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 since
Category:Kenyan women like all other women by nationality categories is a container category that is only to have subcats, not direct biographical articles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
All of
Category:Kenyan businesswomen's sibling categories in
Category:Women in business by nationality are, for the record, named in the "Nationality women in business" format rather than the "Nationality businesswomen" one. The article in question should definitely be merged into that category, and the one that's been nominated here should be deleted, but the target category should be renamed as suggested by Marcocapelle.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)reply
This is a discussion with good - better - best proposals. The latter is the best, for consistency in the tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I have no issue with the one article being put in the businesswomen category. To rename that category it should be nominated so that there can be proper notification.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:14, 14 August 2015 (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:Places of Interest 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.
Support and also fine with alternative. Since everything in here is a list, this is just a truth in advertising change to reflect the actual contents.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 09:01, 29 July 2015 (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:Female pornographic 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:rename.
MER-C 12:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support This is a relic of the complex history of these categories, where for about 7 years these were the only by gender acting categories allowed in Wikipedia because of various past policies. The only reason they have not been renamed before is that it takes more effort than anyone has wanted to expend.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support These categories should be named to be consistent with other sections of Wikipedia, plus in an LGBTQ world, female actors is too biological.
Cherryblossom1982 (
talk) 00:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Films shot in PixelVision
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.
Question@
Lugnuts: shouldn't the category be merged to its parent?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:07, 7 August 2015 (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:The Hills Have Eyes
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep & Populate It's fine to have a template and a category and, if this was populated, it looks perfectly viable. (I'm happy to handle adding the articles for the closing admin but don't want to shift the category mid-nomination.)
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
If it can be populated, it should be; if not, Delete.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:30, 27 July 2015 (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:Footballers' wives and girlfriends
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete These topics are only very very loosely connected. Moreover, the whole idea of categorizing women through the job of their male spouse is borderline insulting.
Pichpich (
talk) 11:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Question This category has survived nominations
February of 2011 and
October of last year. Was there some perspective or analysis that we were missing those times, has a policy changed, has the category's usage shifted?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Question - I notice that the description of the category says "Only articles about those for whom this is a defining characteristic should be placed in this category". So does that suggest that it is a category for articles about women who are only famous for who they are/were dating......? Because in that case surely they shouldn't have articles anyway..........? --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 11:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes and no.
Victoria Beckham is a WAG. It's a defining feature of Victoria Beckham's life, but she was famous before she became one and is still famous independently of her husband, but is still described as a WAG. Would she be as famous/successful/etc now if she wasn't married to David Beckham? Many WAGs are so famous that they are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Many WAGs go on to find notability in other areas.
Coleen Rooney is a classic example. Became famous through her WAGdom, and went on to have a media career. –
anemoneprojectors– 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep – it has been discussed many times. Here in the UK the newspapers and TV stations (all, not just the tabloid ones) are obsessed with such trivia, like it or not.
Oculi (
talk) 12:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as a defining characteristic of many people. –
anemoneprojectors– 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- We have discussed this several times before. One one occasion, the category was called "WAGs" or "Footballers' WAGs", which was objectionable because it is an abbreviation (which we do not usally allow for categories). Many footballers come from less well off backgrounds, but become fabulously wealthy due to the high pay they get in the Premier League. Their WAGs get to spend some of this and the tabloid press gives a lot of coverage to their antics. Some become independently notable; others had that already.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is a defining characteristic, for better or worse...
GiantSnowman 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete We do not categorize people by such loose linkages to other people, especially "girlfriends". I also think Pipich is right that this is a very strong example of sexism, much more so that
Category:American women novelists ever was.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep We categorize by how people are categorized in reliable and verifiable sources, and these sources consistently describe these individuals based on their relationships as wives and girlfriends.
Alansohn (
talk) 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete notability is not inherited, so we say. This category puts paid to that. Let's not.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 06:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Being a FWAG is not a claim of notability in and of itself. A woman for whom "FWAG" was the crux of her notability would not get into Wikipedia at all, and a woman who had a legitimate claim of notability besides that — e.g. as an actress, a Spice Girl, or an athlete in another sport — would get into Wikipedia on that achievement rather than her FWAGness. So this isn't a defining characteristic in and of itself: it doesn't get a person into Wikipedia as a thing in its own right — and for anybody who does get into Wikipedia for other things besides being a FWAG, it's just an extra biographical detail and not a core part of her notability. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I think you have misunderstood the concept of "defining characteristic" - it doesn't really have anything to do with notability. Being born in 1961 is a defining characteristic, but that doesn't mean that everyone born in 1961 is notable.
StAnselm (
talk) 21:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep It is defining and moreover it is more than just tabloid press which uses this term to so
define.--
Egghead06 (
talk) 05:40, 6 August 2015 (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:Daleks
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a
topic category, as it doesn't contain individually notable daleks, but concepts related to them, and therefore shouldn't be pluralised.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
Tim! above. The convention is plural within e.g
Category:Monsters as well as a sci-fi categories e.g.
Category:Cylons. I acknowledge the nominator's observations above, but do not find them persuasive for renaming the category. –
FayenaticLondon 21:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The convention is stated at
WP:PLURAL: category names generally differ from article names on this point. –
FayenaticLondon 09:29, 11 August 2015 (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:Predynastic Egypt
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 with no objection against splitting to a new category. –
FayenaticLondon 21:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment shouldn't "predynastic Egypt" be a subcategory of prehistoric Egypt? Dynasty 0, the Scorpion kings, and the origin of Egyptian writing would make it the transition between non-literate period and the literate period (ie. the bridge between prehistory and history, if you use the development of writing as the transition point) --
67.70.32.190 (
talk) 12:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support nomination, I think making it a subcategory would be too much detail for such an ancient period that we do not know a lot about.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
OPPOSE change of purpose via Speedy
80.134.89.98 (
talk) 22:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This is a well understood period in Egyptology. IN the context of Egypt, where there is written history so far back, prehisotric is a less useful term, because its meaning varies so much from place to place according to when hisotry begins: in Egypt, c3000 BC; Greece about 700 BC; Rome about the same; England 43AD Roman invasion; SCotland about 500 AD; some Scandinavian and estern European countries 1000 AD; America after 1500 AD. If anything it is the rename of Predynastic Egypt to prehistoric, which was mistaken and should be reveresed.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. This question was discussed at
Talk:Prehistoric Egypt#Predynastic Period. My understanding is that the word "predynastic" applies to the periods before the unification of Egypt, and its applicability kind of fades out as one looks farther back. It always applies to the Naqada periods and it may sometimes be applied to the early Neolithic cultures like the Badarian and even Merimde, but it's never used for the Mesolithic or Paleolithic. I'm not happy with the lack of an article for predynastic Egypt, but I can see why
Dbachmann didn't want to lump the Paleolithic and Mesolithic under that title. Perhaps the article and category can be split?
A. Parrot (
talk) 19:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The Predynastic period is a specific and well-known period. The British Museum defines it as the late Neolithic period which began in the sixth millennium BC, and ended with the unification of Egypt. It even devides it into 2 eras; that is the Naqada I period (4000-3500 BC) and the Naqada II period (3500-3100 BC)
[1]. Some other academics call it Dynasty 0
[2]. --
FayssalF -
Wiki me up® 15:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
This is confusing. Did it start in the 6th millennium or did it start by 4000 BC? And based on what criteria did it start?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
My understanding is that there's no hard beginning for the Predynastic. Some people apply the term as far back as the 6th millennium BC, when Egypt entered the Neolithic. Other definitions focus solely on the Naqada culture from 4000 to 3000 BC (as well as the cultures in Lower Egypt from the same period).
A. Parrot (
talk) 18:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree with A. Parrot. The Met Museum, for instance, limits it between c4500 and 3100 BC. That limitation coincides with the emergence of the Merimde and the Badarian cultures but excludes the Faiyum A culture (c6000 BC). --
FayssalF -
Wiki me up® 02:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Split per my comment at CFDS, this should be two categories --
67.70.32.190 (
talk) 07:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The only article in this category that belongs firmly outside the Predynastic is
Sebilian. Perhaps it can be recategorized in
Category:Prehistoric Africa, and we can keep everything else in Predynastic Egypt.
A. Parrot (
talk) 18:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
From the earlier comments in this discussion, it seems like the concept of "Predynastic" is subjective, which is a new argument in favor of the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (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:Scottish Christian ministers
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.
I am adding
Category:Scottish Protestant ministers and clergy, which is also a redundant level. This should put it all the clergy together into one category. This one has some other parents, so that this may need to be followed up with some more noms.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose to this additional upmerge, since there are apparently 9 single articles in this category for which Protestant clergy is more specific than Christian clergy.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: I don't understand the latter remark. Do you mean that 'clergy' should not be in the tree of 'religious leaders'? E.g. should Roman Catholic clergy not be in the tree of Christian religious leaders because it may contain ordained Roman Catholic clergy who are not in leadership roles?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The Clergy categories contain predominantly religious leaders, so they should be in the tree of religious leaders per
WP:SUBCAT. In my view they should be merged. Another editor objected to this because "clergy" also covers deacons (ordained non leaders); see the discussion below the precedents linked above. Merging the levels for Clergy and Religious leaders would need a full discussion, as you and I recently noted on the Speedy page.
[3] I will need to set time aside to build that nomination. In the meantime, there are now several small nominations such as this one which go in the other direction, so I think these should be put out of the way first. –
FayenaticLondon 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Laurel Lodged: Just to be sure, I assume this alternative refers to the later nomination by Peterkingiron, right? So the alternative is to rename
Category:Scottish Protestant ministers and clergy to
Category:Scottish Protestant clergy. Weak oppose to removing "ministers" from the category name, since the term "clergy" isn't that common in Calvinist Protestantism (which Scottish Protestantism largely belongs to), while "ministers" is the common term here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I forgot about the Scottish peculiarity. Withdraw this alternative proposal.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I would strongly oppose "Protestant clergy" since all other Protestant clergy categories have already been renamed (to Protestant religious leaders); see link above to list of precedent CfDs. –
FayenaticLondon 21:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Changed my mind and can now support the original nomination.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 12:19, 14 August 2015 (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:Academic journals published in Burma
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: Category with one member, without any potential for growth (and, of course, misnamed as the correct country name is Myanmar).
Randykitty (
talk) 06:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete With no objection to recreating (under a different name) if more content appears. Note that I also added the article to
Category:Asian media.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: No, the country article is at
Burma, so that should be used for the category. What does "without any potential for growth" mean? That there will never be any more academic journals published in the country?
StAnselm (
talk) 12:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
It means that at this time, there are no other notable journals discernible. Note that the one entry in this cat is of doubtful notability and that Googling the two other Myanmar journals used in the article as references doesn't even render a functional website or any other meaningful hits (not even library catalogs). So while we cannot exclude that some of these may become notable in future or that still-to-be-established journals may eventually become notable, we have nothing to put in this cat at this very moment. Thanks for the note about "Burma", should have checked but since the country has been named "Myanmar" for decades now, I just assumed that that would be our article name. Note that most journals cannot be readily assigned to a country of publication (learned society in one country -or international-, publisher in another country -often with multiple locations in multiple countries-, editor-in-chief in yet another country, etc etc). --
Randykitty (
talk) 12:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. I just added a couple more pages to the category.
StAnselm (
talk) 12:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks. It now contains two journals of doubtful notability and one redirect. In general, the country of publication is not really a defining characteristic of a journal, its subject matter is what defines it. It would not even be correct to call the current cat "Academic journals about Burma", because the original entry in this cat (Myanmar Medical Journal) is about medicine and even though it says it has an emphasis on medicine as relevant to Myanmar, articles most of the time cover more general topics (e.g., "Novel actions of leptin", "Unruptured Ovarian Ectopic Pregnancy", "Rectus Sheath Haematoma after Laparotomy", etc). --
Randykitty (
talk) 12:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- WP decided a lonmg time ago that articles should be at Burma, even though the country likes to call itself Myanmar. WE also decided that the present Republic of China should have its common name of Taiwan.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm not quite ready to strike my !vote, but I made it not realising how empty
Category:Academic journals by country of publication was - just the US, the UK, and Burma. But that might just mean that we need more countries there. I would have though country of publication is a defining characteristic for small and/or developing countries. Many journals are international, so the ones that are not are significant for not being so. In this case, it distinguishes the Journal of the Burma Research Society from the SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research, etc. However, I would also be happy with a
Category:Burma studies journals.
StAnselm (
talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Conventional WP tests for notability preclude a more accurate assessment of notability when one considers that most Burmese academic research is not readily available online, owing to its decades mired in economic and academic isolation. The country produces several academic journals, including the state-published Myanmar Journal of Medical Research, which serve as the country's primary platforms for publishing domestic research findings. There are library holdings for Burma Medical Journal in countries outside Burma
[4], before the journal was renamed. Agreed that other countries aside from the US and UK should be given separate cats. -
Hintha(
t) 01:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Now, it contains two (or three) articles. IMO, both article, JBRS and MMJ is clearly notable. Currently, almost all of of the books/journals published in Myanmar/Burma do not have an ISBN or ISSN, and only a few have websites.
PhyoWP*click 13:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The country of publication is notable to academic journals. Also, the country of publication was more notable in the past than it is now. Clearly we should add the Soviet Union, Germany and many other countries to the tree. This essentially is on its was to being a case of a large tree, so the Burma case will be allowed. The issue of whether the category should be Burma/Myanmar is distinct from whether we should have the category. The Burma/Myanmar debate should be carried out on a larger scale. It might be worth revisiting with the changes in Burma and a move towards a more Democratic government over the past 5 or so years, there may be a new consensus on what to call the country, but if there is (which I admit I still doubt), that would just lead to renaming, not deleting this category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:20, 14 August 2015 (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:National Famous Historical and Cultural Cities in China
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.
MER-C 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. No objection against listifying.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
LIstify then delete -- This is the usual outcome for award categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:16, 27 July 2015 (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 since
Category:Kenyan women like all other women by nationality categories is a container category that is only to have subcats, not direct biographical articles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
All of
Category:Kenyan businesswomen's sibling categories in
Category:Women in business by nationality are, for the record, named in the "Nationality women in business" format rather than the "Nationality businesswomen" one. The article in question should definitely be merged into that category, and the one that's been nominated here should be deleted, but the target category should be renamed as suggested by Marcocapelle.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)reply
This is a discussion with good - better - best proposals. The latter is the best, for consistency in the tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I have no issue with the one article being put in the businesswomen category. To rename that category it should be nominated so that there can be proper notification.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:14, 14 August 2015 (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:Places of Interest 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.
Support and also fine with alternative. Since everything in here is a list, this is just a truth in advertising change to reflect the actual contents.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 09:01, 29 July 2015 (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:Female pornographic 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:rename.
MER-C 12:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support This is a relic of the complex history of these categories, where for about 7 years these were the only by gender acting categories allowed in Wikipedia because of various past policies. The only reason they have not been renamed before is that it takes more effort than anyone has wanted to expend.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support These categories should be named to be consistent with other sections of Wikipedia, plus in an LGBTQ world, female actors is too biological.
Cherryblossom1982 (
talk) 00:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Films shot in PixelVision
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.
Question@
Lugnuts: shouldn't the category be merged to its parent?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:07, 7 August 2015 (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:The Hills Have Eyes
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep & Populate It's fine to have a template and a category and, if this was populated, it looks perfectly viable. (I'm happy to handle adding the articles for the closing admin but don't want to shift the category mid-nomination.)
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
If it can be populated, it should be; if not, Delete.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:30, 27 July 2015 (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:Footballers' wives and girlfriends
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete These topics are only very very loosely connected. Moreover, the whole idea of categorizing women through the job of their male spouse is borderline insulting.
Pichpich (
talk) 11:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Question This category has survived nominations
February of 2011 and
October of last year. Was there some perspective or analysis that we were missing those times, has a policy changed, has the category's usage shifted?
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Question - I notice that the description of the category says "Only articles about those for whom this is a defining characteristic should be placed in this category". So does that suggest that it is a category for articles about women who are only famous for who they are/were dating......? Because in that case surely they shouldn't have articles anyway..........? --
ChrisTheDude (
talk) 11:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes and no.
Victoria Beckham is a WAG. It's a defining feature of Victoria Beckham's life, but she was famous before she became one and is still famous independently of her husband, but is still described as a WAG. Would she be as famous/successful/etc now if she wasn't married to David Beckham? Many WAGs are so famous that they are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Many WAGs go on to find notability in other areas.
Coleen Rooney is a classic example. Became famous through her WAGdom, and went on to have a media career. –
anemoneprojectors– 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep – it has been discussed many times. Here in the UK the newspapers and TV stations (all, not just the tabloid ones) are obsessed with such trivia, like it or not.
Oculi (
talk) 12:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as a defining characteristic of many people. –
anemoneprojectors– 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- We have discussed this several times before. One one occasion, the category was called "WAGs" or "Footballers' WAGs", which was objectionable because it is an abbreviation (which we do not usally allow for categories). Many footballers come from less well off backgrounds, but become fabulously wealthy due to the high pay they get in the Premier League. Their WAGs get to spend some of this and the tabloid press gives a lot of coverage to their antics. Some become independently notable; others had that already.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - this is a defining characteristic, for better or worse...
GiantSnowman 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete We do not categorize people by such loose linkages to other people, especially "girlfriends". I also think Pipich is right that this is a very strong example of sexism, much more so that
Category:American women novelists ever was.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 15:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep We categorize by how people are categorized in reliable and verifiable sources, and these sources consistently describe these individuals based on their relationships as wives and girlfriends.
Alansohn (
talk) 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete notability is not inherited, so we say. This category puts paid to that. Let's not.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 06:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Being a FWAG is not a claim of notability in and of itself. A woman for whom "FWAG" was the crux of her notability would not get into Wikipedia at all, and a woman who had a legitimate claim of notability besides that — e.g. as an actress, a Spice Girl, or an athlete in another sport — would get into Wikipedia on that achievement rather than her FWAGness. So this isn't a defining characteristic in and of itself: it doesn't get a person into Wikipedia as a thing in its own right — and for anybody who does get into Wikipedia for other things besides being a FWAG, it's just an extra biographical detail and not a core part of her notability. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I think you have misunderstood the concept of "defining characteristic" - it doesn't really have anything to do with notability. Being born in 1961 is a defining characteristic, but that doesn't mean that everyone born in 1961 is notable.
StAnselm (
talk) 21:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep It is defining and moreover it is more than just tabloid press which uses this term to so
define.--
Egghead06 (
talk) 05:40, 6 August 2015 (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:Daleks
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a
topic category, as it doesn't contain individually notable daleks, but concepts related to them, and therefore shouldn't be pluralised.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
Tim! above. The convention is plural within e.g
Category:Monsters as well as a sci-fi categories e.g.
Category:Cylons. I acknowledge the nominator's observations above, but do not find them persuasive for renaming the category. –
FayenaticLondon 21:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The convention is stated at
WP:PLURAL: category names generally differ from article names on this point. –
FayenaticLondon 09:29, 11 August 2015 (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:Predynastic Egypt
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 with no objection against splitting to a new category. –
FayenaticLondon 21:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment shouldn't "predynastic Egypt" be a subcategory of prehistoric Egypt? Dynasty 0, the Scorpion kings, and the origin of Egyptian writing would make it the transition between non-literate period and the literate period (ie. the bridge between prehistory and history, if you use the development of writing as the transition point) --
67.70.32.190 (
talk) 12:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support nomination, I think making it a subcategory would be too much detail for such an ancient period that we do not know a lot about.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)reply
OPPOSE change of purpose via Speedy
80.134.89.98 (
talk) 22:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This is a well understood period in Egyptology. IN the context of Egypt, where there is written history so far back, prehisotric is a less useful term, because its meaning varies so much from place to place according to when hisotry begins: in Egypt, c3000 BC; Greece about 700 BC; Rome about the same; England 43AD Roman invasion; SCotland about 500 AD; some Scandinavian and estern European countries 1000 AD; America after 1500 AD. If anything it is the rename of Predynastic Egypt to prehistoric, which was mistaken and should be reveresed.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. This question was discussed at
Talk:Prehistoric Egypt#Predynastic Period. My understanding is that the word "predynastic" applies to the periods before the unification of Egypt, and its applicability kind of fades out as one looks farther back. It always applies to the Naqada periods and it may sometimes be applied to the early Neolithic cultures like the Badarian and even Merimde, but it's never used for the Mesolithic or Paleolithic. I'm not happy with the lack of an article for predynastic Egypt, but I can see why
Dbachmann didn't want to lump the Paleolithic and Mesolithic under that title. Perhaps the article and category can be split?
A. Parrot (
talk) 19:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The Predynastic period is a specific and well-known period. The British Museum defines it as the late Neolithic period which began in the sixth millennium BC, and ended with the unification of Egypt. It even devides it into 2 eras; that is the Naqada I period (4000-3500 BC) and the Naqada II period (3500-3100 BC)
[1]. Some other academics call it Dynasty 0
[2]. --
FayssalF -
Wiki me up® 15:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
This is confusing. Did it start in the 6th millennium or did it start by 4000 BC? And based on what criteria did it start?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
My understanding is that there's no hard beginning for the Predynastic. Some people apply the term as far back as the 6th millennium BC, when Egypt entered the Neolithic. Other definitions focus solely on the Naqada culture from 4000 to 3000 BC (as well as the cultures in Lower Egypt from the same period).
A. Parrot (
talk) 18:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree with A. Parrot. The Met Museum, for instance, limits it between c4500 and 3100 BC. That limitation coincides with the emergence of the Merimde and the Badarian cultures but excludes the Faiyum A culture (c6000 BC). --
FayssalF -
Wiki me up® 02:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Split per my comment at CFDS, this should be two categories --
67.70.32.190 (
talk) 07:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The only article in this category that belongs firmly outside the Predynastic is
Sebilian. Perhaps it can be recategorized in
Category:Prehistoric Africa, and we can keep everything else in Predynastic Egypt.
A. Parrot (
talk) 18:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
From the earlier comments in this discussion, it seems like the concept of "Predynastic" is subjective, which is a new argument in favor of the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (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:Scottish Christian ministers
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.
I am adding
Category:Scottish Protestant ministers and clergy, which is also a redundant level. This should put it all the clergy together into one category. This one has some other parents, so that this may need to be followed up with some more noms.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose to this additional upmerge, since there are apparently 9 single articles in this category for which Protestant clergy is more specific than Christian clergy.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Fayenatic london: I don't understand the latter remark. Do you mean that 'clergy' should not be in the tree of 'religious leaders'? E.g. should Roman Catholic clergy not be in the tree of Christian religious leaders because it may contain ordained Roman Catholic clergy who are not in leadership roles?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The Clergy categories contain predominantly religious leaders, so they should be in the tree of religious leaders per
WP:SUBCAT. In my view they should be merged. Another editor objected to this because "clergy" also covers deacons (ordained non leaders); see the discussion below the precedents linked above. Merging the levels for Clergy and Religious leaders would need a full discussion, as you and I recently noted on the Speedy page.
[3] I will need to set time aside to build that nomination. In the meantime, there are now several small nominations such as this one which go in the other direction, so I think these should be put out of the way first. –
FayenaticLondon 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Laurel Lodged: Just to be sure, I assume this alternative refers to the later nomination by Peterkingiron, right? So the alternative is to rename
Category:Scottish Protestant ministers and clergy to
Category:Scottish Protestant clergy. Weak oppose to removing "ministers" from the category name, since the term "clergy" isn't that common in Calvinist Protestantism (which Scottish Protestantism largely belongs to), while "ministers" is the common term here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I forgot about the Scottish peculiarity. Withdraw this alternative proposal.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I would strongly oppose "Protestant clergy" since all other Protestant clergy categories have already been renamed (to Protestant religious leaders); see link above to list of precedent CfDs. –
FayenaticLondon 21:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Changed my mind and can now support the original nomination.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 12:19, 14 August 2015 (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:Academic journals published in Burma
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: Category with one member, without any potential for growth (and, of course, misnamed as the correct country name is Myanmar).
Randykitty (
talk) 06:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete With no objection to recreating (under a different name) if more content appears. Note that I also added the article to
Category:Asian media.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: No, the country article is at
Burma, so that should be used for the category. What does "without any potential for growth" mean? That there will never be any more academic journals published in the country?
StAnselm (
talk) 12:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
It means that at this time, there are no other notable journals discernible. Note that the one entry in this cat is of doubtful notability and that Googling the two other Myanmar journals used in the article as references doesn't even render a functional website or any other meaningful hits (not even library catalogs). So while we cannot exclude that some of these may become notable in future or that still-to-be-established journals may eventually become notable, we have nothing to put in this cat at this very moment. Thanks for the note about "Burma", should have checked but since the country has been named "Myanmar" for decades now, I just assumed that that would be our article name. Note that most journals cannot be readily assigned to a country of publication (learned society in one country -or international-, publisher in another country -often with multiple locations in multiple countries-, editor-in-chief in yet another country, etc etc). --
Randykitty (
talk) 12:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. I just added a couple more pages to the category.
StAnselm (
talk) 12:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks. It now contains two journals of doubtful notability and one redirect. In general, the country of publication is not really a defining characteristic of a journal, its subject matter is what defines it. It would not even be correct to call the current cat "Academic journals about Burma", because the original entry in this cat (Myanmar Medical Journal) is about medicine and even though it says it has an emphasis on medicine as relevant to Myanmar, articles most of the time cover more general topics (e.g., "Novel actions of leptin", "Unruptured Ovarian Ectopic Pregnancy", "Rectus Sheath Haematoma after Laparotomy", etc). --
Randykitty (
talk) 12:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- WP decided a lonmg time ago that articles should be at Burma, even though the country likes to call itself Myanmar. WE also decided that the present Republic of China should have its common name of Taiwan.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm not quite ready to strike my !vote, but I made it not realising how empty
Category:Academic journals by country of publication was - just the US, the UK, and Burma. But that might just mean that we need more countries there. I would have though country of publication is a defining characteristic for small and/or developing countries. Many journals are international, so the ones that are not are significant for not being so. In this case, it distinguishes the Journal of the Burma Research Society from the SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research, etc. However, I would also be happy with a
Category:Burma studies journals.
StAnselm (
talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Conventional WP tests for notability preclude a more accurate assessment of notability when one considers that most Burmese academic research is not readily available online, owing to its decades mired in economic and academic isolation. The country produces several academic journals, including the state-published Myanmar Journal of Medical Research, which serve as the country's primary platforms for publishing domestic research findings. There are library holdings for Burma Medical Journal in countries outside Burma
[4], before the journal was renamed. Agreed that other countries aside from the US and UK should be given separate cats. -
Hintha(
t) 01:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Now, it contains two (or three) articles. IMO, both article, JBRS and MMJ is clearly notable. Currently, almost all of of the books/journals published in Myanmar/Burma do not have an ISBN or ISSN, and only a few have websites.
PhyoWP*click 13:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The country of publication is notable to academic journals. Also, the country of publication was more notable in the past than it is now. Clearly we should add the Soviet Union, Germany and many other countries to the tree. This essentially is on its was to being a case of a large tree, so the Burma case will be allowed. The issue of whether the category should be Burma/Myanmar is distinct from whether we should have the category. The Burma/Myanmar debate should be carried out on a larger scale. It might be worth revisiting with the changes in Burma and a move towards a more Democratic government over the past 5 or so years, there may be a new consensus on what to call the country, but if there is (which I admit I still doubt), that would just lead to renaming, not deleting this category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:20, 14 August 2015 (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:National Famous Historical and Cultural Cities in China
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.
MER-C 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. No objection against listifying.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
LIstify then delete -- This is the usual outcome for award categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:16, 27 July 2015 (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.