articles, I'll reconsider. As it stands, African American women politicians are still unique enough for it to be considered a defining characteristic, as antiquated as that may be. Kaldari ( talk) 00:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

So once we have 500 African American women in politics, they no longer become unique? Curb Chain ( talk) 10:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep What's next, getting rid of all the subcategories of Category:African American women. Oh, that deletion proposal happily failed. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Alansohn. Dsp13 ( talk) 20:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment: please btw can people (on both sides of this discussion) make an extra effort to be civil - it's precisely when it feels hard to assume good faith that the effort to do so becomes valuable. Dsp13 ( talk) 20:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep. In America's history, both women and African-Americans in politics have been relatively rare, and this intersection of Category:African American politicians and Category:American women in politics is well-defined, defining, and doubly unusual. Besides, if the category is deleted, then all of of its members would need to be individually listed in those two parent categories and in Category:African American women, which would be distinctly counterproductive. -- Orlady ( talk) 01:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply

You're talking about the significance of this perceived group historically. Many such perceived individuals would not identify themselves or claim themselves to be African American. It is even offensive to some people. Listing them in the 2 parent categories and category:African American women would not be counterproductive, but it certainly would be if we were to do this with every single possible intersection. Curb Chain ( talk) 06:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

How would this be offensive? These were people who were already in the African American politicians category--they were only newly categorized as "African American women." So... Would they be offended by being called women? I understand if someone was trans* they might be but that is not usually the case since trans* people are like 1% of the population. Also, LauraHale and I created this article as the main article for the category. So it's all moot. African American women in politics. Sources throughout. -- Henriettapussycat ( talk) 14:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

How about going up to a person on the street and ask "Are you African American?". Or "Are you Thai?". It is offensive. Curb Chain ( talk) 06:38, 29 July 2011 (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: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:Libertarian politicians

Nominator's rationale: Intrinsically subjective. Precedent from 2009. Neutrality ^talk 18:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Subjective, superfluous, and somewhat redundant (see Category:Libertarian Party (United States) politicians.-- JayJasper ( talk) 19:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete per cited and other precedent. We categorize politicians by party affiliation (and geography, etc.), not by alleged location on the political axis. Cf. lack of Category:Fascist politicians, Category:Conservative politicians, etc. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. We categorize by association with a specific party, not by general political phylosophy. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:48, 17 July 2011 (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: Speedy rename C2A. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Creative commons copyright templates to Category:Creative Commons copyright templates

"Creative Commons" is a proper noun, which should be capitalized. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Rename - this can be speedied. Neutrality ^talk 18:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Rename per nom. & WP:MOSCAPS.-- JayJasper ( talk) 19:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rename per all above -- Auntof6 ( talk) 07:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Country houses in England ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category just replicates Category:Houses in England but lacks the sub-categorisation by county. Bazj ( talk) 07:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep it does not. Houses in ... includes townhouses, almshouses, urban towers, mills, lighthouses, urban hotels, even hospitals which are in "houses". A country house or Manor house is distinct in that it even has a separate article as a type of house. This is for country houses/manors and the reaons they are united as one is because I want to be able to access all country houses in england in one category for convenience sake. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Country houses in ... includes theme parks, museums, manors (as well as the type of manor intended), British Legion halls. There may have been an intended distinction between Houses and Country Houses, but it isn't playing out that way in practice. Bazj ( talk) 09:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

You are missing the many articles on townhouses and indeed the thousands of missing ones which would not be added to Country houses. There are many types of houses. Hell if anything we should have more "genres" of house categories. A Country house is certainly of note and widely in useage as a term in British history to be categorized as a country house. Why do you care anyway, seems as you rarely seem to write for wikipedia and have less than 500 edits in 3/4 year. Why is it so important to you to delete this? The only valid alternative would be to split Category:Country houses in England by county and feed it into the Houses by county categories. E.g Battlesden House becomes Category:Country houses in Bedfordshire, one cat instead of Houses in Bedfordshire and Country houses in England. But either way the coutry house category distinction should not be removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Despite your intentions, the cat already includes a couple of townhouses, Egerton House, Berkhamsted and Blakeney Guildhall. Sub-catting Houses in county would seem a preferable way of proceeding rather than overlapping cats.

How are those townhouses? A townhouse is like Feathers Hotel, Ludlow or Hazlitt's. Those are country mansions even if the area around them may have grown up. I'm talking terraced houses or standard houses in cities.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

...OK, The Rex which sits on the site now isn't as close to the medieval church nearby as I remembered it. Not wanting to spend hours researching the historic expansion of Berko, I'll concede that one. The decription of Blakeney Guildhall being found in an alley just off the quay doesn't sound like the setting for a country house. Bazj ( talk) 10:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Being built by a merchant on the High St strongly suggests it is not a country house, any more than Shakespeare's close contemporary house, & I have removed both of these. Johnbod ( talk) 22:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

To address your ad hominem issues...

• How many edits per year would qualify me for an opinion? Am I required to devote every waking hour to Wikipedia?

No, but it would be different if you were an active editor on country house topics so the category would directly affect you. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

But the articles tagged aren't solely country house topics, the ones I saw are also WP:HERTS topics. Subcatting would reflect the reality of overlapping topics. Bazj ( talk) 10:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• It's not important to me. However, when 3 articles on my watchlist ( Lululaund‎, Langleybury‎, and High Elms Manor‎) are edited in the same way by the same editor I'll have a look at the changes for curiosity's sake. In this case the added cat seemed to replicate a cat that was already there. Bazj ( talk) 09:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

High Elms Manor. Would it be a solution perhaps to rename it Category:Country houses in Hertfordshire and have one category? Personally I would rather keep it intact as I think a full A-Z of country houses in England is convenient.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

As above, Subcatting would reflect the reality of overlapping topics. An ideal that I think would keep us both happy would be if there were a way for a category to include to include not a list of its subcats, but the subcats' contents. Bazj ( talk) 10:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• I am tempted go for delete - it seems to be already covered by List of historic houses in England. Twiceuponatime ( talk) 08:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

@ Twiceuponatime. That list is in the process of being merged into List of historic houses in the United Kingdom. And since when has a list been a valid reason to delete a category?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep – part of Category:Country houses. Why are we just discussing the ones in England? (There are plenty of historic houses which are not country houses. Eg Old Bank House is historic, is a 'House in South Yorkshire' but is not and never was a country house.) Occuli ( talk) 10:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep – if Category:Country houses in the United Kingdom, Category:Country houses in Wales, Category:Country houses in Ireland, Category:Country houses in France are valid categories, and they should be, then what is the specific problem with Category:Country houses in England? Hoverfish Talk 10:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep It's valid, and much such are individually classifiable. There will always in a category or other system of classification be individual ones that cross categories, and these should be dual listed. In any aristocratic or formerly aristocratic society, the country house (or equivalent plantation house, etc. ) is not actually the location of a house in the country, but a social and architectural distinction of central importance to the society. DGG ( talk ) 13:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep per Hoverfish and DGG. I can maybe see the merit for suggesting that subcategories be created, but not as yet. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep but police. Johnbod ( talk) 22:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep Country house has a definite meaning (not the same as "house in the country"), and Category:Country houses and its subcategories are valid categories. -- Mhockey ( talk) 13:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No need for these unclear sub-cats of houses. The much better way to categorize houses is by county and put all in a county together. It avoids the endless debates about what is and what is not country as we have already seen here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

What or what is not a country house is usually very clear. It has long been clear in British history. I was wondering how long it would be before you turned up here...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised you didn't say his comment was made in "bad faith" ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Na, "bad faith" comments only go to those who nominate obviously encyclopedic categories for deletion within 24 hours of creation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Sounds like someone needs to read up on what certain phrases mean in WP-ese ... But next time I'll wait 25 hours to avoid offending your obviously delicate sensibilities related to your creations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply

That would be advisable. Also remember that anything Dr. Blofeld creates is rarely deleted on wikipedia so more often than not you'd be wasting your time trying to delete it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply

All these especial rules need to be set out somewhere so we can all keep it straight. When can we start Wikipedia:Dr. Blofeld? [I'm glad you have a sense of humor.] Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah lol, but my main motto is simple. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep The 'Houses in...' categories have always been much too wide ranging. 'Country House' is a good standard term for this specific type of property. Verica Atrebatum ( talk) 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep This type of house does exist, so the category makes sense. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:06, 21 July 2011 (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: No consensus. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete or make a holder cat Category:British male singers
• Delete or make a holder cat Category:British female singers
• Delete Category:English male singers
• Delete Category:English female singers
• Nominators rationale These cats violate the rules of WP:Cat/gender at least as applied to biography articles. However there are legitimate subcats that need to be preserved and there may be one or two non-bio articles that can be preserved. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep all but as container categories only (ie remove the top level articles). I don't see why the nom objects to Category:English baritones having Category:English male singers as a parent: WP:Cat/gender has nothing to say on the matter. On the other hand I don't see why Russ Abbot's maleness should be reflected in his singing rather than the various other categories attached to his article. (The german wiki classifies him simply as a man: see de:Russ Abbot. Clearly german wikipedians have better things to do than forming endless intersections of categories.) Occuli ( talk) 12:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If you find these intersections so pointless, why are you suggesting they be kept? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep all (as container categories--the more specific ones should always be used for individuals, as everywhere in the category system) It's a significant distinction in this profession and all performing professions. More generally, I do not think there is firm consensus any longer on the refusal to make professional category distinction by gender. And a good thing too, for frankly I think it was just political correctness. The point of categories as we use them is to be helpful. this requires a certain degree of consistency, but it also requires matching what people are likely to look for. If one person is able to better use Wikipedia for their information need because of a category or other navigational device, that is reason for having it,and IAR is a sufficient justification. Enshrining the "rules" at the expense of usefulness is against the spirit of the encyclopedia -- and not just against the spirit, against one of the foundational principles. DGG ( talk ) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: By that rationale many thousands of categories would be re-established, like Category:Best Picture Oscar nominees and, well, half of what we delete here. The long-standing mass deletion of actress categories is overwhelming precedent against this "if it could possibly be useful..." idea. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep Male and female musicians have different duties and people wish to do research on either topic, categories like this are useful. Everything I have said in other discussions below. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keeeeeeeep - all of them, per above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete and propagate the deletion downward (English, etc., subcats) to get rid of the container cat problem. Male and female musicians do not at all have different "duties". Any gender-loaded criteria that could be possibly be relevant to the profession are necessarily subjective, not all-inclusive of every subject who fits the intersection, and not exclusive of all subjects who do not fit the intersection. The fact that males and females generally have different vocal range extremes, dress differently some of the time, etc., really doesn't have any encyclopedic categorization import. Gender, when actually relevant for categorization purposes, can easily be established by other categories; it does not have to be attached to every single occupational category, and our categorization guidelines clearly discourage doing so. Excessive "political correctness" is exactly why these categories have been created, not why they're being done away with so often. See piles of deletion precedent, e.g. lack of Category:American actresses, Category:Female painters, or most anything similar. See also increased skepticism about female politician categories (e.g. on this very CfD page, where it's been noted that, as with this one, there's nothing prsently special about the intersection of the gender and profession) and other categories seen by some as usefully gender-divided. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment the American idol example suggests that male and female singers participate in the same system. I am not familiar enough with other music competitions to say whether there are other similar examples, so I put most of my discussion of that in the American system. However I would still suggest the fact that there are awards given in singing without reference to gender makes claiming we should divide singers by gender when we do not divide actors by gender very difficult. As long as we have a consensus that we do not divide actors be gender I see no reason to do this to singers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• upmerge all If these categories are to be deleted, then the articles and sub-categories must be upmerged to their parent categories. To do otherwise makes no sense to the category system of WP. Hmains ( talk) 19:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete, mostly per SMcCandlish and also per John Pack Lambert. Bizarre that if I want to browse singers I have to look at two different categories - one for men and one for women. Maybe it helps certain readers to divide into subcategories, but it disservices others who just want to look at singers irrespective of gender. So far there have been only conclusory assertions, without any real justification, about how female and male singers have different "duties" or "roles". I don't think the fact that their vocal ranges are typically different justifies having separate categories. (I have no problem with categories that actually categorize by vocal range, however.) Even as container categories these categories don't make sense - a better container category would be "British singers by vocal range". Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

One way we could cater for both is to have one category for all singers by country and sub categorized by genre/type and then to have lists splitting male and females if we haven't already.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per SMcCandlish. Nymf _hideliho! 17:02, 19 July 2011 (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: No consensus. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Category:Brazilian female singers
• Delete Category:Brazilian male singers with placement of subcats in Category:Brazilian singers
• Nominators rationale These cats would seem to break the clear rule against male and female cats for the same position. However the subcats of Brazilian male singers do not seem to violate any rules and should be kept in the Brazilian cat stucture by moving them up. Brazilian female singers has no subcats. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep all Per below. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep Male and female musicians have different duties and people wish to do research on either topic, categories like this are useful. Everything I have said in other discussions below. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 17:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my rational in the English singers by gender nomination above. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment What "duties" do either male of female singers have that the other gender does not? If you are going to assert something you need to explain it. The duties of both singers is to sing. The real differences in singers are opera singers, classical singers, jazz singers, folk singers, rock singers and so on. I would argue the nature of singers roles is much more fundamentally divided by these than by the male/female divide. I may be wrong on this, but I would like someone to actually try to articulate these "duties" that differ between male and female singers instead of just asserting such a difference exists without even trying to explain it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

In history female singers and musicians have had to work much harder to gain recognition--it's actually very much still true, and it probably will remain that way for quite a while. You may not consider that a duty or a burden. I've noticed you're against much of the women's categories on Wikipedia. So be it. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 17:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply

This is true for basically every job in the world. Should every profession be divided by gender on Wikipedia? And if so, how do we avoid the problem of ghettoization? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• upmerge all If these categories are to be deleted, then the articles and sub-categories must be upmerged to their parent categories. To do otherwise makes no sense to the category system of WP. Hmains ( talk) 19:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my comments at re British singers by gender. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment I am not convinced that female singers "have to work harder to gain recognition". I was expecting to be told "female singers do x, x and x while male singers do y, y and y". The failure to explain any actual duty that a fremale singer fulfills that a male singer does not makes me think this is not a real argument. Anyway, that argument only explains why we should have specific cats for female singers. It would suggest we should delete all the male singers cats. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per SMcCandlish in the British gender CFD. Nymf _hideliho! 17:02, 19 July 2011 (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: No consensus. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Category:Austrian male singers
• Delete Category:Austrian female singers
• Create Category:Austrian singers by type for Category:Austrian sopranos, Category:Austrian tenors and Category:Austrian baritones to be moved into.
• Nominators rationale. The singer by type is a clearly workable system, but the singer by gender is not. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep all Per below. Support those genre creations to coexist. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep Male and female musicians have different duties and people wish to do research on either topic, categories like this are useful. Everything I have said in other discussions below. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 17:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my rationale in the English singers by gender nomination above, and create new container cat as suggested, though I think "by type" is weird. Maybe by vocal range? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment I did not remember correctly. Curently Category:Sopranos which has subcats like Category:Australian sopranos is part of Category:Singers by voice type, which I misremembered as by type. Still I would agree I am not convinced that even voice type is the best term, but I did mean to propose the new cat as Category:Australian singers by voice type. I am not sure that is the best way to name it. I am much less convinced we need Category:female singers by voice type. I just do not see a need to create that extra level of categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• upmerge all If these categories are to be deleted, then the articles and sub-categories must be upmerged to their parent categories. To do otherwise makes no sense to the category system of WP. Hmains ( talk) 19:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my comments at re British singers by gender. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per SMcCandlish in the British gender CFD. Nymf _hideliho! 17:03, 19 July 2011 (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 ( talk) 11:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Soft redirects/Permanent (interwiki) to Category:Wikipedia interwiki soft redirects

Nominator's rationale: The current name implies subpaging, which is incorrect. Also, there is no category of "temporary" soft redirects, so I don't know why the word "permanent" is needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Rename per nom. I apparently created this 4 years ago in a fit of being half asleep or something. I have no recollection of coming up with a name that awful. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:50, 16 July 2011 (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: No consensus. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete or alternatively redefine to only contain cats and non-bio articles. Category:American female singers and Category:American male singers.
• Delete or limit Category:Australian male singers
• Delete with possible split off of new cat Category:Australian altos for cat Category:Australian female singers
• Delete or limit to only subcats Category:Canadian female singers
• Delete or limit to only subcats Category:Canadian male singers
• Delete Category:Dutch male singers
• Delete Category:Dutch female singers
• Delete Category:Chinese male singers
• Delete Category:Chinese female singers
• Nominator's rationale. This category violates the gender category rules as it currently exists. However since these categories has subcats that seems to probably acceptable like Category:American boy bands, it might be useful to just redefine it along the rules used at categories like Category:American women. If I find other categories with sub-cats that look likely to be useable I will add them to this nomination. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
  • "Boy bands" is an acceptable categorization because it isn't WP engaging in gendering of categories. It's a recognized genre name, like "thrash metal" and "easy listening", and is simply WP using an established term, from the real world external to WP. The gendering is incidental and beyond our control. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Notes on Australian case the male singers has four subcats. The female singers currently only has the subcat Category:Australian sopranos. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment In general people do not check category headings, so there needs to be regularly patroling of categories that are not to have bio articles in them to keep bio articles out. If there are not articles being legitimately grouped the category keeping it does not make sense. I am not sure why any of the subcats involved here need the broad nationality+gender parents. I am not convinced they could not be subcats of a Category:American singers or such. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I have no idea what you're talking about. I always look at category headings, else how would I know what the page I am on is about? This is like reading a book without reading the chapter headings. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 17:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep all Per below. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep Male and female musicians have different duties and people wish to do research on either topic, categories like this are useful. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 17:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - all of them. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my rationale in the English singers by gender nomination above. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment The fact that American idol is a competition involving both male and female singers directly competing against eachother suggests to me that the duties of male and female singers, at least in popular music, are essentially the same. The whole set-up of American idol suggests that male and female singers are really participating in the same system. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• upmerge all If these categories are to be deleted, then the articles and sub-categories must be upmerged to their parent categories. To do otherwise makes no sense to the category system of WP. Hmains ( talk) 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my comments at re British singers by gender. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:31, 18 July 2011 (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: No consensus. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Category:American male singer-songwriters
• Nominators rationale No clear reason why males in this occupation need to be seperated out by gender. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's a significant distinction in this profession, and all performing professions. More generally, I do not think there is firm consensus any longer on the refusal to make professional category distinction by gender. And a good thing too, for frankly I think it was just political correctness. Is there any other argument. The nomination says only "it's the rule" But the point of categories as we use them is to be helpful. this requires a certain degree of consistency, but it also requires matching what people are likely to look for. If one person is able to better use Wikipedia for their information need because of a category or other navigational device, that is reason for having it,and IAR is a sufficient justification. Enshrining the "rules" at the expense of usefulness is against the spirit of the encyclopedia -- and not just against the spirit, against one of the foundational principles. (I think it best to nip the deletion of these in the bud by opposing every specific proposal on them on this basis, in the hope of clarifying the practical consensus. I would therefore object to adding additional categories to the nomination until the consensus becomes clear, and if the result of the individual CfDs isn't clear, we'll find out by an RfC.) DGG ( talk ) 13:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep I think it makes sense to split male and female musical artists.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep Male and female musicians have different duties and people wish to do research on either topic, categories like this are useful. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 17:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - why delete? I don't get it. Anyway, keep per Shakesomeaction. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my rationale in the English singers by gender nomination above. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Shakesomeaction. I don't see any reason to delete. EnDaLeCoMpLeX ( contributions) • ( let's chat) 23:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my comments re British singers by gender. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per SMcCandlish in the British gender CFD. Nymf _hideliho! 17:04, 19 July 2011 (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: No consensus. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete Category:Moroccan female singers
• Delete Category:Moroccan male singers
• Delete Category:Algerian female singers
• Delete Category:Algerian male singers
• Delete Category:Argentine male singers
• Delete Category:Argentine female singers
• Delete Category:Azerbaijani male singers
• Delete Category:Azerbaijani female singers
• Delete Category:Bangladeshi male singers
• Delete Category:Bangladeshi female singers
• Delete Category:Belgian male singers
• Delete Category:Belgian female singers
• Delete Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina male singers
• Delete Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina female singers
• Delete Category:Bulgarian male singers
• Delete Category:Bulgarian female singers
• Delete Category:Chilean male singers
• Delete Category:Chilean female singers
• Delete Category:Colombian male singers
• Delete Category:Colombian female singers
• Delete Category:Cuban male singers
• Delete Category:Cuban female singers
• Delete Category:Danish male singers
• Delete Category:Danish female singers
• Delete Category:Faroese male singers
• Delete Category:Faroese female singers
• Delete Category:Dominican Republic male singers
• Delete category:Dominican Republic female singers
• Nominators rationale This seems to be against the specific rules of WP:Cat/gender. The most relevant passage is the sentance "Do not create separate categories for male and female occupants of the same position, such as "Male Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom" vs. "Female Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom". I nominatoed the Moroccan cats first since they currently have requests to populate on them. It seems best to nip this in the bud. I plan on adding the other respective nationality cats here, except a few that have special cases that I will nominate seperately. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Note on this and other nominations I am limiting my nominations to subcats of the female or male singers by nationality category that have sister cats for the opposite gender. There does not seem to be any evidence for why the ones that do not have an opposite gender counterpart should be kept but I am avoiding them for now to limit this CfD to cats that clearly run afould of WP:Cat/gender's explicit prohibition of both genders for the same position. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep all Its different though John seems as there are an equal number of male and female singer and scores of them. "Female Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom". would be ridiculous as there has only been one. If anything I think a review is need of this WP:Gender as I as the founder of WP:Actors have long thought actors should be split by gender and we should have Category:English actresses etc. It happens that many people when browsing, myself included would find it more sensible to have categories of actresses and categories of male actors separate. Same with singers. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree that actresses should get their own category and that WP:Gender should be evaluated.... I know a lot of women who would like Wikipedia to be a friendlier resource for women's history research. For example I am in the quandary right now of trying to create a category for African American women (and other subcultures of American women), but there are these gender guidelines. While I have a lot of people who are behind me on this off of Wikipedia, there's this sticky gender issue on Wikipedia. I think whoever came up with it had good intentions, but it just doesn't mesh well for some women's history researchers. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 17:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep It's a significant distinction in this profession and all performing professions. More generally, I do not think there is firm consensus any longer on the refusal to make professional category distinction by gender. And a good thing too, for frankly I think it was just political correctness. The point of categories as we use them is to be helpful. this requires a certain degree of consistency, but it also requires matching what people are likely to look for. If one person is able to better use Wikipedia for their information need because of a category or other navigational device, that is reason for having it,and IAR is a sufficient justification. Enshrining the "rules" at the expense of usefulness is against the spirit of the encyclopedia -- and not just against the spirit, against one of the foundational principles. (I think it best to nip the deletion of these in the bud by opposing every specific proposal on them on this basis, in the hope of clarifying the practical consensus. I would therefore object to adding additional categories to the nomination until the consensus becomes clear, and if the result of the individual CfDs isn't clear, we'll find out by an RfC.) DGG ( talk ) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Keep It makes sense to have these categories for a variety of reasons. For one there is a vast difference between the duties of a male performer and a female performer--and there is quite accomplishment in the duties. There's a bit of difference than, say, a male and female customer service worker, who perform the very same duties. Also to use logic other than just pushing rules and following a guidebook, people really do use these categories in research. People actually want to look up others of nationality (whether it be their own country or another) and of gender (again whether it be their own or another). Are we to tell people who are intersex or transgender they aren't allowed to look up those like them either? Because I find that to be a possible consequence of getting rid of categories like this. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 17:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment – Category:Moroccan female singers is the intersection of Category:Moroccan women and Category:Moroccan singers. Accordingly the nom should be 'upmerge to Category:Moroccan women and Category:Moroccan singers', not delete. Occuli ( talk) 00:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I really don't get some peoples' obsession with deleting on Wiki... There is an unlimited space here, is there not? In my opinion, if a person found something notable, it's notable. This might irritate other people here on Wikipedia, but I can't see nominating, categories to delete because people clearly make them for reasons. To get rid of clutter? Again Wiki has unlimited space. "Do the research yourself?" Why shouldn't we be able to customize our research experience? Some of the rules are a little out of date and should be re-evaluated. -- Shakesomeaction ( talk) 04:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep - definitely. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my rationale in the English singers by gender nomination above. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The non is definantly not for an upmerge to Moroccan women. That, like all women by nationality categories should only have subcats and non-biographical articles. This is the accepted consensus, and there is no reason to put these people in that category.
• Comment How are the duties of male and female singers different? They both sing. I do not see how there roles are changed by their gender. If people think they are, they need to explain how this is so instead of just stating it as a matter of fact that is obvious. It is not a matter of fact that is obvious. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• upmerge all If these categories are to be deleted, then the articles and sub-categories must be upmerged to their parent categories. To do otherwise makes no sense to the category system of WP. Hmains ( talk) 19:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Delete per my comments re British singers by gender. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 18:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Unlike some occupations, gender does have a direct impact on being a singer. For example, while there are admittedly a few outliers, gender has an extremely high degree of correlation with the range of notes and the vocal tone that a singer is capable of voicing — which is why we have distinct terms for different types of voices: men can be tenors or baritones or basses or countertenors, women can be contraltos or mezzo-sopranos or sopranos. Accordingly, gender does have the necessary correlation with the topic here. Keep. Bearcat ( talk) 08:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment the outliers include all males below about age 12. Beyond this none of these proposals have suggested we get rid of the well established categories of Category:Sopranos, Category:Altos, Category:Tenors, Category:Baritones and other categories that are really based on the range of the singers. It might be worthwhile to even populate these categories more, but a binary system of the two genders seems to have little use. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:58, 21 July 2011 (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: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Brave Combo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too few articles. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Question: Is the category likely to be populated? -- LauraHale ( talk) 02:33, 22 July 2011 (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: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Category:Pakistan railways ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Difficult to tell what the aim of this is - if it's what it says it is in the title, it's a duplicate of the tree at Category:Rail transport in Pakistan. Its use suggests it's a within-WikiProject category, in which case it shouldn't be in amongst the general rail categories. Either way, something needs to be done with it. Grutness... wha? 02:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete We have Category:Rail transport in Pakistan and Category:Railway stations in Pakistan♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Delete as above Hugo999 ( talk) 11:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete this is not a useful category as it currently exists and duplicates multiple other ones. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:59, 21 July 2011 (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.